Tracy City Council
January 16, 2024

THIS MEETING WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR IN-PERSON AND REMOTE PARTICIPATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e).

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PARTICIPATE REMOTELY IN THE MEETING VIA THE FOLLOWING METHOD:

As always, the public may view the City Council meetings live on the City of Tracy’s website at CityofTracy.org or on Comcast Channel 26/AT&T U-verse Channel 99. To view from the City’s website, open the “Government” menu at the top of the City’s homepage and select “City Council Meeting Videos” under the “City Council” section.

If you only wish to watch the meeting and do not wish to address the Council, the City requests that you stream the meeting through the City’s website or watch on Channel 26.

Remote Public Comment:

During the upcoming City Council meeting public comment will be accepted via the options listed below. If you would like to comment remotely, please follow the protocols below:
• Comments via:
o Online by visiting https://cityoftracyevents.webex.com and using the following Event Number: 2557 340 2591 and Event Password: TracyCC o If you would like to participate in the public comment anonymously, you may submit your comment in WebEx by typing “Anonymous” when prompted to provide a First and Last Name and inserting [email protected] when prompted to provide an email address.
o Join by phone by dialing +1-408-418-9388, enter 25573402591#8722922# Press *3 to raise the hand icon to speak on an item.

• Protocols for commenting via WebEx:
o If you wish to comment on the “Consent Calendar”, “Items from the Audience/Public Comment” or “Regular Agenda” portions of the agenda:
 Listen for the Mayor to open that portion of the agenda for discussion, then raise your hand to speak by clicking on the Hand icon on the Participants panel to the right of your screen.
 If you no longer wish to comment, you may lower your hand by clicking on the Hand icon again.
o Comments for the “Consent Calendar” “Items from the Agenda/Public Comment” or “Regular Agenda” portions of the agenda will be accepted until the public comment for that item is closed.
o Comments received on Webex outside of the comment periods outlined above will not be included in the record.

CONCURRENT REGULAR MEETING OF THE TRACY CITY COUNCIL

AND SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TRACY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY

Tuesday, January 16, 2024, 7:00 P.M.

Tracy City Hall Chambers, 333 Civic Center Plaza, Tracy Web Site: www.cityoftracy.org

Concurrent Meeting of the Tracy City Council and
Special Meeting of the Tracy Public Financing
Authority
January 16, 2024

Americans With Disabilities Act - The City of Tracy complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and makes all reasonable accommodations for the disabled to participate in Council meetings. Persons requiring assistance or auxiliary aids should call City Hall (209/831-6105) 24 hours prior to the meeting.

Addressing the Council on Items on the Agenda - The Brown Act provides that every regular Council meeting shall provide an opportunity for the public to address the Council on any item within its jurisdiction before or during the Council's consideration of the item, provided no action shall be taken on any item not on the agenda. To facilitate the orderly process of public comment and to assist the Council to conduct its business as efficiently as possible, members of the public wishing to address the Council are requested to, but not required to, hand a speaker card, which includes the speaker’s name or other identifying designation and address to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item being called. Generally, once the City Council begins its consideration of an item, no more speaker cards will be accepted. An individual’s failure to present a speaker card or state their name shall not preclude the individual from addressing the Council. Each citizen will be allowed a maximum of five minutes for input or testimony. In the event there are 15 or more individuals wishing to speak regarding any agenda item including the “Items from the Audience/Public Comment” portion of the agenda and regular items, the maximum amount of time allowed per speaker will be three minutes. When speaking under a specific agenda item, each speaker should avoid repetition of the remarks of the prior speakers. To promote time efficiency and an orderly meeting, the Presiding Officer may request that a spokesperson be designated to represent similar views. A designated spokesperson shall have 10 minutes to speak. At the Presiding Officer’s discretion, additional time may be granted. The City Clerk shall be the timekeeper.

Consent Calendar - All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and/or consistent with previous City Council direction. One motion, a second, and a roll call vote may enact the items listed on the Consent Calendar. No separate discussion of Consent Calendar items shall take place unless a member of the City Council, City staff or the public request discussion on a specific item.

Addressing the Council on Items not on the Agenda – The Brown Act prohibits discussion or action on items not on the posted agenda. The City Council’s Meeting Protocols and Rules of Procedure provide that in the interest of allowing Council to have adequate time to address the agendized items of busines s, “Items from the Audience/Public Comment” following the Consent Calendar will be limited to 15-minutes maximum period. “Items from the Audience/Public Comment” listed near the end of the agenda will not have a maximum time limit. A five- minute maximum time limit per speaker will apply to all individuals speaking during “Items from the Audience/Public Comment”. For non-agendized items, Council Members may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by individuals during public comment; ask questions for clarification; direct the individual to the appropriate staff member; or request that the matter be placed on a future agenda or that staff provide additional information to Council. When members of the public address the Council, they should be as specific as possible about their concerns. If several members of the public comment on the same issue an effort should be made to avoid repetition of views already expressed.

Notice - A 90 day limit is set by law for filing challenges in the Superior Court to certain City administrative decisions and orders when those decisions or orders require: (1) a hearing by law, (2) the receipt of evidence, and (3) the exercise of discretion. The 90 day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6). Further, if you challenge a City Council action in court, you may be limited, by California law, including but not limited to Government Code Section 65009, to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public hearing, or raised in written correspondence delivered to the City Council prior to or at the public hearing.

Full copies of the agenda are available on the City’s website: www.cityoftracy.org

Date Posted: January 11, 2024
Concurrent Meeting of the Tracy City Council and
Special Meeting of the Tracy Public Financing
Authority
January 16, 2024

CALL TO ORDER
ACTIONS, BY MOTION, OF CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO AB 2449, IF ANY

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

INVOCATION

PRESENTATIONS

1. Employee of the Month

2. Employee of the Year

3. Certificate of Appointment – Environmental Sustainability Commission

4. Proclamation – Human Trafficking Prevention Month

5. Proclamation – Black History Month

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

1.A. Adoption of December 19, 2023 Closed Session and Regular Meeting Minutes.

1.B. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (1) authorizing submittal of a grant application to the United States Bureau of Reclamation for the FY24-25 Water and Energy Efficiency Grant (Grant) in the amount of $5,000,000 for a City-wide advanced metering infrastructure installation and meter conversion project; and (2) appropriating $5,000,000 in City Water Funds, for a 50% Grant match requirement, contingent upon receipt of the Grant.

1.C. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the selection of the Interstate 580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange project as the City of Tracy 2024 Regional Transportation Project submittal for congressional appropriation requests during San Joaquin Council of Governments’ One Voice trip to Washington D.C.

1.D. Staff Recommends that the Tracy City Council Receive an informational report regarding the Police Department’s update on Crime Statistics of Homicide, Rape, Robbery, and Aggravated Assaults.

1.E. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (1) accepting public improvements as complete for MacArthur Drive / Grant Line Road Intersection constructed by Prologis, L.P, a Delaware Limited Partnership, (2) authorizing the City Engineer to release bonds in accordance with the Tracy Municipal Code section

12.36.080, for the public improvements, and (3) authorizing the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion for improvements with the San Joaquin County Recorder’s Office.

Concurrent Meeting of the Tracy City Council and
Special Meeting of the Tracy Public Financing
Authority
January 16, 2024

1.F. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (1) finding that DV Electric, Inc. is non-responsive and not responsible; (2) rescinding Resolution No. 2023-131 awarding a construction contract to DV Electric, Inc., for the 384 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112; (3) rescinding Resolution No. 2023-132, awarding construction contract to DV Electric, Inc. for the 370 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112; (4) rejecting all bids for the 384 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112 received May 25, 2023 and the 370 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112 received May 17, 2023; and (5) authorizing staff to re- advertise both projects for public bidding.

2. ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE

3. REGULAR AGENDA

3.A. Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution: 1) adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, for the Multi-Generational Recreation Center Project at El Pescadero Park, and 2) authorizing the City Manager to execute and file the Notice of Determination.

3.B. Staff recommends that the Tracy City Council and the Tracy Public Financing Authority, concurrently, take actions as follows:

Tracy City Council
1) Conduct a public hearing relating to the issuance of lease revenue bonds by the Tracy Public Financing Authority, and upon conclusion of the public hearing 2) Adopt a Resolution: (A) authorizing the issuance and sale of lease revenue bonds in the aggregate principal amount not exceeding $60,000,000 by the Tracy Public Financing Authority to provide financing for the acquisition and construction of the multi-generational recreation center, improvements to El Pescadero Park and related public improvements, (B) declaring the intention to reimburse expenditures related to such public improvements, (C) rescinding Resolution No. 2022-061, (D) providing for approval of related documents, and (E) directing related actions

Tracy Public Financing Authority
Adopt a Resolution (A) authorizing the issuance and sale of lease revenue bonds to provide financing for the acquisition and construction of the Multi-Generational Recreation Center, improvements to El Pescadero Park and related public improvements, (B) providing for the approval of related documents, and (C) directing related actions.

3.C. Staff recommends that the City Council discuss and, by motion, make appointments of City Councilmembers as representatives on City Council committees and regional and multi-agency committees, boards and commissions.

3.D. Staff recommends that the City Council approve a Resolution amending the Policy for Reimbursement for Travel and Expenses for Elected and Council-Appointed Officials to remove City Council pre-approval for out-of-state travel and to specify a lodging rate in the absence of a group rate.

Concurrent Meeting of the Tracy City Council and
Special Meeting of the Tracy Public Financing
Authority
January 16, 2024

3.E. Staff recommends that the City Council appoint, by motion, two Council Members and an alternate to serve as a selection subcommittee to interview applicants and fill three (3) term vacancies on the Tracy Parks and Community Services Commission.

3.F. Staff recommends that the City Council appoint, by motion, Maxine Lees and Cynthia Reis to serve on the City of Tracy’s Arts Commission, for term beginning January 17, 2024 and ending December 31, 2028.

4. ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE

5. STAFF ITEMS

6. COUNCIL ITEMS

7. ADJOURNMENT

TRACY CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

December 19, 2023, 5:00 p.m.

Tracy City Hall, 333 Civic Center Plaza, Tracy, CA.

1. Mayor Young called the meeting to order at 5:06 p.m.

2. There were no actions taken pursuant to AB 2449.

3. Roll Call found Council Members Arriola, Bedolla, Evans, Mayor Pro Tem Davis and Mayor Young present.

4. Items from the audience – There was no public comment.

5. Request to Conduct Closed Session

5.A Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation (Gov. Code § 54956. 9(d)(1))

Rosebrook 58, LLC v City of Tracy, et al. San Joaquin County Superior Court, Case STK-CV-UST-2022-10145

5.B Conference with Legal Counsel — Existing Litigation (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9)

City of Tracy v. Durkee and Galvao, et al. San Joaquin County Superior Court, Case No. STK-CV-UED-2020-0000544

5.C Personnel Matter (Gov. Code § 54957(b)(1))

Public Employee Evaluation of Performance

Position Title: City Attorney

5.D Personnel Matter (Gov. Code § 54957(b)(1))

Public Employee Evaluation of Performance

Position Title: City Manager

There was no public comment on items 5.A through 5.D.

ACTION: Motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Davis and seconded by Council Member Arriola to recess to closed session. Roll call found all in favor; passed and so ordered. Time: 5:09 p.m.

6. Mayor Young reconvened the meeting to open session at 6:07 p.m.

Special Meeting Minutes 2 December 19, 2023

7. Report of Final Action, if Any – In the matter of City of Tracy v Durkee et al, San Joaquin County Superior Court No. STK-CV-UED-2020-0000544, the City Council, by unanimous vote, approved a final negotiated settlement with (a) Mr. Durkee in the amount of $150,000 and (b) Mr. Galvao - Council has taken action to settle based on the following terms: cash settlement of $135,000; reimbursement of up to $50,000 for the owner to connect to City water and sewer system and abandon the existing septic system as well; waiver of the City’s sewer connection fee, but the owner to pay for the water connection fees; City agrees to construction of water and sewer laterals, at City’s expense, to the edge of the owner’s property.

Rosebrook 58, LLC v City of Tracy, et al. San Joaquin County Superior Court, Case STK-CV-UST-2022-10145 - The City Council, by unanimous vote, accepted Plaintiff’s offer to dismiss the action against the City with prejudice in exchange for a waiver of costs.

8. Council Items and Comments - None

9. Adjournment – Time: 6:09 p.m.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Arriola and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Davis to adjourn. Roll call found all in favor; passed and so ordered.

The above agenda was posted at the Tracy City Hall on December 14, 2023. The above are action minutes. A recording is available at the office of the City Clerk.

____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:

___________________________
City Clerk

TRACY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

December 19, 2023, 7:00 p.m.

City Hall, 333 Civic Center Plaza, Tracy Web Site: www.cityoftracy.org

Mayor Young called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

There were no actions taken pursuant to AB 2449.

Roll call found Council Members Arriola, Bedolla, Evans, Mayor Pro Tem Davis and Mayor Young present.

Mayor Young led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pastor Kevin James, New Creation Bible Fellowship offered the invocation.

Mayor Young proclaimed January 15, 2024, as Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

1. CONSENT CALENDAR – Motion was made by Council Member Arriola and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Davis to adopt the Consent Calendar. Roll call found all in favor; passed and so ordered. Council Member Evans and Mayor Pro Tem Davis made comments on Item 1.D. Mayor Young opposed on Item 1.E.

1.A. Adoption of December 5, 2023 Closed Session and Regular Meeting Minutes – Minutes were adopted.

1.B. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the City’s Development Impact Fee Annual Report for Fiscal Year 22-23 on Development Impact Fee revenues and expenditures, in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act.– Resolution 2023-244 approved the City’s Development Impact Fee Annual Report for Fiscal Year 22-23.

1.C. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Off-site Improvement Agreement between the City of Tracy and Genesis KC Development, LLC for offsite improvements required for the Tracy Medical & Professional Office Center Project.– Resolution 2023-245 approved the Off-site Improvement Agreement with Genesis KC Development, LLC.

1.D. Staff recommends that the City Council waive the second reading and adopt an Ordinance amending Section 4.16.030 of the Tracy Municipal Code to amend the Definitions to include “Sensitive Areas” that consist of designated parks and a 1000-foot buffer around such parks. – Ordinance 1342 was adopted.

May
or Pro Tem Davis and Council Member Evans requested to make the following comments on Consent Item 1.D.

Regular Meeting Minutes 2 December 19, 2023

Mayor Pro Tem Davis expressed her gratitude to Council for supporting Consent Item 1.D regarding the sensitive use areas. It is an important policy that further defines how public parks in the City can be used with the objective of protecting designated areas from conflicting use or that pose health and safety risks to youth in areas that were designed for youth. As public servants of this body it is a primary responsibility to ensure safety of the community especially children who rely on adults to protect them.

Council Member Evans echoed Mayor Pro Tem Davis’s sentiments since the public knows Consent Item 1.D pertains to Tracy Municipal Code that will provide for sensitive use areas including Tracy’s parks. Once implemented we will be able to ensure our parks are clean and safe again and acknowledged accomplishments by Mayor Pro Tem Davis and Council Member Bedolla on THAC, and for efforts and progress made at El Pescadero Park. With their leadership there are additional shelter units which will be open and accepting people tomorrow and will be able to give El Pescadero back to our youth where they belong.

1.E. Staff recommends that the City Council waive the second reading and adopt an Ordinance amending sections 10.08.3196(b) and (d) of the Tracy Municipal Code to expand the definition of youth center and to establish buffers between proposed cannabis uses and (a) sensitive uses and (b) existing cannabis uses.– Ordinance 1343. Mayor Young opposed.

1.F. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution: 1) approving Subdivision Improvement Agreements between the City and Toll West, Inc. for Phase 2 of Tracy Village, Tracts 4157, 4158, 4159, 4160, and 4161; and 2) authorizing the City Clerk to file each Agreement with the Office of the San Joaquin County Recorder. - Resolution 2023-246 approved the Subdivision Improvement Agreement with Toll West, Inc.

1.G. The Tracy Finance Committee recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution: 1) Authorizing the acceptance of a grant award from San Joaquin County American Rescue Plan Act allocation in the amount of $7,167,798; and 2) Appropriating the total grant funds to the Temporary Emergency Housing project (Capital Improvement Project 71112).– Resolution 2023-247 authorized the acceptance of a grant award from San Joaquin County American Rescue Plan allocation, and appropriating funds to the Temporary Emergency Housing Project.

1.H. The Tracy Finance Committee recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution: 1) Authorizing the acceptance of a grant award from U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Initiative sponsored by Congressman Josh Harder in the amount of $3 million; and 2) Appropriating the total grant funds towards the construction of Phase II of the Temporary Emergency Housing Facility project (Capital Improvement Project 71112). – Resolution 2023-248 authorized the acceptance of a grant award from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Initiative sponsored by Congressman Josh Harder and appropriated funds toward Phase II of the Temporary Emergency Housing Facility Project.

Regular Meeting Minutes 3 December 19, 2023

1.I. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (1) accepting the construction work completed by Tennyson Electric, Inc. as part of Phase IV of the Temporary Emergency Housing Facility at Arbor Avenue, CIP 71112, (2) authorizing the City Clerk to File the Notice of Completion with the San Joaquin County Recorder’s Office, and (3) authorizing the City Engineer to release the bonds and retention payment in accordance with State Law.– Resolution 2023- 249 accepted the construction work completed by Tennyson Electric, Inc.

1.J. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving, under the existing Master Professional Services Agreement between the City of Tracy and Brandley Engineering, Inc., the following new Task Orders related to construction projects at the Tracy Municipal Airport: (A) Task Order 10 (Capital Improvement Project 77593), with a Not to Exceed amount of $69,000, (B) Task Order 11 (Capital Improvement Project 77589), with a Not to Exceed amount of $78,000, and (C) Task Order 12 (Insurance Repair), with a Not to Exceed amount of $13,500.– Resolution 2023-250 approved under the existing Master Professional Services Agreement, Task Orders related to the construction projects at the Tracy Municipal Airport.

1.K. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing 1) the purchase of six (2) new vehicles and (4) replacement vehicles for the City’s fleet, from the National Auto Fleet Group, for a total amount of $573,562.04 and 2) retirement of four (4) vehicles that are in poor condition. – Resolution 2023-251 authorized the purchase of six (2) new vehicles and (4) replacement vehicles for the City’s fleet, from National Auto Fleet Group.

1.L. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution: (1) Making a determination that compliance with the standard procurement process is not in the best interest of the City and dispense the bidding requirements for the additional scope of work pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 22050 and Tracy Municipal Code Section 2.20.270(a); (2) Approving the execution of an amendment to the existing contract with GradeTech, Inc., to retroactively expand the scope to include an additional $38,538.21 of work, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $468,661.81; (3)Accepting the construction work completed by GradeTech, Inc. as part of Phase IV of the Temporary Emergency Housing Facility at Arbor Avenue; (4) Authorizing the City Clerk to File the Notice of Completion with the San Joaquin County Recorder’s Office; and (5) Authorizing the City Engineer to release the bonds and retention payment in accordance with State Law.– Resolution 2023-252 approved 1) making the determination that compliance with the standard procurement process is not in the best interest of the City and dispense bidding requirements for the additional scope of work and 2) approved the execution of an amendment to the existing contract with GradeTech, Inc. 3) accepted the construction work completed by GradeTech, Inc. 4) authorized the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion, and 5) authorized the City Engineer to release the bonds and retention payment.

2. ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE – Robert Tanner stated he was glad that four out of five Council Members voted for cannabis rules for future applicants, not the current Regular Meeting Minutes 4 December 19, 2023

applicants. The Mayor voted no and is not understanding citizens of Tracy and constituents of San Joaquin County District 5.

Mayor Young disagreed with Mr. Tanner’s comments.

Richard Williams congratulated the City and staff for being awarded the 2023 Safe Streets for All Grant on December 13, 2023 which resulted in $3.7 million federal dollars dedicated for safer improvements within the City. Mr. Williams hoped the City will apply for the 2024 SS4A grant asking for illumination materials before the July 10, 2024 deadline.

Dan Randall expressed concern regarding corporations who are considering leaving the immediate Bay Area. These companies are looking for a new place to call home and it is expensive for them to go to Texas. Tracy is in a perfect position to take advantage of this, and spoke about Tracy having good growth several years ago and recently Tracy is not being aggressive about growth.

Amy Benton, representing the homeless community in Tracy shared concerns about how the homeless community has been treated by Police Officers. Items have been taken from them, citations issued with regards to generators, court appearances made, and there are still no charges filed with the court. They do not know where their generators are and are treated with disrespect and has watched them being dehumanized in the park.

Travis Monteyn stated he represented the homeless community, has been treated badly for years and has been homeless for six years. Things should be done differently, and we should all have the same rights and spoke about discrimination.

Anthony stated he is currently homeless due to Police Officers. Instead of trying to help him with his vehicle they took it from him and asked Council for support to help him.

Anthony shared he is having trouble paying the registration as work is not always steady but is doing something to help himself and asked why they are taking everything he owns and leaving him and his dog out in the cold and referred to the Fourteenth Amendment.

Sandy Taylor shared they sent a flyer to the Tracy community, has worked for 20 years collaboratively with previous Councils, staff and Surland to bring an Aquatic Center to Tracy. Over the past couple of years members of the community have been involved in the work to help refine and complete the design documents for the Aquatics Center. As requested by City staff, Surland provided the detailed designed documents to the City late last August.

Molly Lowe stated shockingly City staff refused to evaluate the Aquatic Center design documents and refused to meet with the developer or community aquatic stakeholders which she is one of in order to advance the project. Staff has decided to go in a different direction and start the entire process over for the facility. This makes no sense, is a waste of money, time and City resources, and it is not ok to throw away 20 years of our work.

Michel Bazinet stated the community deserves an Aquatic Center design by aquatic experts to meet the needs of the community. Measure V passed because of interest for a swim center, Mayor Rickman held a groundbreaking ceremony in 2018 touting the Regular Meeting Minutes 5 December 19, 2023

Aquatic Center. Mr. Bazinet shared their goal of the flyer, stated citizens do not want to start over, requested Council accept the available design to fulfil Council promises and shared a Tracy Press article regarding the count down to the Aquatic Center.

Mitchell Harnett stated as part of the Tracy Bike Life Youth Program he got to know youth in Tracy and shared passion for cycling. Mr. Harnett thanked Council for giving the youth and adults places for recreation, asked to create a bike park that was promised in February 2022 and is still listed on City’s website, shared support for a BMX pump track and requested an update on the project.

Alice English stated there was no groundbreaking. Council just accepted the land this year so we can start the Aquatic Center. The design was never brought to the public.

Ms. English added the Mayor should not be able to vote on Consent Item 1.F as she lives too close to that area.

Mayor Young asked the City Attorney if her understanding was that she was not able to vote on Consent Item 1.F.

Bijal Patel, City Attorney responded she was not aware of the Mayor’s residency and could talk off line with the Mayor.

Mayor Young clarified the vote would still stand if she had a conflict as there were four votes in favor and was happy to recuse herself if needed.

Chris Long, Surland Companies stated Surland has worked with the community and the City on the design of the Aquatics Center for many years, there is no reason to start over and the community and Surland does not like it. Mr. Long spoke about the Offer of Dedication (IOD) for the Aquatics Center being unilaterally changed by the City in a product of civil fraud, the community needing assurances that the plans will be realized, they are saddened and disturbed to have to challenge the IOD and will be filing a Government Claim Notice tomorrow to keep the citizen prepared plan in place.

Rosario Arulappan stated he is happy the Aquatics Center project is moving along, the City is appointing a designer to do the design and planning. The project was delayed for 16 years. People are waiting for the pool and the project needs to move ahead without further delay.

Yvonne Boyd asked about the BMX pump bike track that was approved in February 2022.

Her husband is part of Tracy Bike Ride and they normally have to leave town to go to a BMX bike park and asked why there is such a delay.

3. REGULAR AGENDA

3.A R eceive an informational update on City’s 2023 Legislative and Lobbying activities, 2) Approve Resolution Adopting The City’s 2024 Strategic Funding Priorities and Amend the City’s 2023-2025 Biennial Legislative Platform (Platform); Approve by motion, after discussion, City Council attendance for the City’s Federal Lobby Trip in Washington DC (April 8-12, 2024).

Regular Meeting Minutes 6 December 19, 2023

Karin Schnaider, Assistant City Manager provided the staff report and responded to questions.

Robert Tanner stated the City applied for 36 grants for $59 million and asked how many of the grants awarded included the Police and how many were driven by the Mayor.

Mayor Young responded to Mr. Tanner’s question.

Council comments followed.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Bedolla and seconded by Council Member Evans to adopt Resolution 2023-253 adopting the City’s 2024 Strategic Funding Priorities and amending the City’s 2023-2025 Biennial Legislative Platform. Roll call found all in favor; passed and so ordered.

Ms. Schnaider confirmed Council’s interest in attending the lobbying trip:

Federal lobbying trip to Washington D.C.: Mayor Pro Tem Davis, Council Members Arriola and Bedolla, and Mayor Young

Council Member Evans interested in One Voice.

All Council interested in State lobbying.

3.B Approve, by motion, after discussion, out-of-st
ate travel for designated City
Council Members to attend The United States Conference of Mayors 92nd Winter Meeting in Washington, D.C. January 17-19, 2024.

Sheena Stephens, Executive Assistant to City Manager provided the staff report.

Council questions and comments followed.

There was no public comment.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Arriola and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Davis to approve out-of-state travel for Mayor Young to attend the United States Conference of Mayors 92
nd Winter Meeting in Washington, D.C. January 17-19,
2024. Roll call found all in favor; passed and so ordered.

3.C A ppointing Midori Lichtwardt as the new City Manager, effective December 19, 2023, and approving an At-Will Employment Agreement, between Midori Lichtwardt and the City of Tracy for a bi-weekly salary of $11,406.34.

Council Member Bedolla provided the staff report.

Robert Tanner stated he was glad the City went inside to find a City Manager. It should be a unanimous vote.

Mayor Young announced comments were received by email from Karen Moore regarding Items 3.C and 3.D.

Regular Meeting Minutes 7 December 19, 2023

Council comments continued.

ACTION: Motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Davis and seconded by Council Member Evans to adopt Resolution 2023-254 appointing Midori Lichtwardt as the new City Manager, effective December 19, 2023, and approving an At-Will Employment Agreement between Ms. Lichtwardt and the City of Tracy for a bi- weekly salary of $11,406.34. Roll call found all in favor; passed and so ordered.

3.D A dopting a Resolution authorizing: 1) Amendments to the Employment Agreement dated April 5, 2022, between Bijal Patel and the City of Tracy, to reflect an increase in bi-weekly base salary from $9,882.28 to $10,761.81 for merit and equity adjustments and other term modifications, and 2) Amending the Master Salary Schedule relating to the City Attorney to reflect such amendment.

Council Member Evans provided the staff report.

Robert Tanner stated the City Attorney lost her license, the City was notified, and this is an amendment to the contract so the original portion of the contract should still stand. It was a consensus of Council to keep the City Attorney which was against the contract, should have been terminated, and to give an increase retroactive is not right.

Alice English stated the City Attorney came into turmoil, residents have been saying developers run the City and we need good department heads. The City Attorney has been doing an outstanding job and businesses leaving and going to Lathrop and Manteca has nothing to do with City Attorney. The City Attorney follows policy, conduct and ordinances, is doing what she got hired for and thanked her for hanging in there.

Dotty Nygard agreed with Mr. Tanner, has difficulty with the moral and ethical obligation to a contract when it lapses and need to make sure to respect contracts. Should have been some type of reprimand or probationary period to build trust back and commitment to the community that is to maintain licensure.

Must hold people accountable to contracts.

Mayor Young announced there were email comments on the item received from Karen Moore and Steve Abercrombie.

Council comments followed.

Mayor Young asked for her written statement to be included in the record and read out a paragraph from Steve Abercrombie’s email.

Mayor Pro Tem Davis objected to Mayor Young’s characterization of the Council and the City Attorney. Council Member Evans agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Davis.

Council comments continued.

ACTION: Motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Davis and seconded by Council Member Bedolla to adopt Resolution 2023-255 authorizing 1) amendments to the Regular Meeting Minutes 8 December 19, 2023

Employment Agreement dated April 5, 2022, between Bijal Patel and the City of Tracy to reflect an increase in bi-weekly base salary from $9,882.28 to $10,761.81 for merit and equity adjustments and other term modifications, and 2) amending the Master Salary Schedule relating to the City Attorney, to reflect such amendment. Roll call found Council Members Bedolla, Evans and Mayor Pro Tem Davis in favor; passed and so ordered. Council Member Arriola and Mayor Young opposed.

3.E S
taff recommends that the City Council, by motion, appoint Jenny Wood to serve the remaining vacated term on the Environmental Sustainability Commission.

Adrianne Richardson, City Clerk provided the staff report.

Council questions and comments continued.

Council Member Bedolla stated he came across information regarding a nonprofit and when focusing on the intention of the nonprofit the City is there to support with resources. The Tracy Earth Project has members under their leadership that has continuously participated in the attacking of City staff and projects and has been public record. Council Member Bedolla asked Council if there was an appetite to reopen the recruitment and see if there were other qualified applicants, as is Ms. Wood, but in arm’s length with a very political nonprofit, just coming from a word of caution. Council Member Bedolla was ready to go either way.

Council Member Evans responded he was open to discussing options.

Council Member Arriola supported the eligibility list selection.

Dotty Nygard, resident of Tracy and President and CEO of Tracy Earth Project stated they have never endorsed any political candidacy or any political item.

They advocate and educate on environmental issues in the community and anything that needs reflection on policy. Jenny has been a member of Tracy Earth Project and stepped down from her association when she resigned and shared support for Ms. Wood.

Council discussion continued.

Bijal Patel, City Attorney responded to questions.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Arriola and seconded by Council Member Bedolla to appoint Jenny Wood to serve the remaining term on the Environmental Sustainability Commission. Roll call found all in favor; passed and so ordered.

3.F S
taff recommends that the City Council appoint, by motion, two Council Members and an alternative to serve as a selection subcommittee to interview applicants and fill two term vacancies on the Tracy Arts Commission.

Adrianne Richardson, City Clerk provided the staff report.

Regular Meeting Minutes 9 December 19, 2023

Council questions and comments continued.

There was no public comment.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Arriola and seconded by Council Member Bedolla to appoint Mayor Pro Tem Davis and Council Member Bedolla to serve as a selection subcommittee and Mayor Young as alternate to interview applicants and fill two term vacancies on the Tracy Arts Commission. Roll call found all in favor; passed and so ordered.

4. ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE – Dan Randall spoke about making Tracy a landing spot for new innovative, diverse businesses. The most important thing Council can do is follow the five-year plan. Tracy has a reputation of not being business friendly, every person or business has a special interest and giving contributions is the way the country works. All development has slowed and going to other cities and will hurt people who built Tracy.

Council Member Evans responded to Mr. Randall’s comments regarding developers and special interest groups.

Mayor Young disagreed with Council Member Evans’ narrative regarding developers and special interests.

Dotty Nygard asked Council what they are most proud of in 2023. Businesses are still looking for their parklets after three years, second year promised for pump track, and now youth going to social media saying how boring it is to live in Tracy. Ms. Nygard stated she has heard residents and developers at Council meetings share frustration with lack of follow through, wished we could say we have done so much in 2023 to improve quality of life for Tracy and quoted from the City’s purpose and vision.

Alice English acknowledged three Council Members and spoke about special interests, lacking amenities, and Aquatic Center being prolonged. The City cannot keep developing, having more industrial and empty warehouses. Need more public safety and law enforcement. The City Manager and City Attorney will keep the vision going forward. Spoke about special interests not giving the pool and threatening Council with more legal to hold it back.

Council Member Arriola objected to the characterization and many of Ms. English’s comments.

Mayor Young disagreed with Ms. English’s comments.

Mayor Young stated an old flyer is circulating stating the warming center is at the Community Center run by Fix’d.

5. STAFF ITEMS – Midori Lichtwardt, Interim City Manager announced the following:
• Thanked Council for putting trust in her as City Manager. • The last public meeting of the year is the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for tomorrow at 7:00 p.m.
• City offices are closed this Friday and Monday in observance of the holiday, as well as next Friday and Monday for New Year’s.

Regular Meeting Minutes 10 December 19, 2023

• Wished everyone Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year!

Brian MacDonald, Interim Assistant City Manager provided a post for the warming location on social media stating the emergency shelter on Arbor Road is being used for an overnight warming location. It will be available from 10:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. when the national weather forecast is less than 33 degrees in Tracy. Familiar Faces has been very active getting people help they need. Have been hitting parks and other areas and were able to give a hand full of people voucher programs through the County. The 38 beds at the temporary emergency housing facility on Arbor Road will be opening in the coming days. Would prefer people go to the shelter. Staff posted today on Facebook and Instagram to call Salvation Army at 209-208-5701 or Familiar Faces at 209-831-6640 who can connect people to all kinds of services.

6. COUNCIL ITEMS – Council Member Arriola requested that the grant application for the Bureau of Reclamation for FY 2024-2025, water and energy efficiency grant in the amount of $5 million for installation and conversion of AMI meters be moved to January 16, 2024, Council meeting and skip the Finance Committee. Mayor Pro Tem Davis supported the request.

Karin Schnaider, Assistant City Manager explained there is a deadline for the grant and needs Council authorization to move forward and could not wait until February or staff would miss the grant opening.

Council Member Arriola asked for an update on the bike park in a memo. Mayor Pro Tem Davis supported the request.

Council Member Arriola wished everyone a Merry Christmas, Jewish Kwanzaa, Happy Holidays and a safe and Happy New Year.

Council Member Evans shared last Saturday there was wreath placing for the Tracy Chapter of Wreaths Across America held at Tracy Cemetery spearheaded by Gold Star mum, Julia Conover. It was a great opportunity to recognize local heroes and support our military families and a great time for community service, can either donate or unload wreaths. Council Member Evans and his wife help unload 2,000 wreaths and placed flags to mark each military grave.

Council Member Evans reiterated thank you to Tracy Homeless Advisory Committee, Council Member Bedolla and Mayor Pro Tem Davis, their diligence and good stewardship has led to opening up new shelter beds tomorrow. Council Member Evans wished everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays to whichever holiday is celebrated and Happy New Year and be safe.

Mayor Pro Tem Davis commended the Southside Community Organization on Posadas on Saturday and Sunday and thanked Assemblymember Villapudua for donating tons of clothes at the Southside Community Organization. Mayor Pro Tem Davis also attended the wreath laying ceremony and thanked Gold Star mum Julia Conover and Loretta Bridges and Jeneice Valacruz. It was very big this year with so many community members supporting the event. Attended SJC County Board of Supervisors holiday open house and commended the Board of Supervisors on their well-attended event and commended our District 5 Supervisor who had an long line.

Regular Meeting Minutes 11 December 19, 2023

Mayor Pro Tem Davis asked about the way certificates are handled as she attended Tracy Fireplace and Hot Tubs ribbon cutting today and several other ribbon cuttings where there has been no certificate. Since she attends nearly all the ribbon cuttings, it would be nice to have a certificate in the absence of Mayor Young.

Adrianne Richardson, City Clerk stated there was a certificate prepared for that event.

Mayor Young responded normally if she knows she will not be able to attend a ribbon cutting, certificates are not requested for every event but are for all the Tracy Chamber ribbon cuttings, she notifies the City Clerk. The certificate was signed and in her office, but today she had got caught up and did not realize that. Mayor Young did let the Chamber know and said she would bring the certificate by at another time.

Mayor Pro Tem Davis requested that if none of Council are going to be there it would look more pulled together if we did have a certificate and she is always ready to stand in on behalf of the Mayor and Council. It looks awkward to attend these events, and this is not the first time, as at the Bay Area Retina there was no certificate, she was the only one there and hopes there is a way to continue to present certificates at these events when the Mayor is not there.

Mayor Young stated it is a problem if she is not being notified. Need to make sure we have a streamlined process that we are all aware and the certificates are created.

Ms. Richardson explained there is a new process with the Tracy Chamber regarding invites and certificates for ribbon cuttings.

Mayor Pro Tem Davis spoke about a mailer that has a lot of misinformation regarding Tracy’s wastewater rate hikes and the mailer is claiming Council Members Bedolla, Evans and herself just raised the rates and that is not true. Mayor Pro Tem Davis explained back in June there was a unanimous Council vote to increase rates as the City had not raised the rates in ten years. Mayor Pro Tem Davis stated she and Council Members Bedolla and Evans have been here three years or less and previous Council’s had plenty of opportunity to raise rates, but they did not so the infrastructure suffered over the years, so it was necessary to do that. Mayor Pro Tem Davis asked the public to be patient while she responds to all the emails regarding the increase which occurred in August. There are FAQ’s on the website. Mayor Pro Tem Davis wished everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Happy Hanukkah and Happy Kwanzaa.

Council Member Arriola confirmed it was a 5:0 vote, was not sure who put out that flyer and shared the same concerns as Mayor Pro Tem Davis about the flyer.

Mayor Young confirmed it was a 5:0 vote. It is difficult to raise fees as fees are needed to be updated but that comes from education and added she has been pushing to put out information to inform our community and have reasonable set fee increases over the years. Previous leaderships continued to kick the can down the road and are not here to deal with it and recommended continuing with education and looking forward when looking at any other fees.

Mayor Young reported on various events and meetings she has attended and thanked all of those who supported her by donating to bailing her out of jail for Brighter Regular Meeting Minutes 12 December 19, 2023

Christmas. Mayor Young wished everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa and Happy New Year. The next Council meeting will be January 16, 2024.

Council Member Bedolla added he attended Las Mañanitas para la Virgen de Guadalupe at Saint Bernard’s Church and the Southside Community Organization.

7. ADJOURNMENT – Time: 9:57 p.m.

ACTION: Motion was made by Council Member Arriola and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Davis to adjourn. Roll call found all in favor; passed and so ordered.

The above agenda was posted at the Tracy City Hall on December 14, 2023. The above are action minutes. A recording is available at the office of the City Clerk.

____________________________
Mayor

ATTEST:

__________________________
City Clerk
January 16, 2024
Agenda Item 1.B

REQUEST
Staff
recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (1) authorizing submittal of a grant application to the United States Bureau of Reclamation for the FY24-25 Water and Energy Efficiency Grant (Grant) in the amount of $5,000,000 for a City-wide advanced metering infrastructure installation and meter conversion project; and (2) appropriating $5,000,000 in City Water Funds, for a 50% Grant match requirement, contingent upon receipt of the Grant.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff
recommends the City apply for grant funding for the FY24-25 Water and Energy Efficiency Grant (WEEG) from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) to fund the conversion of the City’s outdated water metering infrastructure to Advanced Meter Infrastructure (AMI). This project would include converting approximately 9,285 residential and commercial meters, which are not recording and reporting accurately, and installing fully automated metering infrastructure such as radio towers, remote devices, smart software, etc. The USBR grant requires a resolution authorizing the City to apply for the grant with the appropriation of at least a 50% matching fund. City staff intends to apply for the grant in the maximum amount of $5,000,000 which requires at least a $5,000,000 City match to complete the identified project.

BACKGROUND
The USBR
is soliciting proposals to eligible applicants to receive grant funding by cost-sharing with USBR on projects that will result in quantifiable water savings and support broader sustainability benefits. It is looking for projects that will conserve and use water more efficiently and accomplish other benefits that contribute to sustainability in the Western United States.

Eligible applicants may apply for up to a maximum of $5,000,000 with a 50% or more match.

Approximately 30% of the City’s service connections, 9,285 commercial and residential meters, need to be converted to new automated meters. The City also needs to upgrade its infrastructure in these older areas with technologies and communication components to better capture newly transmittable data. This project would result in quantifiable savings and efficiencies aiding both the City and the USBR in their efforts to contribute to a more sustainable water supply. This project would further provide better accounting of actual water use and improve the meter reading process increasing revenues recognized. Finally, it would aid the City in meeting requirements by the Department of Water Resources to reduce water losses and comply with per capita daily water use requirements.

ANALYSIS
In 2015, to
further increase the City of Tracy’s (City) water supply reliability and support water conservation and management efforts, the City committed to converting all of its nearly 26,500 metered service connections to advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) that would upgrade the City’s metering, billing, and management systems. Over the past 9 years, the City has upgraded approximately 17,000 water meters (66% of the City) to AMI at a cost of nearly Agenda Item 1.B
January 16, 2024

$10,000,000. Of those upgraded metered connections, approxim ately 8,000 are AMI and t he other
9,000 were conve rted to flex-net. The remaining 9,285 low-resolution meters are between 15 and 25 years old. The average lif e expectancy of these meters is bet ween 10 and 15 years.

The City is t argeting those 9,285 low-resolution and past life expectancy meters in this proj ect along with related infrastructure.

This funding request will support the conversion and upgrade of the remaining m anual and truck read meters with AMI technologies and installation of all t he necessary components incl uding material and equipment (registers, meters, m eter boxes, lids, software update, hardware, AMI t
ower materials), M eter Data Management Syst em (MDMS), leak detection system, interactive web port
al installation, as well as pressure-monitoring capabilities. W ith current staffing levels, t
he City is able to r eplace about 1, 300 meters each year under the Ci ty’s current Meter Replacement Program. This translates t o over seven (7) yea rs to complete t his project under that
existing program if staf f only co ncentrated on r eplacing these project meters annually. Thi s grant
has a three ( 3) year deadline therefore the City will r ely on contracted services to aid in t
he completion of t his work and f unding is consider ed in this project.

Thr
ough automation, the City wi ll r ecognize energy savings, as well as carbon and greenhouse gas
reductions by eliminating the necessity to travel to ob tain monthly water meter reads and reducing
the amount of run ti me on pumps, reservoirs and other fossil fuel demanding equi
pment due to less demand on the system.

O
verall, this wi ll be a transformational proj ect for the City and it s wa ter cu stomers wit h up-to- date consumption data accessible through a software portal enabling both to detect leaks quicke
r and to see water use as it is happeni ng. AMI will provi de real -time operational modeling information, establish a leak det ection system, and provide water-co nsumption data to al low individuals to manage their wat er usage. Implementation of this project will result in quantifiable wat
er and energy savings, as well as, support broader water r eliability benef its by providing the fo
llowing:
• Estimated minimum water savings of 1,168 acre-feet per year. • Associated energy savings of 638,463 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. • Streamlined water conservation measures through immediate water leakage detection which can significantly reduce energy consumption and water waste. • Reduced time, labor, cost, energy, and Greenhouse Gas emissions compared to the existing metering system, which requires personnel to physically drive to and manually read each meter.
• Modernized and increased dependability of the City’s aging water infrastructure by embracing new smart metering technologies, and
• Compliance with new water use and water loss mandates from the State Water Resources Control Board and Department of Water Resources.

In the
FY22/23 adopted budget, there was an unfunded capital improvement project (CIP #75XXX) for $10,000,000 to install advanced metering infrastructure and conversion of existing water meter equipment.

Staff
recommends that the City Council, by Resolution, authorize submittal of a grant application to the United States Bureau of Reclamation for the FY24-25 Water and Energy Efficiency Grant in the amount of $5,000,000 for this unfunded CIP, along with appropriation of $5,000,000 in Agenda Item 1.B
January 16, 2024

Water Funds to meet the 50% match requirement of the grant, contingent upon receipt of the grant funds. Should the grant be awarded, the proceeds would move to t he existing, unf unded CIP.

Under the grant guidelines, the full project would be expected to be compl eted by December 2027.

FISCAL IMPACT
An existing unfunded CIP for Water Meter Infrastructure in the amount of $10,000,000 is part of the City’s five-year Capital Improvement Plan. A City match of $5,000,000 (50% of the project amount) from the Water Enterprise fund is requir ed to apply for the WEEG from USBR. Staff is requesting the budget appropriation and funding of the existing CIP, if the grant is awarded.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This agenda item is related to the City Council's Strategic Priority for Governance by enhancing fi
scal stability, improving technology, and enhancing transparency. It also relates to Q uality o f Life by enhancing City services and promoting positive change and progress in the community.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (1) authorizing submittal of a grant application to the United States Bureau of Reclam ation for the FY24-25 Water and Energy Efficiency Grant (Grant) in the amount of $5,000,000 for a City-wide advanced metering infrastructure installation and meter conversion project; and (2) appropriating $5,000,000 in City Water Funds, for a 50% Grant match requirement, contingent upon receipt of the Grant awarded.

Prepared by: Stephanie Reyna-Hiestand, A ssistant Director of Utilities Reviewed by: Karin Schnaider, Assistant City Manager
Sara Cowel
l, Director of Finance
Bijal M. Patel, City Attorney
Approved by
: Midori Lichtwardt, City Manager

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

TRACY CITY COUNCIL
RESOL
UTION NO. 2024 -_____
(1) AUTHO

RIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FOR THE WATER AND
ENERGY EFFICIENCY GRANT (GRANT) IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000,000

FOR A CITY -WIDE ADVANCED METERING INFRASTRUCTURE
INSTALLATION AND METER CONVERSION PROJECT; AND
(2) AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF $5,000,000 IN CITY WATER FUNDS FOR A 50% GRANT MATCH REQUIREMENT, CONTINGENT UPON

RECEIPT OF THE GRANT
WHEREAS, there is an opportunity to apply for grant funding through the FY24-25 Water and Energy Efficiency G rant (WEEG) from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) to upgrade the City’s water metering infrastructure to Advanced Meter Infrastructure (AMI); and WHEREAS, this project will include the conversion of existing residential and commercial meters that are not measuring actual use correctly and past their useful life; and WHEREAS, the City has approximately 9,285 meters (30% o f the City’s meters) that need to be converted to new automated meters; and
WHEREAS, new meters will track the unaccounted water uses and will provide better communication for customers with up-to-dat e consumption data accessible through a software portal; and
WHEREAS, the installation and conversion will reduce time, labor, cost, energy, and Gr
eenhouse Gas Emissions; and
WHEREAS, the USBR is soliciting proposals to eligible applicants to receive grant funding by cost-sharing with USBR on projects that will result in quantifiable water savings and support broader sustainability benefits; and
WHEREAS, if the $5,000,000 grant is awarded as requested, there is a 50% City match required; and
WHEREA
S, the City match of $5,000,000 would be appropriated from the Water Fund; and
WHEREA
S, there is an unfunded capital improvement project for $10,000,000 to install advanced metering infrastructure and existing meter equipment; and WHEREA
S, if the grant is awarded and the $5,000,000 is appropriated, the unfunded CIP would need to be modified and identified as funded for FY24-25.

NOW,
THEREFORE, be it resolved as follows:

Resolution 2024 -____

RESOLVED, That the above recitals are true and correct; and be it further RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Tracy authorizes submittal of a grant application to the USBR for the Water and Energy Efficiency Grant in the amount of $5,000,000 for a City-wide advanced metering infrastructure installation and meter conversion project ; and be it further
RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Tracy authorizes the appropriation of $5,000,000 in City Water Funds for a 50% match requirement of the USBR Water and Energy Efficiency Grant application in the amount of $5,000,000, contingent upon receipt of the Grant; and be it further
RESOLVED, that this action does not constitute a “project” under California Environmental Quality Act, as subsequent discretionary actions will be required before the project can be implemented.

The foregoing Resolution 2024 -_____ was adopted by the Tracy City Council on January 16, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTION:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:
______________________________
NANCY D. YOUNG
May
or of the City of Tracy, California
ATTEST: ________________________

ADRIANNE RICHARDSON
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of
the City of Tracy, California
January 16, 2024
Agenda Item 1.C

RECOMMENDATION
Staff
recommends that the City Council approve the selection of the Interstate 580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange project as the City of Tracy 2024 Regional Transportation Project submittal for congressional appropriation requests during San Joaquin Council of Governments’ One Voice trip to Washington D.C.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City
Council’s approval of the listed project will allow the transportation improvement project to be eligible for inclusion in the San Joaquin Council of Governments’ (SJCOG) One Voice trip to Washington D.C. legislative agenda and congressional funding appropriation requests.

BACKGROUND AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Every
year the City of Tracy submits a list of projects to SJCOG for consideration in their legislative agenda and congressional appropriation requests during the One Voice trip to Washington D.C. The One Voice trip includes representatives of San Joaquin County, SJCOG, and city elected officials. This year each city was asked to submit one project of regional significance.

City
staff worked with consultants at Mark Thomas to prepare the SJCOG One Voice application, attached as Attachment A. This application was submitted to the San Joaquin Council of Governments on or before November 27, 2023.

ANALYSIS
Nominat
ed regional projects must meet the following criteria:
• Be regional
in nature and have a federal nexus.
• Must be at or near completion of NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) clearance, or qualified waiver, for projects seeking ROW (Right-of-Way) or construction funding. • Be sufficiently developed to suggest federal assistance is warranted (shovel-ready). • Explain whether the sponsor is utilizing any formula funding for the project elements and detail how formula funds are being applied. If not utilizing formula funds, explain why formula funds are not being applied to the project.
• Projects should be targeted for appropriations in the Federal Fiscal Year 2024 budget or an upcoming notice of agency funding opportunity.
• Demonstrated community support.

Staff
has reviewed the existing needs of various transportation projects and is recommending Interstate 580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange Project (Project) for the 2024 One Voice trip.

Projec
t Description:

The Inter
state 580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange Project (Project) is located in the City of Agenda Item 1.C
January 16, 2024

Tracy and consists of improvements to the existing Corral Hollow Road interchange. The Project will construct two roundabouts at freeway ramp intersections, widening the overcrossing at Interstate 580, and implementing a Class I bicycle and pedestrian path. The Project is an important component of the regional widening of Corral Hollow Road.

The proposed improvements align with the City's General Plan buildout and focus on enhancing regional safety,
mobility, and accessibility, particularly in the USDOT-designated rural areas of Tracy. The upgraded roadway aims to decrease vehicle and freight congestion, improve overall service levels, and enhance safety for vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians, ensuring efficient emergency vehicle
access to approved developments such as Ellis and Tracy Hills. With Corral Hollow Road
serving as a crucial bypass route to Interstate 580, the improvements are vital for goods movement and commute routes between the San Joaquin/Central Valley and the Bay Area, minimizing
delays, reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and improving air quality in the region. Additionally,
the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities contributes to public health benefits and equitable transportation access.

Project Environmental Benefits:

During the Project development phase, the City emphasized greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, emphasizing the analysis of air quality and GHG emissions during project development. The Project aims
to enhance operations, vehicle speeds, and reduce congestion, resulting in a reduction of harmful
emissions over a 20-year period. The Project adheres to local and federal policies by incorporating updated design standards, including stormwater treatment elements, and aligns wit
h the City's Sustainability Action Plan. Additionally, the Project supports climate and environmental justice by addressing disadvantages related to transportation investments in the Project area. The emphasis on multimodal infrastructure, such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, aims to decrease congestion, reduce GHG emissions, and improve access to affordable homes and employment opportunities. The Project's commitment to environmentally conscious design includes the incorporation of recycled materials and the implementation of stormwater drainage facilities to minimize environmental impact.

The preliminary environmental analyses of the interchanges indicate minimal impacts on special status species, while the overall environmental and traffic assessment highlights improvements in air
quality—a crucial goal for San Joaquin County. The Project aims to enhance operations and traffic
flow, resulting in reduced greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality.

Despite being located in a non-attainment zone for carbon monoxide, PM2.5, and ozone, the Project is
projected to contribute positively to air quality. Considering San Joaquin County's recent F
grade in the American Lung Association's 2022 State of the Air Report, with 13,971 children and 52,942 adults at risk of asthma, implementing the proposed Project is expected to have a significant and positive impact on public health.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with approving the proposed Project for the One Voice trip.

The City is requesting approximately $8.8 million in congressional appropriations. The total cost of the Project
is estimated at $21.1 million. In addition to this funding, the proposed Project will be supported through
other funding sources, including developer funding, and development impact fees. If the City can secure additional funding through One Voice and a grant, less local funding would be required.

Agenda Item 1.C
January 16, 2024

COORDINATION
City staff worked with consultants at Mark Thoma s to prepare the SJCOG One Voice application, attached as Attachment A.

CEQA DETERMINATION
This action is not a “Project” and therefore not subject to CEQA. The submittal of this project fo r
SJCOG’s One Vo ice T rip does not require CEQA analysis.

STRAT

EGIC PLAN
This agenda item supports City of Tracy’s Economic Development Strategic Priority, whi ch is to enhance the competitiveness of the City while further developing a strong and diverse economic base.

A

CTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council appr ove the selection of the Interstate 580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange Project as the City of Tracy 2024 regional transportation project for congressional appropriation requests during San Joaquin Council of Governments’ One Voice trip to Washington D.C.

Prepared by: A nju P illai, PE, Senior Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Koosun Kim, PE, City Engineer / Assistant Director of Development Services Sara Cowell,
Finance Director
Bijal M. Patel, City Attorney
Karin Schnaider, Assistant City Manager

ATTACHMENTS
Att
achment A – SJCOG One Voice Application 202 4
Approved by: Midori Lichtwardt, City Manager
City of Tracy
333 Civic Center Plaza
Tracy, CA 95376

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
MAIN 209.831.6400
FAX 209.831.6439
www.cityoftracy.org
November 27, 2023
San Joaquin Council of Governments Board
555 E. Weber Avenue
Stockton, CA 95202
RE: City of Tracy – SJCOG 2024 One Voice Application
The City of Tracy is pleased to officially submit the City of Tracy's application for the SJCOG 2024 One Voice Program. Our submission focuses on the Interstate 580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange Project, a vital initiative situated within the City of Tracy community.

The primary objective of the proposed project is to enhance the existing Corral Hollow Road interchange, a critical juncture within our community. Key enhancements include the construction of two roundabouts at freeway ramp intersections, the widening of the overcrossing at I-580, and the establishment of a Class I bicycle and pedestrian path.

This undertaking is an integral component of the broader Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project, a regional initiative aimed at implementing comprehensive improvements t hroughout the corridor.

The Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project including the I -580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange project includes three key elements to significantly enhance the regional infrastructure:

1. I-580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange Improvements, which serve as the primary focus of our application.

2. Improvements to the Corral Hollow Road/Linne Road intersection, featuring the installation of a new traffic signal, turn lanes, and enhancements to the existing at-grade crossing with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Oakland Subdivision.

3. Widening of Corral Hollow Road from a narrow two-lane to a divided four-lane roadway, thereby addressing current and future traffic demands.

By strategically addressing these components, the Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project aims to comprehensively facilitate improvements in a regionally significant corridor.

We appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the growth and development of our community through this vital project. The City of Tracy is committed to ensuring the success of the Interstate 580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange project, and we look forward to the positive impact it will have on both local and regional transportation infrastructure.

DocuSign Envelope ID: CF4756F6-B264-4722-9BE8-2E24698E5F54 Attachment A
City of Tracy 2024 One Voice Project Application
November 27, 2023

Thank you for considering the City of Tracy’s I-580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange project.

Sincerely,

Midori Lichtwardt, City Manager

cc: Karin Schnaider, Assistant City Manager
Koosun Kim, City Engineer
Anju Pillai, Senior Engineer
File

Attachment: City of Tracy: 2024 One Voice Project Application DocuSign Envelope ID: CF4756F6-B264-4722-9BE8-2E24698E5F54

2024 SJCOG One Voice® Application Form

1 Project Application Checklist

The San Joaquin Council of Governments Board approved the following project criteria:

• Be regional in nature and have a federal nexus.
• Must be at or near completion of (NEPA) clearance, or qualified waiver, for projects seeking ROW or construction funding.
• Be sufficiently developed to suggest federal assistance is warranted (shovel ready) • Explain whether the sponsor is utilizing any formula funding for the project elements and detail how formula funds are being applied. If not utilizing formula funds, explain why formula funds are not being applied to the project.
• Projects should be targeted for appropriations in the Federal Fiscal Year 2024 budget or an upcoming notice of agency funding opportunity.
• Demonstrated community support.
• Identify if a project can be submitted as an “earmark” if a congressional call for projects is announced. • All narrative shall be written in Microsoft Word for ease in cutting and pasting to project sheets.

The following contents are required to be submitted by SJCOG member agencies:

1. Signed cover letter (electronic signature is accepted)

2. Completed One Voice® Application Form

3. Complete Appendix – in order
a. A high-resolution JPEG or PNG photo, graphic, map or diagram of your project to be included on the project fact sheet.
b. Project talking points Talking points are limited to ten (10) bullet points, no more than 2-3 sentences each. (These highlights and benefits will be included in the participant binder and used during meetings in Washington, DC).
c. In 200 words or less describe the project’s benefit to the region and the scope of the project. d. Attach a copy of the environmental clearance resolution or other signed documentation approving or adopting the environmental document (if completed). e. Projects must be approved by your respective city councils or boards prior to submission to SJCOG. Please provide a copy of the minutes or resolution detailing approval. If the project has not secured this at the time of application submittal, indicate the date when this will be secured.

4. Letters of community support (Minimum 2 / Maximum 5)

One (1) electronic copy must be submitted via email/file sharing site of the complete application packet no later than 4:00 p.m. on November 27, 2023 to:

ATTN: SJCOG 2024 One Voice® Project Submittal
San Joaquin Council of Governments
555 E. Weber Avenue
Stockton, CA 95202
[email protected]

2024 SJCOG One Voice® Application Form

2 1. Project Title: I-580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange Project

2. Applicant Agency: City of Tracy

3. Agency Address: 333 Civic Center Plaza, Tracy, CA 95376

4. Staff-level Point of Contact/Title: Koosun Kim, City Engineer

Email: [email protected] Phone Number: (209) 831-6452

5. Executive-Point of Contact/Title: Midori Lichtwardt, City Manager

Email: [email protected] Phone Number: (209) 831-6159

6. Project Information:

6.a Provide project talking points. Talking points are limited to ten (10) bullet points, no more than 2-3 sentences each. (These highlights and benefits will be included in the participant binder and used during meetings in Washington, DC).

• The I-580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange project (Project) will occur in the City of Tracy (City) located in the San Joaquin Valley, California.
• The Project involves enhancing the regionally significant Corral Hollow Road through interchange enhancements, including the addition of roundabouts and a multi-use bicycle and pedestrian path. • The Project aligns with several regional plans and reports including: City General Plan; City Sustainability Action Plan; Northern California Megaregion: Innovative, Connected, and Growing Report; Metropolitan Transportation Commission San Francisco Bay Area Goods Movement Plan; San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Plan; 2022 SJCOG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy; 2020 SJCOG I-205, I-5, SR 120 & SR9 9 Congested Corridor Plan; and 2023 Caltrans California Freight Mobility Plan. • The Project adheres to existing and planned regional developments, addressing current and future vehicle and truck congestion and providing multimodal accessibility. • Project benefits include: safety, economic, mobility, equity, and environmental. • Safety benefit- project addresses prevalent crash patterns, such as rear-end collisions and unsafe speed, concentrated around key locations as well as provides dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities to separate vulnerable users from vehicles and trucks. • Economic benefit- bolster economic competitiveness by providing improvements to mobility and goods movement, reducing travel times and transportation costs. • Mobility benefit- by addressing wear on Corral Hollow Road, proposing infrastructure improvements, and ensuring universal design features for non-motorized travel. • Equity benefit- ensures equitable access for all users and provides engagement opportunities to influence project design elements.
• Environmental benefit- GHG reduction and improved air quality by reducing congestion, incorporating

2024 SJCOG One Voice® Application Form

3 stormwater treatment elements, and supporting climate and environmental justice initiatives.

6.b. Provide a description of the project (project limits, overall scope of work), and federal nexus and provide a high-resolution map, site plan, or diagram. Include description how the project is significantly developed to warrant federal funding.

Project Summary
The Interstate 580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange Project (Project) is located in the City of Tracy and consist of improvements to the existing Corral Hollow Road interchange. The Project will construct two roundabouts at freeway ramp intersections, widening the overcrossing at I-580, and implementing a Class I bicycle and pedestrian path. The Project is a component of the regional Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project. The Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project introduces three components to comprehensively facilitate improvements in the regionally significantly corridor. The overall project includes: 1) improvements to the Corral Hollow Road/Linne Road intersection, incorporating a new traffic signal, turn lanes, and enhancements to the existing at-grade crossing with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Oakland Subdivision. 2) widening Corral Hollow Road from a narrow two-lane to a divided four-lane roadway. 3) I- 580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange Improvements- the focus of this.

The proposed improvements align with the City's General Plan buildout and focus on enhancing regional safety, mobility, and accessibility, particularly in the USDOT-designated rural areas of Tracy. The upgraded roadway aims to decrease vehicle and freight congestion, improve overall service levels, and enhance safety for vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians, ensuring efficient emergency vehicle access to approved developments such as Ellis and Tracy Hills. With Corral Hollow Road serving as a crucial bypass route to I-580, the improvements are vital for goods movement and commute routes between the San Joaquin/Central Valley and the Bay Area, minimizing delays, reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and improving air quality in the region.

Additionally, the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities contributes to public health benefits and equitable transportation access.

Project Limits
The Project is in the southern part of the City of Tracy, San Joaquin County, California, the Project spans an area adjacent to the I-580 freeway outside of the 2010 Census - Urbanized Area (UA) 88273 Area land. The Project is primarily located within census tract 55.02. Approximately three miles northeast of the Project, Census Tracts 54.06, 53.03, and 53.09 have been designated as Areas of Persistent Poverty by the USDOT.

The geographical coordinates for the Project are 37°40'52.0"N 121°27'10.2"W.

Scope of Work
The Project constitutes a pivotal segment of an extensive eight-phase initiative, strategically devised to foster lasting advancements in mobility and connectivity for the local community. The interchange improvements are indispensable in promptly addressing immediate community needs, supporting ongoing development, and accommodating the escalating demands of vehicular traffic.

The Project modernizes the current spread diamond interchange through the introduction of multilane roundabouts at ramp terminal intersections. This component entails widening and enhancing the existing

2024 SJCOG One Voice® Application Form

4 overcrossing at I-580 for improved traffic operations, accompanied by the addition of a 10-foot multi-use path along the west side of Corral Hollow Road.

Alignment with Federal Funding
State and Federal environmental approval for the Project are ongoing with various agencies such as Caltrans, the Federal Highway Administration, US Army Corps of Engineers, National Resource Conservation Service, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Project anticipates potential impacts on legally protected species under various acts and regulations. The City actively participates in the San Joaquin Mitigation Conservation Plan (SJMCP) to address biological resource impacts in compliance with relevant statutes.

Additionally, a thorough risk analysis has been conducted, indicating manageable risks and corresponding mitigation strategies. The City, in collaboration with Caltrans, has initiated the Project, demonstrating technical capacity and experience in delivering funded projects. The City has successfully completed multiple infrastructure projects, including highway interchanges and local roadway widenings, adhering to funding requirements. PA&ED is currently underway for I-580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange Improvements.

6.c Provide a description of how the project provides or improves regional connectivity across a variety of existing or planned developments, resources, facilities, job centers, etc. within the region.

The Project strategically aligns with and enhances existing and planned regional developments, resources, and facilities. Specifically designed to tackle current and projected vehicle congestion stemming from the City's General Plan buildout, the Project plays a vital role in addressing this recognized concern. The comprehensive improvements are instrumental in improving safety and accessibility across the region. The Project improves the Corral Hollow Road corridor, a regionally important route, by implementing intersection upgrades, expanding roadways, and enhancing interchanges. This includes installing traffic signals, turn lanes, facilities for bicycles and pedestrians, as well as incorporating roundabouts.

6.d Provide a description of how the Project supports and/or logically extends existing local and countywide or regional plans, strategies, or programs.

City of Tracy General Plan (Link)
The Project aims to address both existing and future vehicle congestion expected during the City’s General Plan buildout. By implementing comprehensive improvements. The Project enhances safety and accessibility for residents.

City of Tracy Sustainability Action Plan (Link)
The Project is expected to improve employment accessibility by a mix of commercial, industrial, and office uses, further supported by the City's Sustainability Action Plan. The Project's impact on job creation is seen as a crucial factor in reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and improving economic opportunities, especially for disadvantaged households in the project area as identified in the plan.

Northern California Megaregion: Innovative, Connected, and Growing Report (Link) Identified in the 2016 report, the project area faces a housing crisis, heightened traffic, and congestion due to concentrated employment centers and increased goods movement. Before March 2020, over 64,932 commuters traveled from Northern San Joaquin to the Bay Area, with significantly higher home values and 68% of Megaregion jobs located in the Bay Area. Trucks handle 74.1% of freight, resulting in daily volumes of

2024 SJCOG One Voice® Application Form

5 15,000 to 37,000 from Northern San Joaquin to the Bay Area. Morning peak period congestion at Altamont Pass on I-580 leads to commute times over 90 minutes from San Joaquin County to the Bay Area, causing delays of 40 to 50 minutes and exacerbating transportation challenges in the region. The Project addresses these concerns identified in the report.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission San Francisco Bay Area Goods Movement Plan (Link) Positioned near the Bay Area, the region serves as a vital goods distribution center. Challenges identified in the 2016 SF Bay Area Goods Movement Plan include limited rail capacity and numerous at-grade railway- highway crossings, leading to reliance on trucks along the I-580 corridor. The project addresses these identified concerns.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Plan (Link) The Project aligns with the plan by improving air quality and reducing GHG emissions.

2023 California Freight Mobility Plan (Link)
Recognized in the 2023 California Freight Mobility Plan, I-580 is designated as a key truck corridor, making it eligible for federal investments. The project area handles regional cut-through traffic from communities east of the City, offering an alternative route to avoid congestion on I-205 and I-580. The Project addressed these concerns identified in the plan.

6.e. Describe safety, economic, mobility, equity and environmental and other benefits which are expected upon project completion.

Project Benefit 1- Safety
The Project implements safety countermeasures to address the history of collisions located within the Project footprint. To comprehensively assess the safety benefits of the Project, various tools were employed, including the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) for collision analysis, the California Benefit/Cost (Cal-B/C) Corridor model for economic safety benefits, and the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) for Build vs. No Build safety scenarios.

Table: Crash reduction rates for the I-580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange I-580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange Fatal Injury Serious Injury Reduction Factor 0% 44% 44%
Build Rate (per 100 MVM) 0.0000 1.2913 0.0698
No Build Rate (per 100 MVM) 0.000044% 2.3060 0.1246

The Project implements safety countermeasures to address the history of collisions located within the Project footprint. The Project installs roundabouts at the ramp terminal intersections and a dedicated multi-use path.

The roundabouts reduce crashes between turning vehicles by limiting conflict points and reduce congestion that lowers queuing on the ramps and highway mainline. The Project also provides a space for those walking and biking away from the traveling public.

Project Benefit 2- Economic
The Project's location intersects with crucial aspects of the local economy, particularly warehousing, agricultural trade, and the significant goods movement sector. The exponential growth in e-commerce has led to an increase in warehouse and distribution centers throughout the area, contributing to the region's economic success. Freight movement, a vital economic component, has more than $1 trillion of goods moving through the region annually, with a substantial portion traveling by trucks on highways like I-205 and I-580. The Project,

2024 SJCOG One Voice® Application Form

6 strategically sited along the I-580 corridor, aims to support the economic competitiveness of San Joaquin County and the City, providing improvements to enhance access and accommodate significant freight corridors. Additionally, the Project is anticipated to contribute to job creation and economic growth, aligning with the City of Tracy's General Plan projections for industrial, retail, and office development. The employment growth in these areas is expected to be fostered by a mix of commercial, industrial, and office uses, further supported by the City's Sustainability Action Plan. This job creation is seen as a crucial factor in reducing vehicle miles traveled and improving economic opportunities, especially for disadvantaged households in the project area.

Project Benefit 3- Mobility
The Project aims to enhance various infrastructure elements, including bridges, roadways, rail crossings, and freeway overpasses. The overcrossing widening at I-580 will provide a 75 year design life. The Project emphasizes multimodal accessibility and universal design, focusing on non-motorized travel opportunities, expanding connectivity, and providing improved safety features. Additionally, the Project ensures compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by incorporating curb ramps and ADA path of travel, supporting mobility for users of all abilities.

The benefits created by the Project are vital to improve mobility in the area. The City is positioned at the crossroads of local and regional economic activity. In 2014, Northern California claimed the highest GDP per capita at $72,582, contributing 5% to the national GDP. The recent MTC Northern California Mega Region Goods Movement Study highlighted the impact of e-commerce growth on the proliferation of warehouse and distribution centers in the region. Warehousing covers 63% of industrial land in the Megaregion, totaling around 940,000,000 square feet, with the average size of buildings tripling over the past decade. Notably, San Joaquin County leads with 81,169,000 square feet of warehousing per square mile, surpassing other counties in Northern California and the Central Valley. In the Northern California Megaregion, freight movement is integral, with over $1 trillion worth of goods moving annually, and 74% relying on highway freight corridors, mainly using trucks. Notably, I-205 carries 12.38% of truck traffic, and I-580 carries 18%, as reported in the Caltrans 2014 Transportation Route Concept Reports. The Project will improve the mobility of this intricate system.

Additional mobility project benefits will extend to commuters, with an anticipated increase in commuter traffic due to ongoing housing developments in the area. I-580, a vital route to and from Bay Area employment centers, faces significant traffic volumes exacerbated by individuals seeking housing affordability in Tracy and other San Joaquin County communities. Commuters often experience delays both on the highway and at interchange points, as the current configuration lacks operational capacity. The project aims to alleviate congestion by increasing capacity and improving access to I-580, fostering connectivity with the planned Tracy Hills development on both sides of the freeway.

Project Benefit 4- Equity
In August 2020, the City Council approved the Tracy Equity & Empowerment Initiative, establishing the principle of equitable access for anyone engaging with the City, including partner institutions, local schools, and beneficiaries of local funds. The initiative emphasizes data analysis and equity tools to assess policy and service decisions, ensuring infrastructure investments are viewed through an equity lens to prevent

2024 SJCOG One Voice® Application Form

7 disproportionate impacts on underserved communities. While the Project is not situated in an Area of Persistent Poverty, it is close to Census Tracts 53.03, 53.09, and 54.06 in downtown Tracy, designated as such. These tracts reflect low educational attainment, and the project aims to benefit residents within commuting distance of employment clusters, especially in the transportation and warehousing sectors.

Additionally, the Project addresses climate hazards and enhances safety, access, and transportation choices for marginalized communities. In response to Tracy's population growth surpassing employment growth, the mixed-use Tracy Hills Development is highlighted as a project that will reduce housing cost burdens and provide equitable housing options while increasing employment opportunities. The development prioritizes connectivity, and the Project extends this by incorporating bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, promoting transportation choices for individuals without cars.

Project Benefit 5- Environmental
During the project development phase, the City emphasized greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, emphasizing the analysis of air quality and GHG emissions during project development. The Project aims to enhance operations, vehicle speeds, and reduce congestion, resulting in a reduction of harmful emissions over a 20- year period The Project adheres to local and federal policies by incorporating updated design standards, including stormwater treatment elements, and aligns with the City's Sustainability Action Plan. Additionally, the Project supports climate and environmental justice by addressing disadvantages related to transportation investments in the project area. The emphasis on multimodal infrastructure, such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, aims to decrease congestion, reduce GHG emissions, and improve access to affordable homes and employment. opportunities. The Project's commitment to environmentally conscious design includes the incorporation of recycled materials and the implementation of stormwater drainage facilities to minimize environmental impact.

The preliminary environmental analyses of the interchanges indicate minimal impacts on special status species, while the overall environmental and traffic assessment highlights improvements in air quality—a crucial goal for San Joaquin County. The project aims to enhance operations and traffic flow, resulting in reduced greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality. Despite being located in a non-attainment zone for carbon monoxide, PM2.5, and ozone, the project is projected to contribute positively to air quality.

Considering San Joaquin County's recent F grade in the American Lung Association's 2022 State of the Air Report, with 13,971 children and 52,942 adults at risk of asthma, implementing the proposed project is expected to have a significant and positive impact on public health.

7. Project Readiness:

Attach detailed information on any completed project milestones or phases, and the project schedule. Describe whether the project can be split into clear and distinct phases.

Project Milestone Proposed
(Month/Year)
Begin Environmental (PA&ED) Phase 03/15/2023
Circulate Draft Environmental Document Document Type IS/MND and CE 02/28/2024 End Environmental Phase (PA&ED Milestone) 08/31/2024
Begin Design (PS&E) Phase 03/01/2024
End Design Phase (Ready to List for Advertisement Milestone) 01/31/2025 Begin Right of Way Phase 09/01/2024
End Right of Way Phase (Right of Way Certification Milestone) 12/31/2025

2024 SJCOG One Voice® Application Form

8 Begin Construction Phase (Contract Award Milestone) 06/30/2025 End Construction Phase (Construction Contract Acceptance Milestone) 07/31/2027

7.b If your project is being delivered in phases, indicate the phases that are NOT a part of the project application to provide show the project is part of a larger/ “ultimate” project. Please answer the following questions:

• Describe how the specific stage, segment, phase, or activity fits into a larger project. • Describe the larger project and additional benefits (not described earlier) of the larger project.

The Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project in the City of Tracy comprises three key components aimed at substantial regional enhancements. These include: 1) upgrading the Corral Hollow Road/Linne Road intersection with a new traffic signal, turn lanes, and improvements to the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Oakland Subdivision crossing, 2) transforming Corral Hollow Road from a narrow two-lane to a divided four-lane roadway, and 3) introducing improvements to the 580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange. The overall Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project will have significant benefits in the region.

Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project benefits include:

Safety
Safety concerns in the Northern California Megaregion, particularly on the highway system, have adverse effects. A comprehensive safety analysis utilized tools such as the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) for collision data, the California Benefit/Cost (Cal-B/C) Corridor model for economic safety benefits, and the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) for Build vs No Build safety scenarios.

Crash History and Countermeasures
Examining collision data on Corral Hollow Road from the I-580 interchange to Linne Road from January 2018 to December 2021, the majority of incidents were rear-end collisions (37%), followed by hit-object (20%) and overturn collisions (13%). Unsafe speed (41%), improper turning (30%), and automobile right of way (13%) were the primary causes of these crashes. Over the 5-year period, 46 crashes were recorded, resulting in one fatality. Key focus areas for Project improvements are the Corral Hollow Road/I-580 interchange, the Corral Hollow Road crossing over the California Aqueduct, and the Corral Hollow Road/Linne Road intersection.

Federal Safety Goals
The Project aligns with the USDOT's 2022 National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS) goals for "Safer Roadways" and "Safer Speeds." The multi-lane roundabout at ramp terminal intersections promotes safer intersections and speeds, particularly in rural communities disproportionately affected by collisions. The installation of a traffic signal at Corral Hollow Road and Linne Road aims to slow speeds and enhance safety at the intersection.

Protection of Vulnerable Users
Project enhancements include measures to safeguard vulnerable users, such as a 10-foot multi-use path at the I-580 Interchange and dedicated bicycle lanes and sidewalks along Corral Hollow Road and at the Linne Road Interchange. These improvements provide a dedicated space for pedestrians and cyclists, facilitating access to jobs, shopping, and transit. Additionally, active transportation facilities will connect to the Altamont Corridor Express Tracy Train Station on Linne Road and Tracy Boulevard.

2024 SJCOG One Voice® Application Form

9 State of Good Repair
This intricate project necessitates the enhancement of various infrastructure elements, including bridges, roadways, rail crossings, and freeway overpasses. Deficient pavement across the project area, encompassing bridge decks over the California Aqueduct, Delta Mendota Canal, the entire Corral Hollow Road Corridor between I-580 and Linne Road, and the I-580 freeway overcrossing, will be replaced.

Existing Conditions
The existing pavement on Corral Hollow Road exhibits signs of wear with transverse and longitudinal cracking, and fatigue cracking in certain areas. As traffic volumes increase, these issues will escalate, leading to higher rehabilitation costs. The bridges over the aqueducts also display signs of fatigue, with cracking evident on the bridge decks due to vehicle volumes. Failure to rehabilitate or replace these assets would adversely affect regional mobility, with undersized and inefficient facilities impacting travel times, causing increased emissions, and lacking active transportation facilities.

Asset Condition Improvement
The project involves the removal, replacement, or repair of all existing pavements, utilizing a combination of asphalt concrete (AC) and aggregate base (AB) for the reconstruction of Corral Hollow Road. Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) with a 20-year design life will be used to ensure long-term efficiency and congestion relief for I-580. The Project introduces a new pavement system with a 20-year lifespan, while the I-580 overcrossing widening, California Aqueduct Bridge, and Delta Mendota Canal Bridge replacements are designed for a 100-year lifespan. The project's residual value is estimated at $17.3 million in undiscounted 2021 dollars and $1.5 million when discounted at a 7% rate. These improvements align with Caltrans's state of good repair efforts, reducing maintenance costs and optimizing public infrastructure investment.

Future Maintenance
The project is designed for longevity and optimized long-term operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. As current pavement conditions are poor and expected to deteriorate with increased traffic, the City and Caltrans will share maintenance costs through a mutually established agreement during the final PS&E phase. Caltrans' O&M for the interchange will be funded through the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP), with future maintenance work covered by the Capital Preventive Maintenance (CAPM) program within SHOPP.

State of Good Repair
This intricate project necessitates the enhancement of various infrastructure elements, including bridges, roadways, rail crossings, and freeway overpasses. Deficient pavement across the project area, encompassing bridge decks over the California Aqueduct, Delta Mendota Canal, the entire Corral Hollow Road Corridor between I-580 and Linne Road, and the I-580 freeway overcrossing, will be replaced.

Asset Condition Improvement
The project involves the removal, replacement, or repair of all existing pavements, utilizing a combination of asphalt concrete (AC) and aggregate base (AB) for the reconstruction of Corral Hollow Road. Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) with a 20-year design life will be used to ensure long-term efficiency and congestion relief for I-580. The Project introduces a new pavement system with a 20-year lifespan, while the I-580 overcrossing widening, California Aqueduct Bridge, and Delta Mendota Canal Bridge replacements are designed for a 100-year lifespan. The project's residual value is estimated at $17.3 million in undiscounted 2021 dollars and $1.5 million when discounted at a 7% rate. These improvements align with Caltrans's state of good repair efforts, reducing maintenance costs and optimizing public infrastructure investment.

2024 SJCOG One Voice® Application Form

10 Future Maintenance
The project is designed for longevity and optimized long-term operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. As current pavement conditions are poor and expected to deteriorate with increased traffic, the City and Caltrans will share maintenance costs through a mutually established agreement during the final PS&E phase. Caltrans' O&M for the interchange will be funded through the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP), with future maintenance work covered by the Capital Preventive Maintenance (CAPM) program within SHOPP.

Economic Impacts, Freight Movement, and Job Creation
Regional and National Economic Stimulation
The economic landscape of the Northern California Megaregion, outlined in the Northern California Megaregion: Innovative, Connected, and Growing report by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, boasts the highest gross regional product (GRP) per capita among all megaregions in the nation. The surge in warehousing and distribution centers within the Megaregion, facilitating the transport of goods between the Port of Oakland, farms, businesses, and consumers, contributes to this economic growth. With a substantial presence of freeways supporting truck freight, including I-580, enhancements are imperative to sustain the region's competitive edge.

Freight Movement and Job Creation/Preservation
Anticipated changes in travel behavior, resulting in a 1% increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) at the interchange (2027), are projected to be offset by a 0.01% decrease in VMT by 2046. The I-580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange is expected to reduce heavy truck vehicle hours traveled by 1.5% (2027) and 1.8% (2046), enhancing truck travel times and reducing idling periods. Job creation and preservation efforts, as outlined in the City of Tracy General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, foresee significant industrial, retail, and office development, supporting an additional 21,300 employees by 2025. These developments, including Ellis and Tracy Hills, contribute to job growth and projected VMT reduction.

The City's Sustainability Action Plan aims to increase local employment for Tracy residents to 72%, reducing commute trips and VMT for city residents. Accessible well-paying jobs within the Project area, particularly for those with lower educational attainment, ensure equal opportunities and enhance the quality of life and budgets for disadvantaged households.

Climate Change, Resiliency, and the Environment
GHG Reduction
The Project's development involved a comprehensive analysis of air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, factoring in travel volumes, vehicle types, and speeds. By enhancing operations, increasing vehicle speeds, and reducing congestion, the Project is poised to decrease harmful emissions over a 20-year period.

While there is a slight increase in carbon dioxide emissions, the substantial time savings in travel supports local and federal policies addressing the urgent need for short-term GHG reduction in response to the current climate crisis.

Climate Change Mitigation Planning
In alignment with climate change mitigation plans at both the city and regional levels in San Joaquin County, the Project incorporates updated design standards with stormwater treatment elements. Complying with the City's Sustainability Action Plan, which focuses on congestion management and increased transit, the Project aims to reduce GHG emissions and idling time, alleviating bottlenecks. Additionally, adherence to the San

2024 SJCOG One Voice® Application Form

11 Joaquin Council of Governments' Climate Adaptation & Resiliency Study (CARS) recognizes I-580 as a critical route for transit-dependent populations, contributing to regional climate goals by reducing GHGs and addressing future traffic increases.

Climate and Environmental Justice
Utilizing the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST), the Project area, while not officially designated as disadvantaged, faces challenges related to insufficient transportation investments. Air quality concerns, particularly high PM2.5 levels (93rd percentile) and proximity to superfund sites (90th percentile), are highlighted. Notably, the community in the Project Area ranks in the 99th percentile for transportation barriers, emphasizing the significant cost and time burdens for commuting from affordable communities to Bay Area job centers. The Project's proximity to low-income, disadvantaged communities underscores the importance of addressing linguistic barriers, air quality issues, and lower-than-average educational attainment rates.

Modal Shift
Despite being a rural community, the City accommodates various transportation modes and users at the convergence of a major freeway, municipal airport, and rail line. The Project supports a modal shift by providing facilities for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users, contributing to reduced emissions. While widening the roadway, the Project introduces pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including a 10-foot multi-use path, on-street bike lanes, and sidewalks. Safety measures, such as widened intersections and new crossing gates, aim to encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel, particularly for residents of adjacent developments at Ellis and Tracy Hills.

Equity, Multimodal Options, and Quality of Life
Multimodal Accessibility and Universal Design
The Project has been meticulously planned not only to minimize vehicle conflict points, such as at the freeway interchange, but also to enhance non-motorized travel options, fostering connectivity and mobility for all users.

Currently lacking pedestrian and bicycle facilities on Corral Hollow Road between Linne Road and the Tracy Hills development, the Project addresses this by significantly improving pedestrian connectivity to the main arterial. The at-grade Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crossing, with limited safety features, will benefit from enhanced lighting and signalization, incorporating more universal design features. ADA compliance will be ensured through the provision of curb ramps and an ADA path of travel, supporting mobility for all users, regardless of abilities.

Reducing Housing Cost Burdens Through Strategic Development Despite robust employment growth in the City of Tracy, the population has outpaced employment growth, primarily driven by households with Bay Area workers, especially in Alameda County. According to the Sustainability Action Plan, only 20% of Tracy's resident workforce is employed within the city, well below the predicted 73% based on spatial match factors. The mixed-use Tracy Hills Development, classified as an Employment-Generating and High-Density Infill Project, aims to alleviate housing cost burdens by offering equitable housing options for Tracy residents while concurrently expanding employment opportunities. Ellis, identified as a mixed-use and traditional residential development, further contributes to diverse housing options, potentially reducing urban sprawl and lowering VMT as more residents secure local employment.

Promoting High Connectivity in Residential Developments The Tracy Hills and Ellis developments prioritize extensive connectivity for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.

Therefore, the Project seamlessly extends this connectivity by incorporating bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure along Corral Hollow Road, directly serving these developments. This extension enhances

2024 SJCOG One Voice® Application Form

12 transportation choices for individuals without cars, fostering a more inclusive and accessible urban environment.

8. Funding Plan for the project being nominated.

This section shows all the funds in each phase of the project. Please copy/paste tables if there is more than one funding source. Indicate in the comments section under “FUNDING AGENCY” whether the funds have been secured/committed or whether the funds are still being sought/not committed. Identify the name of the FUNDING AGENCY.

Feel free to change the names of the phases if they’re not applicable (i.e. substitute capital procurement for “construction” phase.

a. Project Funding Plan For Local Funds, please be specific, e.g., TIMF, RTIF, SB1, Measure K, etc.

Total Project Cost ($1,000s)
Implementing Agency Component Prior 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26+ Total E&P (PA&ED) $740 $740 City of Tracy
PS&E $1,350 $1,350 City of Tracy

R/W SUP (CT)

CON SUP (CT)
R/W $1,380 $1,380 City of Tracy
CON $17,608 $17,608 City of Tracy
TOTAL $740 $2,730 $17,608 $21,078

Fund No. 1: One Voice® Project Funding “Ask”
Funding ($1,000s)
Component Prior 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26+ Total Funding Agency E&P
(PA&ED) TBD
PS&E

R/W SUP
(CT)

CON SUP
(CT)
R/W
CON $8,804 $8,804
TOTAL $8,804 $8,804

Fund No. 2: Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Program Code Funding ($1,000s)
Component Prior 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26+ Total Funding Agency E&P
(PA&ED) $740 $740 City of Tracy
PS&E $1,350 $1,350

R/W SUP
(CT)

CON SUP
(CT)
R/W $1,380 $1,380
CON $8,804 $8,804
TOTAL $740 $2,730 $8,804 $8,804 $12,274

2024 SJCOG One Voice® Application Form

13 Fund No. 3: Program Code
Funding ($1,000s)
Component Prior 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26+ Total Funding Agency E&P
(PA&ED)
PS&E

R/W SUP
(CT)

CON SUP
(CT)
R/W
CON
TOTAL

Fund No. 4: Program Code
Funding ($1,000s)
Component Prior 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26+ Total Funding Agency E&P
(PA&ED)
PS&E

R/W SUP
(CT)

CON SUP
(CT)
R/W
CON
TOTAL

8b. Explain whether the sponsor is utilizing any formula funding for the project elements and detail how formula funds are being applied. If not utilizing formula funds, explain why formula funds are not being applied to the project.

8c. Provide a Funding Summary:

Line 1: One Voice® Request: $8,804,000
Line 2: Funds already secured: $12,274,000

Total Project (add lines 1, 2, and 3 above): $ 21,078,000

9. Letters of Community Support (or other information that show the project’s history in community engagement/support).

Attach letters of support from interested parties including community groups and other agencies.

2024 SJCOG One Voice® Application Form

14 10. Prospective federal funding opportunities that this project will apply to (check all that apply):

Please choose all applicable grants the City can discuss in Washington DC with elected officials, Biden Administration staff, and DOT HQ staff.

X Advanced Transportation Technology and Innovation (ATTAIN) program
❑ Bridge Investment Program
❑ Bus and Bus Facilities Competitive Grants
❑ Capital Investment Grants
❑ Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grants (Community Charging) ❑ Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grants (Corridor Charging) X Congestion Relief Program
❑ Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement Grants X Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE)
❑ Low or No Emission (Bus) Grants
❑ National Culvert Removal, Replacement, & Restoration Grant X National Infrastructure Project Assistance (Megaprojects) X Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (INFRA) ❑ Pilot Program for Enhanced Mobility
❑ Pilot Program for Transit Oriented Development
❑ Port Infrastructure Development Program Grants
❑ Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost Saving Transportation (PROTECT) - Discretionary
❑ Railroad Crossing Elimination Grants
❑ Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program
❑ Reduction of Truck Emissions at Port Facilities
X Safe Streets and Roads for All
X Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART) Grants
❑ Thriving Communities Program
❑ Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program
❑ Other: _____________________________________________

S A N J O A Q U I N

C O U N T Y
TRACY

MACARTHUR
DR
GRANT LINE RD
CENTRAL AVE
11TH ST
MOUNTAIN HOUSE PKY
LINNE RD
CHRISMAN RD
BYRON RD
CORRAL HOLLOW RD

CR CORAL HALLOWRD
TRACY BLVD
205
205
580
580
132
0 10.5 Miles
Location Map
City of Tracy
I-580/Corral Hollow Road
Interchange Project
Project Location
LEGEND

PROJECT
L

OCATION
Appendix A

I-580/Corral Hollow Road
Interchange Project
Letters of Support

September 11, 2023

The Honorable Pete Buttigieg
Secretary
United States Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590

RE: City of Tracy – Application for the Department of Transportation (DOT) Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant (MPDG) Program Grant for Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project

Dear Secretary Buttigieg:

I am writing to express my support for the Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project submitted by the City of Tracy for the Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant. The project supports rural mobility, economic development, and sustainability efforts in San Joaquin County.

San Joaquin County has been ranked as the nation’s super commuting capital for multiple years. Over eleven percent of residents across the County spend more than ninety minutes driving one way to work, usually commuting to a job in the San Francisco Bay Area. Corral Hollow Road is used as a regional bypass route for commuters avoiding the congested freeways that connect to the Bay Area. The conditions of the corridor and large traffic volumes have led to a deterioration in the quality of life for Tracy residents, increasingly long travel times, poor air quality, as well as a growing number of collisions. This project provides low-cost transportation choices to reduce the cost burden on low-income families and provides access to regional transit facilities, including the existing active transportation network and the Altamont Corridor Express commuter rail system.

This project implements several key elements to holistically improve the Corral Hollow Road Corridor.

Funding will be used to construct two roundabouts at the freeway ramp intersections, widen the overcrossing at I-580, install a multi-use path, expand Corral Hollow Road into a divided four-lane roadway with bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as replace the bridges over the California Aqueduct and the Delta Mendota Canal. As a project of the National Highway Freight Network and National Highway System, the Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project reduces Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Given that the Central Valley has the highest rate of children with asthma in the state and across the county, this project is critical to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, reducing overall traffic congestion, and improving air quality throughout the region.

Thank you for your full and fair consideration of the City of Tracy's application for the Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project.

Sincerely,

Josh Harder
Member of Congress

August 10, 2023

The Honorable Pete Buttigieg, Secretary
United States Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590

RE: City of Tracy – Application for the Department of Transportation (DOT) Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant (MPDG) Program Grant for Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project

Dear Secretary Buttigieg:

I respectfully write to you to express my support for the City of Tracy’s (City) pursuit of funding for the right of way and construction phases of the Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project (Project). With Caltrans’s support, this project will ensure we meet our federal, state multimodal transportation and equity goals.

The Project is located in the USDOT-designated rural census tracts in the City. The existing corridor is a narrow two-lane road that lacks bicycle and pedestrian facilities that provides a connection to I-580. Corral Hollow Road is used as a regional bypass route for commuters avoiding the congested freeways connecting to the Bay Area. The conditions of the corridor and traffic volumes have led to a deterioration in the quality of life, travel times, and air quality as well as an increasing number of collisions.

The Project implements three key elements to holistically improve the regionally significant Corral Hollow Road corridor. The Project includes the I -580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange improvements to construct two roundabouts at the freeway ramp intersections, widen the overcrossing at I-580, and install a Class I path; the Corral Hollow Road Improvements to widen the narrow two-lane roadway to a divided four-lane roadway with bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as replacing the bridges over the California Aqueduct and the Delta Mendota Canal; a nd the Corral Hollow Road/Linne Road Intersection improvements to install a new traffic signal and turn lanes, and improve the existing at-grade crossing with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Oakland Subdivision.

The comprehensive corridor -wide improveme nts will enhance safety, multimodal accessibility, and travel times. The Project components when addressed together will ease congestion on the corridor which serves as a bypass route to I -580 from the Bay Area, reduce vehicle miles traveled by providing a more efficient route, provide bicycle and

pedestrian facilities to encourage non-vehicular travel, improve goods movement access to I-580, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the San Joaquin County region.

Thank you for your full and fair consideratio n of the City’s application for the DOT’s MPDG grant program. If you have any questions, please feel free to cont act Israel Landa in my office at [email protected] or (916) 319-2019.

Sincerely,

Carlos Villapudua
State Assemblymember
13th District of California

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

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
P.O. BOX 942873, MS–49 | SACRAMENTO, CA 94273 –0001
(916) 654-6130 | FAX (916) 653-5776 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov

August 21, 2023

The Honorable Pete Buttigieg
Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590

Dear Secretary Buttigieg:

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) supports the application of the City of Tracy (City) to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant (MPDG) opportunity for Fiscal Year 2023 for the Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project (Project).

The City is seeking $40 million to fund the Project's right of way and construction phases. The Project includes three elements that will significantly improve multimodal travel and reduce construction in the City. These improvements include the construction of two roundabouts, widening the overcrossing, and installing a multi-use trail at the Interstate 580/Corral Hollow Road interchange; widening 1.25 miles of Corral Hollow Road to a four-lane divided arterial with bike lanes and sidewalks as well as replacing bridges over the California Aqueduct and Delta Mendota Canal; and improve the Corral Hollow Road and Linne Road intersection and adjacent Union Pacific Railroad at-grade crossing.

The Project will enhance multimodal safety along the corridor, reduce vehicle congestion, improve goods movement for trucks and trains, provide low-cost transportation alternatives to reduce the transportation-housing cost burden, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and minimizes environmental impacts. The Project also improves public health through improved air quality and access to active transportation facilities for this USDOT-designated rural community.

Caltrans would like to thank USDOT for its consideration of this Project.

Sincerely,

TONY TAVARES
Director

SAN JOA QUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
555 E. Weber Avenue  Stockton, California 95202  P 209.235.0600  F 209.235.0438  www.sjcog.org

Robert Rickman
CHAIR
David Bellinger

VICE-CHAIR
Diane Nguyen

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Member Agencies

CITIES OF

ESCALON,

LATHROP,
LODI,

MANTECA,
RIPON,

STOCKTON,
TRACY,
AND

THE COUNTY OF SAN

JOAQUIN

August 18, 2023

The Honorable Pete Buttigieg
Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590

RE: City of Tracy – Application for the Department of Transport ation (DOT) Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant (MPDG) Program Grant for Corral Hol low Road Corridor Project

Dear Secretary Buttigieg:

I would like to express my support for the City of Tracy’s (City) pursuit of funding for the right of way and construction phases of the Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project (Project).

The Project is located in the USDOT-designated rural census tra cts in the City. The existing corridor is a narrow two-lane road that lacks bicycle and pedes trian facilities that provides a connection to I-580. Corral Hollow Road is used as a regional bypass route for commuters avoiding the congested freeways connecting to the Bay Area. The conditions of the corridor and traffic volumes have led to a deterioration in quality of life, travel times, air quality, and an increasing number of collisions.

The Project implements three key elements to holistically improve the regionally significant Corral Hollow Road corridor. The Project includes the I-580/Corral Hol low Road Interchange improvements to construct two roundabouts at the freeway ramp i ntersections, widen the overcrossing at I-580, and install a Class I path; the Corral Hollow Road Improvements to widen the narrow two-lane roadway to a divided four-lane roadway with bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as replacing the bridges over the California Aqueduct a nd the Delta Mendota Canal; and the Corral Hollow Road/Linne Road Intersection improvements to install a new traffic signal and turn lanes, and improve the existing at-grade crossing with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Oakland Subdivision.

The comprehensive corridor-wide improvements will enhance safet y, multimodal accessibility, and travel times. The Project components when addressed togethe r will ease congestion on the corridor which serves as a bypass route to I-580 from the Bay A rea, reduce vehicle miles traveled by providing a more efficient route, provide bicycle and pedest rian facilities to encourage non- vehicular travel, improve goods movement access to I-580, and r educe greenhouse gas emissions in the San Joaquin County region.

Thank you for your full and fair consideration of the City’s application for the DOT’s MPDG grant program. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to c ontact me at [email protected] or (209) 235-0600.

Sincerely,

DIANE NGUYEN
Executive Director

“Creating a Community Where Business Thrives”
222233 EEaasstt TTeenntthh SSttrreeeett,, TTrraaccyy,, CCAA 9955337766 PPhhoonnee:: ((220099)) 883355--22113311 wwwwww..ttrraaccyycchhaammbbeerr..oorrgg

August 17, 2023

The Honorable Pete Buttigieg
Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590

RE: City of Tracy – Application for the Department of Transportation (DOT) Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant (MPDG) Program Grant for Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project
Dear Secretary, Buttigieg:

I would like to express the Tracy Chamber of Commerce's support for the City of Tracy’s (City) pursuit of funding for the right of way and construction phases of the Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project (Project).

The Project is located in the USDOT-designated rural census tracts in the City. The existing corridor is a narrow two-lane road that lacks bicycle and pedestrian facilities that provides a connection to I-580. Corral Hollow Road is used as a regional bypass route for commuters avoiding the congested freeways connecting to the Bay Area. The conditions of the corridor and traffic volumes have led to a deterioration in the quality of life, travel times, and air quality as well as an increasing number of collisions.

The Project implements three key elements to holistically improve the regionally significant Corral Hollow Road corridor . The Project includes the I-580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange improvements to construct two roundabouts at the freeway ramp intersections, widen the overcrossing at I-580, and install a Class I path; the Corral Hollow Road Improvements to widen the narrow two-lane roadway to a divided four-lane roadway with bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as replacing the bridges over the California Aqueduct and the Delta Mendota Canal; and the Corral Hollow Road/Linne Road Intersection improvements to install a new traffic signal and turn lanes, and improve the existing at-grade crossing with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Oakland Subdivision.

The comprehensive corridor-wide improvements will enhance safety, multimodal accessibility, and travel times. The Project components when addressed together will ease congestion on the corridor which serves as a bypass route to I-580 from the Bay Area, reduce vehicle miles traveled by providing a more efficient route, provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities to encourage non- vehicular travel, improve goods movement access to I-580, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the San Joaquin County region. The Project will improve connectivity and movement for business owners, employees, and goods that will help existing businesses and help attract business growth in Tracy and throughout the region.

“Creating a Community Where Business Thrives”
Thank you for your full and fair consideration of the City’s application for the DOT’s MPDG grant program. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or (209) 835-2131.

Sincerely,

Maria Valenzuela, CEO
Tracy Chamber of Commerce

24 W. 10th Street Tracy, CA 95376 | 209.229.7954 | www.tracyhillslife.com

August 21, 2023

The Honorable Pete Buttigieg
Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
RE: City of Tracy – Application for the Department of Transportation (DOT) Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant (MPDG) Program Grant for Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project Dear Secretary Buttigieg:

As the owner of the Tracy Hills Project, I would like to express my support for the City of Tracy’s (City) pursuit of funding for the right of way and construction phases of the Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project (Project).

The Project is located in the USDOT-designated rural census tracts in the City. The existing corridor is a narrow two-lane road that lacks bicycle and pedestrian facilities that provides a connection to I-580. Corral Hollow Road is used as a regional bypass route for commuters avoiding the congested freeways connecting to the Bay Area. The conditions of the corridor and traffic volumes have led to a deterioration in the quality of life, travel times, and air quality as well as an increasing number of collisions.

The Project implements three key elements to holistically improve the regionally significant Corral Hollow Road corridor. The Project includes the I-580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange improvements to construct two roundabouts at the freeway ramp intersections, widen the overcrossing at I-580, and install a Class I path; the Corral Hollow Road Improvements to widen the narrow two-lane roadway to a divided four-lane roadway with bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as replacing the bridges over the California Aqueduct and the Delta Mendota Canal; and the Corral Hollow Road/Linne Road Intersection improvements to install a new traffic signal and turn lanes, and improve the existing at-grade crossing with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Oakland Subdivision.

The comprehensive corridor-wide improvements will enhance safety, multimodal accessibility, and travel times. The Project components when addressed together will ease congestion on the corridor which serves as a bypass route to I-580 from the Bay Area, reduce vehicle miles traveled by providing a more efficient route, provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities to encourage non-vehicular travel, improve goods movement access to I-580, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the San Joaquin County region.

Thank you for your full and fair consideration of the City’s application for the DOT’s MPDG grant program. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or (949) 720-3612.

Sincerely,

John Stanek
Project Owner
DocuSign Envelope ID: 89B4F859-0C8D-4792-8EED-8285EB78A52B

September 26, 2023
The Honorable Pete Bu�gieg
Secretary of the United States Department of Transporta�on 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
RE: City of Tracy – Applica�on for the Department of Transporta�on (DOT) Mul�modal Project Discre�onary Grant (MPDG) Program Grant for Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project Dear Secretary Bu�gieg:

I would like to express my support for the City of Tracy’s (City) pursuit of funding for the construc�on phase of the Corral Hollow Road Corridor Project (Project).

The Project is located in the USDOT-designated rural census tracts in the City. The exis�ng corridor is a narrow two-lane road that lacks bicycle and pedestrian facili�es that provides a connec�on to I-580.

Corral Hollow Road is used as a regional bypass route for commuters avoiding the congested freeways connec�ng to the Bay Area. The condi�ons of the corridor and traffic volumes have led to a deteriora�on in the quality of life, travel �mes, and air quality as well as an increasing number of collisions.

The Project implements three key elements to holis�cally improve the regionally significant Corral Hollow Road corridor . The Project includes the I-580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange improvements to construct two roundabouts at the freeway ramp intersec�ons, widen the overcrossing at I-580, and install a Class I path; the Corral Hollow Road Improvements to widen the narrow two-lane roadway to a divided four-lane roadway with bicycle and pedestrian facili�es as well as replacing the bridges over the California Aqueduct and the Delta Mendota Canal; and the Corral Hollow Road/Linne Road Intersec�on improvements to install a new traffic signal and turn lanes, and improve the exis�ng at-grade crossing with the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Oakland Subdivision.

The comprehensive corridor-wide improvements will enhance safety, mul�modal accessibility, and travel �mes. The Project components when addressed together will ease conges�on on the corridor which serves as a bypass route to I-580 from the Bay Area, reduce vehicle miles traveled by providing a more efficient route, provide bicycle and pedestrian facili�es to encourage non-vehicular travel, improve goods movement access to I-580, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the San Joaquin County region.

Thank you for your full and fair considera�on of the City’s applica�on for the DOT’s MPDG grant program.

If you have any ques�ons, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or 209- 831-6575.

Sin
cerely,

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

Y CITY COUNCIL
RES
OLUTION 2024-_____
APPRO
VING THE SELECTION OF INTERSTATE 580/CORRAL HOLLOW
ROAD INTERCHANGE PROJECT AS THE CITY OF TRACY 2024 REGIONAL

TRANSPORTATION PROJECT SUBMITTAL FOR CONGRESSIONAL

APPROPRIATION REQUESTS DURING SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS’ ONE VOICE TRIP TO WASHINGTON D.C.

WHER
EAS, the City of Tracy submits a list of projects each year to San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) for consideration in their legislative agenda and congressional appropriation requests during the One Voice trip to Washington D.C.; and WHER
EAS, this year the City was asked to submit a project of regional significance; and WHER
EAS, staff has reviewed the existing needs of various transportation projects and reviewed the project criteria provided by SJCOG; and
WHER
EAS, staff has determined that Interstate 580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange project is best suited for submission to SJCOG; and
WHER
EAS, staff submitted the application to SJCOG in November of 2023; and WHER
EAS, staff would like Council approval to continue the process with SJCOG and to include the project in the City Councils’ One Voice Trip; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED
: That the City Council approves the selection of the Interstate 580/Corral Hollow Road Interchange project as the City of Tracy 2024 regional transportation project submittal for congressional appropriation requests during San Joaquin Council of Governments’ One Voice trip to Washington D.C.
* * *
* * * * * * * * * * *
Resolution 2024-_____

The foregoing Resolution 2024-_____ was adopted by the Tracy City Council on the 16th day of January 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTENTION: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
______________________________
NANCY D. YOUNG
Mayor
of the City of Tracy, California
ATTEST: ____________
_____________

ADRIANNE RICHARDSON
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the
City of Tracy, California
January 16, 2024
Agenda Item 1.D

RECOMMENDA
TION
Staff Recommends that the Tracy City Council Receive an informational report regarding the Police Department ’s update on Crime Statistics of Homicide, Rape, Robbery, and Aggravated Assaults.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tracy Police Department (TPD) presents to the City Council an update to the report for calendar year 2023 violent crime statistics on homicides, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. This report update pertains to the third-quarter of 2023, months July through September. The attached crime statistic report provides a breakdown of each category per month wit h neighboring cities comparisons and a graph providing an overall Per Capita report comparison.

BACKGROUND AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Tracy City Council Member Dan Evans requested an on-g oing update report to be provided to the Council regarding violent crime. As agreed during discussions with City staff , this report will be provided quarterly as an informational document with monthly statistics unless otherwise requested. This report is an update that covers the months of July-September 2023. An aggregate 9-month chart also cover the 9-month totals for 2023. This report is specific to Homicide, Rape, Robbery and Aggravated Assaults.

Areas of note or clarification:
• Homicides w
ithin Tracy increased from 5 total in 2022 to 8 victims (in 7 incidents) in 2023 year to date. The homicide investigations were targeted incidents specific to those involved. At this point there does not appear to be a community danger or acts of random violenc e as the majority of the homicides were domestic violence related in nature. • Per Capita chart is a “running log” so it is anticipated that it will continue to go up slightly for second half of 2023 given historical trends.

Highlights
:

TPD continues t
o proactively address crim e trends through Prevention Intervention and Enforcement. During this reporting period we deployed directed patrol units in specific sensitive areas based on crime trends or intelligence. We conducted Organized Retail Crime 1 day operation which resulted in 10 arrests.

TPD continues t
o host a dedicated staff member of San Joaquin County Victim/Witness program via San Joaquin DA’s office at TPD to offer victims of violent crime resources to assist them and provide education in efforts to prevent future crimes.

TPD is aggres
sively seeking alternative funding programs from both State and Federal Grants to assist in the implementation of a Real Time Information Center (RTIC). Grant Funding has been tentatively approved and pending award. This program is one of our Council Strategic Priority Goals for the 2023-2025 plan. Benefits of an RTIC include:

Agenda Item 1.D
January 16, 2024

• Force multiplier by utilizing technology
• Real time intelligence video room
• Integration of technology (Fleet 3, Flock, and Drones) • Integrated to social
media platforms
• Assist in adequate and effective resource response
TPD has partnered
with Live View Technologies (LVT) to acquire mobile trailer security camera pods to be used in prevention, deterrence, asset protection and investigations.

TPD is partnering
with San Joaquin County Dis trict Attorney’s Office in a newly organized task force/program F.I.R.S.T. (Fentanyl Intervention and Response Safety Team). This program will focus on prevention through educ ation, train ing for enforcement and adequate prosecutorial process for drug dealers. Drugs often have a nexus to acts of violent crime.

In addition to t
he attached report, the Public may access crime statistics using the following links:
https://tra
cypd.com/crime-mapping
https://www.crimemapping.com/Alerts
https://www.crimemapping.com/map/agency/377

FISCAL IMPACT

This informational report has no fiscal impact. The programs outlined in this report are funded through the Tracy Police Department Operations budget.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This agenda item relates to the Council’s Strategic Plan in the a rea of Public Safety, specifically Goal #3: Strengthen community safety through crime prevention reduction activities.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff Recommends that the Tracy City Council Receive an informational report regarding the Police Department’s update on Crime Statistics of Homicide, Rape, Robbery, and Aggravated Assaults.

Prepared by: Octavio Lopez, Police Captain
Reviewed by: Sekou Millington, Chief of Police
Sara Cowell, Director of Finance
Approved by: Midori Lichtwardt, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: Updated Crime Statistics Report (January-September 2023).

Bijal Patel, City Attorney
Attachment A
CRIM

E STATISTICS
January-September 2023
Homicide, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault

2 2023 Violen
t Crime Stats – First 3 Quarters
Tracy Stockton Manteca Livermore
Population* 95,387 322,120 85,792 86,803
Rate Per 10,000 Residents 18.0 87.0 27.7 16.2

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0

80.0 90.0
100.0
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
Violent Crime Rate
January
-
September
(Per 10,000 Residents)
Population based on 2021 Census Figures
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Homicide Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault
8 11 54 9938 59
849
1855
4 44 50 140
0 16 47 78
Violent Crime
Jan
-
Sept
2023
Tracy Stockton Manteca Livermore
3 July-September Comparisons Crime
0 1
2 3
4 5
Jul Aug Sept
1 1
0 3 3
5 0 0 00 0 0
Homicide
July
-
September
2023
Tracy Stockton Manteca Livermore
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 Jul Aug Sept
1 0
1 6
8 9
7 8
5 7
12 4
Rape
July
-
September
2023
Tracy Stockton Manteca Livermore
4 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
Jul Aug Sept
9 2 7
111
99 97
9 5 3
11 11
3 Robbery
July
-
September
2023
Tracy Stockton Manteca Livermore
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
Jul Aug Sept
11 14 14
238 247 257
20 24 147 12 4
Aggravated Assault
July
-
September
2023
Tracy Stockton Manteca Livermore
January 16, 2024
Agenda Item 1.E
RECOMM

ENDATION
Staff
recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (1) accepting public improvements as complete for MacArthur Drive / Grant Line Road Intersection constructed by Prologis, L.P, a Delaware Limited Partnership, (2) authorizing the City Engineer to release bonds in accordance with the Tracy Municipal Code section

12.36.080, for the public improvements, and (3) authorizing the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion for improvements with the San Joaquin County Recorder’s Office.

EXECUTI

VE SUMMARY
Prologi
s, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership (Developer), has completed public improvements for MacArthur Drive / Grant Line Road Intersection (referred to as “Improvement”) in accordance with approved plans. Staff recommends City Council accept the Improvement as completed, authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for Improvements, and authorize the City Engineer to release the Developer’s bonds for the Improvement.

BACKG

ROUND AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
On Nove
mber 10, 2020, the City Council approved Developer's Development Review Application No. D20-0017 for the development of “Big Bird” on certain property owned by Developer in the NEI Specific Plan area.

MacArt
hur Drive / Grant Line Road Intersection Improvements.

The MacArt
hur Drive / Grant Line Road Intersection improvements were a required mitigation measure for a parking lot expansion on the “Big Bird” site pursuant to Development Review Application D21-0008, approved on May 4, 2021. It included the construction of a new westbound right-turn pocket on East Grant Line Road at the intersection of MacArthur Drive.

The Improvements also included curb and gutter, sidewalk, landscaping and irrigation of the park strip, street lighting, and improvements to the traffic signal.

Impr
ovement plans were approved and signed by the City Engineer on January 25, 2022. The plans included ten (10) sheets of civil improvement plans prepared by Kier & Wright Civil Engineers and Surveyors, Inc. of Livermore, California, seven (7) sheets of irrigation and landscape plans prepared by Green Design Landscape Architects, Inc. of Reno, Nevada, and three (3) sheets of traffic signal, signing and striping plans prepared by TJKM of Pleasanton, California. Inspection fees were paid by the developer in the amount of $27,040 on December 6, 2021.

ANALYSIS

Constr
uction began in June 2022 and was substantially completed in late July 2022. The Big Bird parking lot expansion, for which this work was required as a mitigation measure, was completed and a Temporary Occupancy Permit was issued on June 30, 2022.

Agenda Item 1.E
January 16, 2024

The City did not enter into a standard Offsite Im provement Agreement with the Developer in accor
dance with the Tracy Municipal C ode. Staff has developed procedures to ensure proper oversight
on future projects. Developer did, however, provide a one-year War ranty bond for all publi
c
improvements as well as Performance bonds. Specif ically, the following bonds were provided by Developer as follows:

Bond Type
Faithful Performance $291,381
Labor and Material $291,381
Warranty $29,138
Developer has
completed all work and has requested acceptance of the public improvements.

The City Engineer has inspected the completed work and confirmed that the improvements conform to the City’s design documents and approved plans. The City Clerk will file the Notice of Completion at the San Joaquin County Recorder’s Office. Subsequently, performance and materials and labor bonds may be released per Tracy Municipal Code 12.36.080.

The estimated
cost of the intersection public improvements is as follows:

Cost Breakdown
Roadway Improvements $93,585
Water $6,396
Traffic Signal $165,000
Landscaping $26,400
Total $291,381
Because the Improvements are completed accor ding to the plans, and because the Developer provided Warranty bonds for all public improvements, staff recommends accepting the improvements notwithstanding the lack of an Offsite Improvement Agreement.

Faithful Performance bonds may be released upon acceptance of improvements by the City.

Labor and ma
terial bonds may be released t hirty days after the r ecordation of the Notice of Completion as the statute of limitations period expires in accordance with Civil Code §9356.

Warranty bonds may be released one year after City acceptance of improvements and warranty wor
k is completed.

All lands on which this Project was constructed are owned by the City in fee title. No additional land dedications were required.

FISCAL IMPACT
All Improvements were completed by the Developer in acco rdance with the approved plans and there is no fiscal impact asso ciated with the requested actions. Upon acceptance, the following asset values will be shown on the City’s financial records:

Cost Breakdown
Roadway Improvements $93,585
Water $6,396
Traffic Signal $165,000
Agenda Item 1.E
January 16, 2024

Landscaping $26,400
Total $291,381
The City wil
l assume maintenance and repair obligations for the foregoing assets, through its already budgeted operations.

PUBLIC OUTRE

ACH / INTEREST
Not applicable
.

COORDINATIO
N
Project con
struction activities were coordinated with City of Tracy Public Works Department.

CEQA DETERMI
NATION
An analysis
of the Project showed that there would be no significant on or off-site impacts as a result of this particular project which were not already evaluated in the Northeast Industrial Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Reports. There was also no evidence of any significant impacts to occur off-site as a result of the Project, as traffic, air quality, land use and other potential cumulative impacts had already been considered within the original environmental documentation. No new evidence of potentially significant effects had been identified for the Improvements, and therefore no further environmental review was needed prior to Developer’s commencement of construction.

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

ACTION REQUE

STED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
That the City
Council adopt a resolution to: (1) accept public improvements as complete for MacArthur Drive / Grant Line Road Intersection constructed by Prologis, L.P, a Delaware Limited Partnership, (2) authorize the City Engineer to release bonds in accordance with the Tracy Municipal Code section 12.36.080, for the public improvements, and (3) authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion for improvements with the San Joaquin County Recorder’s Office.

Prepared by:

Leisser P. Mazariegos, Associate Engineer
Al Gali, Associate Engineer
Reviewed by:

Koosun Kim, PE, City Engineer / Assistant Director of Development Services Sara Cowell, Finance Director
Bijal M. Patel, City Attorney
Karin Schnaider, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Midor
i Lichtwardt, City Manager

ATTACHMENT
S
Attachment A – Vicinity Map: Grant Line / MacArthur

ATTACHMENT A

PROJECT LOCATION






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

TRACY CITY COUNCIL
RESOL
UTION 2024-_____
(1) ACCEP

TING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AS COMPLETE FOR

MACARTHUR DRIVE / GRANT LINE ROAD INTERSECTION, CONSTRUCTED BY PROLOGIS, L.P, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AND
(2) AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO RELEASE BONDS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRACY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 12.36.080 FOR THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS; AND
(3) AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY RECORDER’S OFFICE.

WHEREAS, Prologis, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership (Developer), has completed public improvements for M acArthur Drive / Grant Line Road Intersection (Improvement) in accordance with approved plans; and
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2020, the City Council approved Developer's Development Review Application No. D20-0017 for development of project site known as “Big Bird” on certain property owned by Developer in the NEI Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, the Improvements included the construction of a new westbound right-turn pocket on East Grant Line Road at the intersection of MacArthur Drive and were a mitigation measure required for a parking lot expansion on the Big Bird site, Development Review Application D21-0008, approved on May 4, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Improvements also included curb and gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, and irrigation of the park strip, street lighting, and improvements to the traffic signal; plans were approved and signed by the City Engineer on January 25, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Improvement plans include ten ( 10) sheets of civil improvement plans prepared by Kier & Wright Civil Engineers and Surveyors, Inc. of Livermore, California, seven (7) sheets of irrigation and landscape plans prepared by Green Design Landscape Architects, Inc. of Reno, Nevada, and three (3) sheets of traffic signal, signing and st riping plans prepared by TJKM of Pleasanton, California; and
WHEREAS, construction of the Improvements began in June 2022 and was substantially complete in late July 2022; and the Temporary Occupancy Permit issued on June 30, 2022; and
WHEREA
S, the estimated cost of the public improvements is as follows:

Cost Br
eakdown
Roadway Improvements $ 93,585
Water $ 6,396
Resolution 2024-_____

Traffic Signal $ 165,000
Landscaping $ 26,400
Total $ 291,381; and
WHEREA
S, the City Engineer has inspected the completed work and confirmed that the Improvements conform to the City design documents and approved plans; and WHEREA
S, unfortunately, the City did not enter into a standard Offsite Improvement Agreement with the Developer, in accordance with the Tracy Municipal Code and staff is ensuring such oversight does not occur again; and
WHEREA
S, the Developer did, however, provided a one-year Warranty bond for all public improvements. Bonds were provided by Developer as follows:

Bond Type
Fai
thful Performance $ 291,381
Labor and Material $ 291,381
Warranty $ 29,138; and
WHEREAS, because the Improvements are completed according to the Plans, staff recommends accepting the improvements notwithstanding the lack of the Offsite Improvement Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Faithful Performance bonds may be released upon acceptance of improvements by the City; Labor and Material bonds may be released thirty days after the reco
rdation of the Notice of Completion as the statute of limitations period expires in accordance with Civil Code §9356; Warranty bonds may be released one year after City acceptance of improvements and warranty work is completed; and
WHEREAS, all lands on which this Improvement was constructed are owned by t he City in f
ee title and no additional land dedications were required; and WHEREAS, an analysis of the Project showed that there would be no significant on or off-site impacts as a result of this particular pr oject which were not already evaluated in the Northeast Industrial Specific Plan and G eneral Plan Environmental Impact Reports. There was also no evidence of any significant impacts to occur off-site as a result of the Project, as traffic, air quality, land use and other potential cumulative impacts had already been considered within the original environmental documentation; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: That City Council hereby accepts the Improvements as complete for MacArthur Drive / Grant Line Road Intersection in accordance with the approved plans; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Council authorizes the City Engineer to release Developer bonds in accordance with Tracy Municipal Code sect ion 12.36.080; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Council hereby determines that this action does not
raise any new unforeseen physical impacts not previously analyzed in the Northeast Industrial Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Reports; no new evidence of potentially significant effects had been identified for the Improvements, and therefore no further Resolution 2024-_____

environmental review was needed prior to Developer’s commencement of construction of the Improvements, and be it

FURTHER
RESOLVED: That City Council authorize the City Clerk to file Notice of Completion with San Joaquin County Recorder’s Office.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
The foregoing Resolution 2024-_____ was adopted by the Tracy City Council on 16th of January, 2024, by
the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEM
BERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

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

ADRIANNE RICHARDSON
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of
the City
of Tracy, California
January 16, 2024
Agenda Item 1.F

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (1) finding that DV Electric, Inc. is non-responsive and not responsible; (2) rescinding Resolution No. 2023-131 awarding a construction contract to DV Electric, Inc., for the 384 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112; (3) rescinding Resolution No. 2023-132, awarding construction contract to DV Electric, Inc. for the 370 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112; (4) rejecting all bids for the 384 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112 received May 25, 2023 and the 370 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112 received May 17, 2023; and (5) authorizing staff to re-advertise both projects for public bidding.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends that City Council make a finding that DV Electric, Inc. (Contractor) of San Jose, California, is non-responsive and not responsible, rescind Resolution No. 2023-131 and Resolution No. 2023-132, that awarded construction contracts to the Contractor for the 384 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, and the 370 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, components of the Temporary Emergency Housing Facility, CIP 71112. Staff also recommends that City Council reject all bids for the 384 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112, received May 25, 2023, and reject all bids for the 370 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112, received May 17, 2023, given the passage of time since the original bidding process. Finally, staff requests that City Council authorize staff to re-advertise both projects.

BACKGROUND AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Given the complexity and magnitude of the homelessness crisis, further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the limited supply of affordable permanent housing options in the City and throughout San Joaquin County, there is a significant and immediate need for interim housing solutions in the City, including interim emergency housing. Concerns about the public health, safety, and welfare of unsheltered individuals grow as the months progress without options to shelter the unhoused.

On March 10, 2020, the Tracy City Council (Council) adopted Resolution No. 2020-050, which declared a shelter crisis pursuant to California Government Code Section 8698.2. For the following years, the City actively pursued the development and construction of a temporary housing shelter on City-owned land located on Arbor Road to serve as an ongoing full-service temporary housing solution for the City’s unsheltered (Temporary Emergency Housing Facility Project, CIP 71112).

On September 1, 2020, Council authorized the creation of a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for the Temporary Emergency Housing Facility Project on Arbor Road, CIP 71112, to create a safe and dignified facility for residents experiencing homelessness.

To expedite the needed site work for the project, the construction work was divided into a preliminary phase (Phase I), which consisted of demolition, rough grading, and installation of underground utilities, with contract documents prepared by City staff. On April 19, 2022, City Agenda Item 1.F
January 16, 2024

Council awarded a construction contract to GradeTech, Inc., of San Ramon, California and improvements under that contract have been completed.

Phase II Site Improvements bid package, that includes the permanent site improvements, Sprung structure, restroom complex, kitchen, and fencing is currently being prepared for re- bidding, but due to the long lead times of electrical equipment, it was decided that strategically phased components should be bid out separately, in advance of the Phase II improvements, in order to coordinate lead times for the electrical and lift station equipment delivery with Phase II project completion.

Phase III was developed using five leased modular buildings, including four designed for housing, and was opened in November of 2022 to serve 48 unsheltered individuals. Due to the lack of infrastructure on the site, occupancy of Phase III required the lease of portable diesel generators to provide power to the buildings and life safety systems. The 384 Arbor Road and 370 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Projects, CIP 71112, were advertised for bids in an effort to shorten the time period that the temporary power supplies would be required.

Phase IV was completed in December of 2023 and consists of eight (8) Custom Container dormitories manufactured using shipping containers. Phase IV provides an additional thirty- eight (38) beds to serve the unsheltered population in Tracy.

The KPA Group, along with City Engineering staff, prepared the plans and specifications and advertised the 384 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112, for competitive bids on April 28, 2023, and May 5, 2023. Bids were received and publicly opened on May 25, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. with the following results:

Contractor Bid Amount
DV Electric Company, Inc., San Jose, CA $373,745
Bockman & Woody Electric, Inc., Stockton, CA $406,110
The KPA Group, along with City Engineering staff, prepared the plans and specifications and advertised the 370 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112, for competitive bids on April 21, 2023, and April 28, 2023. Bids were received and publicly opened on May 17, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. with the following results:

Contractor Bid Amount
DV Electric Company, Inc., San Jose, CA $208,661
Bockman & Woody Electric, Inc., Stockton, CA $336,700
On July 5, 2023, the City Council awarded two separate contracts to DV Electric for CIP 71112 Main Power Supply Project: one for 384 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project and the second for 370 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project.

The Notice of Award letters were issued to the Contractor on July 25, 2023, notifying the Contractor of the required documents that must be submitted within ten (10) days, to complete the contract. The bid documents include the ten (10) day requirements in both the Instructions to Bidders and the General Conditions. Article 4 – Bonds, Indemnity, and Insurance of the General Conditions, Section 4.1 Payment and Performance Bonds, requires the Contractor to submit bonds within ten (10) days following issuance of the Notice of Award. Section 4.3 – Insurance, requires the Contractor to procure and provide proof of insurance required by the Agenda Item 1.F
January 16, 2024

Section no later than ten (10) days following issuance of the Notice of Award.

Staff did not receive complete contract documents from the Contractor until September 11, 2023. The Contractor failed to submit the contract documents and additional federal regulatory documents as required by the General Provisions and Instructions to Bidders in the Bid Documents within the timeframe of ten (10) days.

On August 14, 2023, staff made contact with Contractor to attempt retrieval of both contracts with all corresponding documentation. On August 17,, 2023, staff received two copies of contracts, one for each project; however, both sets of contract documents were incomplete. On August 21, 2023, staff contacted the Contractor to notify them the package was incomplete and allowed the Contractor 24 hours to submit missing documents. Contractor requested to deliver documents in person to review both sets of contract documents with staff. Staff agreed to meet with Contractor on August 29, 2023, and during that meeting determined that there were still missing required seals on certain documents and Contractor agreed to return in person, with the required seal, to finalized contract documents. On September 5, 2023, Contractor met in person with City staff to review the contract for missing and incomplete documents. Staff completed a final review of contracts for both projects, determined that the files were ready for final review and execution. On September 7, 2023, as part of the risk management review, it was noted by the reviewer that there were missing insurance endorsements. The required correction and endorsement requirements were forwarded by staff to the Contractor. The Contractor returned missing insurance endorsements on September 11, 2023.

ANALYSIS
As noted above, staff had to meet with the Contractor several times after the award of the contract to receive all the requisite documents. The overall time extended well beyond the stipulated ten (10) days. Upon receipt of all documents to complete the contract and submittal for full execution from City, staff met internally to discuss their concerns with working with this Contractor due to their lack of attention to details, lack of responsiveness in completing documents, and inability to follow clearly stated requirements set forth in the General Provisions and Bid Documents. Given the criticality of completing the work with the highest standards and on a timely basis, staff concluded it was in the best interest of the City to seek City Council’s authority in rescinding the prior awards and rejecting all bids. Delays by this Contractor in procuring the requisite equipment and performing the work would cause further delays in implementing Phase II and the City may not learn of the delays until well into the contract.

Further, due to the passage of time, selecting the second lowest bidder is not an option.

Based on the above, staff has determined that the Contractor is non-responsive and not responsible, and requests that City Council rescind Resolution No. 2023-131 and Resolution No. 2023-132 awarding both contracts to DV Electric, Inc., reject all bids for the 384 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112, received May 25, 2023, and for the 370 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112, received May 17, 2023, and authorize staff to re- advertise both projects for public bidding.

FISCAL IMPACT
This action has no impact on the Project budget for CIP 71112 Temporary Emergency Housing Project on Arbor Road.

Agenda Item 1.F
January 16, 2024

PUBLIC OUTREACH / INTEREST
Not applicable.

COORDINATION
Not applicable.

CEQA DETERMINATION
Government Code Section 8698.4 exempts the application of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to various actions taken by public agencies to implement the construction of a homeless shelter in response to a declared shelter crisis. In addition, the interim solutions taken thus far are in furtherance of and related to the permanent solution that will be implemented, referred to as the Temporary Emergency Housing Project on Arbor Avenue (CIP 71112). A Notice of Exemption was issued on October 16, 2020, for the Temporary Emergency Housing site at 500 Arbor Avenue in accordance with Government Code sections 65660-65662 for Low Barrier Navigation Centers and Section 15269(c) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal Code Regs. 15269(c) for (Emergency Projects).

STRATEGIC PLAN
This agenda item supports the City of Tracy’s Public Safety Strategic Priority and aids in Goal No. 2, “Implement the Adopted Homelessness Strategic Plan”.

ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council, by resolution (1) find that DV Electric, Inc. is non- responsive and not responsible; (2) rescind Resolution No. 2023-131 awarding a construction contract to DV Electric, Inc., for the 384 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112; (3) rescind Resolution No. 2023-132, awarding construction contract to DV Electric, Inc. for the 370 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112; (4) reject all bids for 384 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112, received May 25, 2023 and for 370 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112, May 17, 2023; and (5) authorize staff to re-advertise both projects for public bidding.

Prepared by: Ilene Macintire, PE, Senior Civil Engineer Reviewed by: Koosun Kim, PE, City Engineer / Assistant Director of Development Services Sara Cowell, Finance Director
Bijal M. Patel, City Attorney
Karin Schnaider, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Midori Lichtwardt, City Manager

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

TRACY CITY COUNCIL
RESO
LUTION 2024-_____
(1) F
INDING THAT DV ELECTRIC, INC. IS NON- RESPONSIVE AND NOT RESPONSIBLE; (2) RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2023-131 AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO DV ELECTRIC, INC., FOR THE 384 ARBOR ROAD MAIN POWER SUPPLY PROJECT, CIP 71112; (3) RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2023- 132, AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO DV ELECTRIC, INC. FOR THE 370 ARBOR ROAD MAIN POWER SUPPLY PROJECT, CIP 71112; (4) REJECTING ALL BIDS FOR THE 384 ARBOR ROAD MAIN POWER SUPPLY PROJECT, CIP 71112 RECEIVED MAY 25, 2023 AND THE 370 ARBOR ROAD MAIN POWER SUPPLY PROJECT, CIP 71112 RECEIVED MAY 17, 2023; AND (5) AUTHORIZING STAFF TO RE-ADVERTISE BOTH PROJECTS FOR PUBLIC BIDDING.

WHEREA
S, on March 10, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-050, which declared a shelter crisis pursuant to California Government Code Section 8698.2, and for the following years, the City actively pursued the development and construction of a temporary housing shelter on City-owned land located on Arbor Road to serve as an ongoing full-service temporary housing solution for the City’s unsheltered; and WHEREA
S, on September 1, 2020, the City Council authorized the creation of a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for the Temporary Emergency Housing Project on Arbor Road, CIP 71112, to create a safe and dignified facility for residents experiencing homelessness; and WHEREA
S, to expedite the needed site work for the project, the construction work was divided into a preliminary phase (Phase I), which consisted of demolition, rough grading, and installation of underground utilities, with contract documents prepared by City staff. On April 19, 2022, City Council awarded a construction contract to GradeTech, Inc., of San Ramon, California and improvements under that contract have been completed; and WHEREA
S, Phase II Site Improvements bid package, that includes the permanent site improvements, Sprung structure, restroom complex, kitchen, and fencing is currently being prepared for re-bidding, but due to the long lead times of electrical equipment, it was decided that strategically phased components should be bid out separately, in advance of the Phase II improvements, in order to coordinate lead times for the electrical and lift station equipment delivery with Phase II project completion; and
WHEREA
S, Phase III was developed using five leased modular buildings, including four designed for housing, and was opened in November of 2022 to serve 48 unsheltered individuals. Due to the lack of infrastructure on the site, occupancy of Phase III required the lease of portable diesel generators to provide power to the buildings and life safety systems.

The 384 Arbor Road and 370 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Projects, CIP 71112, were advertised for bids in an effort to shorten the time period that the temporary power supplies would be required; and
Resolution 2024-_____

WHER
EAS, Phase IV was completed in December of 2023 and consists of eight (8) Custom Container dormitories manufactured using shipping containers; Phase IV provides an additional thirty-eight (38) beds to serve the unsheltered population in Tracy; and WHER
EAS, The KPA Group, along with City Engineering staff, prepared the plans and specifications and advertised the 384 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112, for competitive bids on April 28, 2023, and May 5, 2023; Bids were received and publicly opened on May 25, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. with the following results:

Contractor Bid Amount
DV Electric Company, Inc., San Jose, CA $373,745
Bockman & Woody Electric, Inc., Stockton, CA $406,110
; and
WHER
EAS, The KPA Group, along with City Engineering staff, prepared the plans and specifications and advertised the 370 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112, for competitive bids on April 21, 2023, and April 28, 2023. Bids were received and publicly opened on May 17, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. with the following results:

Contractor Bid Amount
DV Electric Company, Inc., San Jose, CA $208,661
Bockman & Woody Electric, Inc., Stockton, CA $336,700
; and
WHER
EAS, on July 5, 2023, the City Council awarded two separate contracts to DV Electric for CIP 71112 Main Power Supply Project; one for 384 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project and the second for 370 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project; and WHERE
AS, the Notice of Award letters were issued to the Contractor on July 25, 2023, notifying the Contractor of the required documents that must be submitted within ten (10) days, to complete the contract; the bid documents include the ten (10) day requirements in both the Instructions to Bidders and the General Conditions. Article 4 – Bonds, Indemnity, and Insurance of the General Conditions, Section 4.1 Payment and Performance Bonds, requires the Contractor to submit bonds within ten (10) days following issuance of the Notice of Award.

Section 4.3 – Insurance, requires the Contractor to procure and provide proof of insurance required by the Section no later than ten (10) days following issuance of the Notice of Award; and
WHERE
AS, staff communicated with the Contractor on several occasions to request the submittal of the required contract documents; complete contract documents were not received until September 11, 2023; and
WHER
EAS, the overall time for the Contractor to comply extended well beyond the stipulated ten (10) days; and
Resolution 2024-_____

WHEREAS, upon receipt of all documents to complete the contract and submittal for full execution from City on September 11, 2023, staff met internally to discuss t heir concerns with w
orking with this Contractor due to their lack of attention to details, lack of responsiveness in completing documents, and inability to follow clearly stated requirements set f orth i n the General Provisions and Bid Documents; and
WHEREAS, completing the proposed work on a timely basis is critical to the completion of Phase II; and
WHEREAS, based on the above, Staff has determined that the Contractor is non- responsive and not responsible, and requests that City Council rescind Resolution No. 2023-131 and Resolution No. 2023-132 awarding both contracts to DV Electric, I nc., reject all bids for the 384 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112, received May 25, 2023, and for the 370 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112, received May 17, 20 23, and authorize staff to re-advertise both projects for public bidding; and
WHEREAS, this action has no impact on the project budget for CIP 71112 Temporary Emergency Housing Project on Arbor Road; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: That the City Council hereby finds that this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Government Code Section 8698.4 (emergency shelters); and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Council hereby finds that DV Electric, Inc., is non- responsive and not responsible; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Council hereby rescinds Resolution No . 2023-131 awarding a construction contract to DV Electric, Inc., for 384 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Council hereby rescinds Resolution No. 2023-132 awarding a construction contract
to DV Electric, Inc., for 370 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Council hereby rejects all bids for 384 Abor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112, received May 25, 2023 and for 370 Arbor Road Main Power Supply Project, CIP 71112, received May 17, 2023; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Council authorizes staff to re-advertise both projects for public bidding.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
Resolution 2024-_____

The foregoing Resolution 2024-_____ was adopted by the Tracy City Council on the 16th day
of January 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

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

ADRIANNE RICHARDSON
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the
City of Tracy, California
January 16, 2024
Agenda Item 3.A

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution: 1) adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, for the Multi-Generational Recreation Center Project at El Pescadero Park, and 2) authorizing the City Manager to execute and file the Notice of Determination.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This request is for the City Council to conduct a public hearing to review and consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, for the Multi-Generational Recreation Center Project at El Pescadero Park, Capital Improvement Project (CIP) 78178 (Project), and upon conclusion of the public hearing, adopt a resolution adopting the MND and MMRP.

BACKGROUND AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The Project has been an approved capital improvement project since 2018. On February 15, 2022, Resolution No. 2022-019 was adopted by the City Council, approving a Professional Services Agreement for LPA, Inc., to lead site feasibility studies, design , development of construction documents, environmental documentation preparation, a traffic study, and more for the Project.

The Project includes the redevelopment of the existing El Pescadero Park on West Grant Line Road to create a new multi-generational recreation center. The proposed multi-generational recreation center would consist of an approximately 61,300-square-foot, two-story building with a maximum height of approximately 35 feet that would include a three-court gymnasium, two multi-purpose rooms, kitchen, entry lobby, bouldering wall, teen lounge and technology area, makers space, restroom, offices, elevated running track and outdoor courtyard. Additional park improvements would include relocation and renovation of the existing dog park, skate park and basketball courts and installation of new trails, landscaping and lighting. In addition, the existing parking lot would be reconfigured, and new parking stalls added to expand the overall parking capacity and the existing access road/driveway from West Grant Line Road would be extended through the existing parking lot and along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site, connecting to West Kavanagh Avenue at the northern boundary of the Project site.

Design and construction documentation is currently complete, and staff is preparing to advertise the Project for bid.

ANALYSIS
The City is the lead agency for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the Project. In July 2023, the environmental sub-consultant for the Project, LSA prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Project (see Attachment A). The Draft Agenda Item 3.A
January 16, 2024

IS/MND was posted on the City's website from July 27, 2023, to August 16, 2023, for comments in accordance with CEQA requirements. Furthermore, the notice was published in Tracy Press on July 28, 2023, and sent to interested agencies and fronting residents for their review and comment. The Notice of Completion (see Attachment B) was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for the MND to begin the requisite review process. The IS/MND determined that the proposed Project will not have significant impacts on the environment, with the inclusion of appropriate avoidance,
minimization and mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shown as Attachment C.

Written comments were received from two public agencies. These comment letters are attached as exhibits in the MMRP. Mitigation of the environmental effects was already included in the MND and MMRP, and staff determined, in consultation with its technical consultants, that minor changes to the MND and MMRP were required as a result of these letters. CEQA requires that the lead agency, i
n this case the City, consider the proposed MND together with any comments received during the
public review process.

It should
be noted that tree removals have occurred in El Pescadero Park in recent weeks and were done
separately from the Project due to the failing condition of the Aleppo pine trees (Pinus
allepo) creating public safety concerns. The City followed standard protocols for the tree removal
work including a complete evaluation of the trees being removed by a certified arborist.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the related MMRP as
the appropriate environmental document. CEQA Section 15074 also requires adoption of an MMRP when an agency adopts an MND to mitigate or avoid significant environmental
impacts. Subject to approval by the City Council, staff requests authorization to file the Notice of Determination (see Attachment D) with the County Clerk, which will complete the environmental document process for CIP 78178, in compliance with CEQA.

COORDINATION
Coordination on this
agenda item included City staff from various City departments including Parks & Recreation, Development Services, Finance, City Attorney’s Office and City Manager’s Office along with LPA’s sub-consultant LSA.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact from environmental analysis required for CEQA and for prequalification of contractors is covered by already approved professional services agreements.

STRATEGIC
PLAN
This agenda item supports the City of Tracy’s Quality of Life Strategic Priority, and specifically implements
the following goals:

Goal 2: Facilitate the Completion of Measure V Amenities; Objective 2: Advance Measure V amenity planning.

Agenda Item 3.A
January 16, 2024

ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution: 1) adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, for the Multi- Generational Recreation Center Project at El Pescadero Park and 2) authorizing the City Manager to execute and file the Notice of Determination.

Prepared by: Richard Joaquin, Parks Planning & Development Manager Reviewed by: Jolene Jauregui-Correll, Interim Director of Parks and Recreation Sara Cowel
l, Director of Finance
Bijal Patel, City Attorney
Brian MacDonald, Interim Assistant City Manager
Approved by
: Midori Lichtwardt, City Manager
Attachm
ents:
• Attachment A – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration • Attachment B – Notice of Completion
• Attachment C – Response to IS/MND Comments and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Attachment D – Notice of Determination
July 2023

SCREENCH
ECK  DRAFT
INITIAL   STUDY/
MITIGATED   NEGATIVE   DECLARATION
EL  PESCADER
O PARK  &
MULTI ‐GENERATIONAL  RECREATION  CENTER  PROJECT
TRACY ,  CALIFORNIA

This page intenƟonally leŌ blank
July 2023

SCREENCH
ECK  DRAFT
INITIAL   STUDY/
MITIGATED   NEGATIVE   DECLARATION
EL  PESCADER
O PARK  &
MULTI ‐GENERATIONAL  RECREATION  CENTER  PROJECT
TRACY ,  CALIFORNIA
SubmiƩed to:

LPA
Design Studios
60 South Market Street, Suite 1250
San Jose, California 95113
Prepared by:

LSA
157 Park Place
Pt. Richmond, California 94801
510.236.6810
Project No. LPX2204
This page intenƟonally leŌ blank
i
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................................. ii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................ iii

1.0  PROJECT INFORMATION ...................................................................................  1‐1

2.0  PROJECT DESCRIPTION .....................................................................................  2‐1

2.1  Project Site ........................................................................................................................ 2‐1

2.2  Project Background and ObjecƟves .................................................................................. 2‐7

2.3  Proposed Project ............................................................................................................... 2‐8

2.4  Project Approvals ............................................................................................................ 2‐13

3.0  ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ......................................... 3‐1

3.1  DeterminaƟon ................................................................................................................... 3‐1

4.0  CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ..................................................................  4‐1

4.1  AestheƟcs .......................................................................................................................... 4‐1

4.2  Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................. 4‐5

4.3  Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 4‐7

4.4  Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 4‐14

4.5  Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 4‐22

4.6  Energy .............................................................................................................................. 4‐26

4.7  Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................ 4‐29

4.8  Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................. 4‐35

4.9  Hazard
s and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................... 4‐43

4.10  Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 4‐49

4.11  Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................... 4‐57

4.12  Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 4‐59

4.13  Noise................................................................................................................................ 4‐60

4.14  PopulaƟon and Housing .................................................................................................. 4‐74

4.15  Public Services ................................................................................................................. 4‐75

4.16  RecreaƟon ....................................................................................................................... 4‐78

4.17  Trans
portaƟon ................................................................................................................. 4‐79

4.18  Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 4‐84

4.19  UƟliƟes and Service Systems ........................................................................................... 4‐87

4.20  Wildfire ............................................................................................................................ 4‐92

4.21  Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................ 4‐94

5.0  LIST OF PREPARERS ...........................................................................................  5‐1

5.1  LSA Associates, Inc. ........................................................................................................... 5‐1

6.0  REFERENCES .....................................................................................................  6‐1 E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) ii FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 2‐1: Project LocaƟon ................................................................................................................ 2‐3 Figure 2‐2: Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses .................................. 2‐5 Figure 2‐3: Conceptual Site Plan ......................................................................................................... 2‐9 TABLES
Table 2.4.A: PotenƟal Permits and Approvals ................................................................................... 2‐13 Table 4.3.A: Project ConstrucƟon Emissions (Tons per Year) .............................................................. 4‐9 Table 4.3.B: Project OperaƟon Emissions (Tons per Year) ................................................................. 4‐12 Table 4.4.A: Special‐Status Species Evaluated for the Project .......................................................... 4‐17 Table 4.8.A: OperaƟonal Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................... 4‐38 Table 4.9.A: Haz
ardous Materials Database Search .......................................................................... 4‐46 Table 4.13.A: Community Noise Exposure Ldn ................................................................................... 4‐62 Table 4.13.B: Short‐Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, dBA .................................................. 4‐63 Table 4.13.C: Detailed Assessment ConstrucƟon Noise Criteria ....................................................... 4‐64 Table 4.13.D: InterpretaƟon of VibraƟon Criteria for Detailed Analysis ........................................... 4‐64 Table 4.13.E: ConstrucƟon VibraƟon Damage Criteria ..................................................................... 4‐65 Table 4.13.F: Ty
pical ConstrucƟon Equipment Noise Levels ............................................................. 4‐66 Table 4.13.G: VibraƟon Source Amplitudes for ConstrucƟon Equipment ......................................... 4‐71 Table 4.17.A: Trip GeneraƟon Summary ........................................................................................... 4‐80 Table 4.17.B: Roadway Traffic Volume .............................................................................................. 4‐80 Table 4‐17.C: Vehicle Level of Service Summary ............................................................................... 4‐81

APPENDICES
A:  CALEEMOD OUTPUT SHEETS
B:  NOISE MEASUREMENT SHEETS
C:  TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA
iii
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
µg/m3  Micrograms per cubic meter
AAQS  Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB  Assembly Bill
AC  asphalt concrete
ADT  average daily trips
AFY  acre‐feet per year
AOU  American Ornithologists’ Union
APN  Assessor’s Parcel Number
BAAQMD  Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Basin Plan  Water Quality Control Plan
BMPs  Best Management Practices
BPS  Best Performance Standards
Cal/OSHA  California Occupational Safety and Heal
th Administration
CalEEMod  California Emissions Estimator Model
CAL FIRE  California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen Code  California Green Building Standards Code California Register  California Register of Historical Resources CalRecycle  California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans  California Department of Transportation
CARB  California Air Resources Board
CASQA  California Stormwater Quality Association

CBC  California Building Code

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) iv CCaIC  Central California Information Center
CCAP  Climate Change Action Plan
CCR  California Code of Regulations
CDFW  California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC  California Energy Commission
CEQA  California Environmental Quality Act
CGP  Construction General Permit
CGS  California Geological Survey
CH4  methane
City  City of Tracy
CNDDB  California Natural Diversity Data Base
CNEL  Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS  California Native Plant Society
CO  carbon monoxide
CO2  carbon dioxide
CO2e  carbon dioxide equivalent
Cortese List  Cal/EPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List CVP  Central Valley Project
CWA  Clean Water Act
dB  decibels
dBA  A‐weighted decibel(s)
DOC  California Department of Conservation
DOT  Department of Transportation
DTSC  Department of Toxic Substances Control
v
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)
DWR  California Department of Water Resources
EFZ   Earthquake Fault Zone
EIR  Environmental Impact Report
EO  Executive Order
EOP  Emergency Operations Plan
EQ Zapp  California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application EV  Electric vehicle
FBI  Federal Bureau of Investigation
FEMA  Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ  Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FHWA  Federal Highway Administration
FIRM  FEMA Flood Insuran ce Rate Map
FTA  Federal Transit Administration
GHG  greenhouse gas
gpd  gallons per day
GSAs  Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
GWP  global warming potential
HCM  Highway Capacity Manual
HVAC  heating, ventilation and air conditioning
I‐205  Interstate 205
I‐5  Interstate 5
I‐580  Interstate 580
in/sec  Inches per second
IPaC  (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) vi IS/MND  Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ITE  Institute of Transportation Engineers
LDR  Low Density Residential
LEED  Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leq  equivalent continuous sound level
LID  Low Impact Development
Lmax  maximum A‐weighted sound level
LOS  Level of Service
LRA  Local Responsibility Area
LUST  Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MBTA   Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd  million gallons per day
MLD  Most Likely Descendant
mpg  miles per gallon
MRF  Tracy Material Recovery Facility
MS4  Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MUTCD  California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control  Devices NAHC  Native American Heritage Commission
N2O  nitrous oxide
NO2  nitrogen dioxide
NOX  nitrogen oxides
NPDES  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS  Natural Resources Conservation Services
NWIC  Northwest Information Center
vii
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)
OES  Solano County Office of Emergency Services
OPR  (California) Governor’s Office of Planning and Research) OSHA  Occupational Health and Safety Administration
PCC  Portland cement concrete pavement
PG&E  Pacific Gas & Electric
Phase II MS4 Permit  Water Board Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit PM2.5  particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter PM10  particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter ppb  parts per billion
PPV  peak particle velocity
PRC  California Public Resources Code
project  El Pescadero Park & Multi‐Generational Recreation Center Project project site  El Pescadero Park
RCRA  (Federal) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RMS  root mean square
ROGs  reactive organic gases
RWQCB  Regional Water Quality Control
Board
SB  Senate Bill
SCWSP  South County Water Supply Project
SDSs  Safety Data Sheets
SF6  sulfur hexafluoride
SGMA  Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SJVAB  San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD  San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) viii SLF  Sacred Lands File
SO2  sulfur dioxide
SRAs  State Responsibility Areas
SSJCFA  South San Joaquin County Fire Authority
SWPPP  Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB  State Water Resources Control Board
TAC  toxic air contaminant
TMDLs  Total Maximum Daily Loads
TPD  Tracy Police Department
Tracy Disposal  Tracy Delta Solid Waste Management, Inc.

TUSD  Tracy Unified School District
USDA  United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA  Unit
ed States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS  United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS  United States Geological Survey
UWMP  Urban Water Management Plan
VdB  vibration velocity decibels
VHFHSZ  Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT  vehicle miles traveled
Water Board  Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board WWTP  Wastewater Treatme
nt Plant
ZNC  Zero Net Carbon

1‐1
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title:

El Pescadero Park & MulƟ‐GeneraƟonal RecreaƟon Center Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Tracy Parks & RecreaƟon Department
333 Civic Center Plaza
Tracy, CA 95376

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Richard Joaquin, RLA, ASLA, Parks Planning & Development Manager (209) 831‐6235

4. Project Loc
aƟon:

The project site is located within El Pescadero Park in the northern porƟon of Tracy, San Joaquin County, California. The approximately 13.9‐acre project site (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 214‐50‐001) is located at 250 Kavanaugh Avenue.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

City of Tracy Pa
rks & RecreaƟon Department
333 Civic Center Plaza
Tracy, CA 95376

6. General Plan DesignaƟon:

Park

7. Zoning:

Low Density ResidenƟal (LDR)

8. DescripƟon of Project:

The proposed project is the redevelopment of the exisƟng El Pescadero Park (project site) to create a new mulƟ‐gener aƟonal recreaƟon center on West Grant Line Road in Tracy. A detailed project descripƟon is provided in Chapter 2.0, Project DescripƟon.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Seƫng:

The project site is bound by West Kavanagh Avenue to the north, residenƟal uses and North Elementa
ry to the east, West Grant Line Road to the south, and residenƟal and commercial uses to the west. A detailed descripƟon of the surrounding land uses and seƫng is provided in Chapter 2.0, Project DescripƟon.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 1‐2

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financial approval, or parƟcipaƟon agreements):
○ San Joaquin County Fire Authority
○ San Joaquin County Health Department
○ Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)

11. Have California NaƟve American tribes tradiƟonally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultaƟon pursuant to Public Resource Code secƟon 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultaƟon that includes, for example, the determinaƟon of significance of impacts to tribal cultur
al resources, procedures regarding confidenƟality, etc.? The NaƟve American Heritage Commission (NAHC) provided a list of tribal representaƟves to be contacted pursuant to the consultaƟon requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 on February 28, 2023. In May 2023, the City of Trac y sent outreach leƩers via cerƟfied mail to the tribal contacts; the leƩers described the project, provided maps of the project site, and invited the tribes to request consultaƟon should they have any concerns.

On May 24, 2023, Corrina Gould, Tribal Chair of the Confederated Village s of Lisjan NaƟon responded by email that the Tribe had no further informaƟon to supply about the project site and requested that the Tribe be contacted if any resources were found during project development. No addiƟonal responses were received.
2‐1
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following describes the proposed El Pescadero Park & MulƟ‐GeneraƟonal RecreaƟon Center Project (project) that is the subject of this IniƟal Study/MiƟgated NegaƟve DeclaraƟon (IS/MND) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is the redevelopment of the exisƟng El Pescadero Par k to create a new mulƟ‐generaƟonal recreaƟon center on West Grant Line Road in Tracy, California.

2.1 PROJECT SITE
The following secƟon describes the project locaƟon, exisƟng condiƟons, parking circulaƟon and access, and the regulatory seƫng.

2.1.1 Project LocaƟon
The project site consists of the exisƟng El Pescadero Park in the northern porƟon of the City of Tracy in San Joaquin County. The approximately 13.9‐acre project site (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 214‐50‐001) is located at 250 Kavanaugh Avenue and is bound by West Kavanagh Avenue to the north, resi
denƟal uses and North Elementary to the east, West Grant Line Road to the south, and residenƟal and commercial uses to the west. The project’s locaƟon and regional vicinity are shown on Figure 2‐1, and an aerial photograph of the project site and its surrounding land uses is sho wn on Figure 2‐2.

2.1.2 ExisƟng CondiƟons
The project site is currently developed with the exisƟng El Pescadero Park, which includes the Cora K‐9 Dog Park, the El Pescadero Skate Park, a playground, basketball courts, restrooms and a drinking fountain, parking, and an open lawn area. The Cora K‐9 Dog Park occupies approximately 0.5‐acre of the site and inc
ludes a running area, benches, a fountain, an entryway area, and dog waste disposal.

The 13,000‐square‐foot skate park includes a bowl, a halfpipe, pine ramp, a bank, a roll‐in plaƞorm, curbs, and a quarter bowl. An exisƟng drainage swale runs through the center of the site . The site currently supports approximately 140 trees. Tracy Interfaith Ministries is located in the southwestern porƟon of the project site. A building owned by the City of Tracy (City) is located in the southwestern corner of the project site and is used by City of Tracy Fire Sup port Services.

As shown on Figure 2‐2, a variety of land uses are located within the vicinity of the project site.

Immediately north of the project site is West Kavanagh Avenue and single‐family residenƟal uses, which also make up the land uses farther north. The project site is bounded to the eas t by North Elementary School and mulƟ‐family residenƟal uses. Farther east are mulƟ‐family and single‐family residenƟal uses and commercial uses along West Grant Line Road. West Grant Line Road bounds the project site to the south, across which are commercial uses as well as single ‐ and mulƟ‐family residenƟal uses. The Brookdale Tracy Assisted Living Facility, North Park Post‐Acute Nursing Home, and a single‐family residenƟal development bound the site to the west. Farther west is addiƟonal commercial and mulƟ‐family residenƟal development.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 2‐2 This page intenƟonally leŌ blank
SOURCE: USGS The National Map (2017)
J:\LPX2204\Pro\El P
escadero Park and Multi Generational Recreation Center Project.aprx (12/21/2022) FIGURE 2-1
El Pescadero Park & Multi-Generational Recreation Center Project S A N

J O A Q U I N

C O U N T Y
ÃÃ33
ÃÃ4
ÃÃ120
ÃÃ132
ÃÃ99
§¨¦205
§¨¦580
§¨¦5
Project Vicinity
0 1000 2000
FEET
Project Location
Project Location

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 2‐4 This page intenƟonally leŌ blank
Grant Line RdGrant Line Rd
E Kavanaugh AveE Kavanaugh Ave
W Kavanaugh Ave E Kavanaugh AveE Kavanaugh Ave
Holly DrHolly Dr
Parker AveParker Ave
Holly DrHolly Dr
Marie AveMarie Ave
Buthmann AveButhmann Ave
Buthmann Ave
Coventry DrCoventry Dr Dovenshire DrDovenshire Dr
Elsinore DrElsinore Dr Fairfield DrFairfield Dr
Helen AveHelen Ave
Gordon AveGordon Ave
Collin AveCollin Ave
Altoga AveAltoga Ave
E Manzanita LnE Manzanita Ln
E Portola Way
Bessie AveBessie Ave W 23rd StW 23rd St
W 22nd StW 22nd St
Court DrCourt Dr
Louise AveLouise Ave
Grant Line Rd
W Kavanaugh Ave E Kavanaugh Ave
Holly Dr
Parker Ave
Holly Dr
Marie Ave
Buthmann Ave
Buthmann Ave
Coventry Dr Dovenshire Dr
Elsinore Dr Fairfield Dr
Helen Ave
Gordon Ave
Collin Ave
Altoga Ave
E Manzanita Ln
E Portola Way
Bessie Ave W 23rd St
W 22nd St
Court Dr
Louise Ave

EL PESCADERO PARK
NORTH

ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL

TRACY INTERFAITH

MINISTRIES

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL
TRACY

KINDERCARE

COMMERCIAL
3000 150
Project Site Boundary
FEET
SOURCES: Google Earth, 4/6/2022; LSA, 2022
I:\LPX2204\G\Aerial Photo of Project Site&Surrounding LU.ai (12/21/2022) FIGURE 2-2
El Pescadero Park and Mul Ɵ-Genera Ɵonal RecreaƟon Center Project Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 2‐6 This page intenƟonally leŌ blank
2‐7
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

2.1.3 Parking, CirculaƟon, and Access
A surface parking lot on the southern porƟon of the project site provides approximately 58 standard parking spaces. The exisƟng site is currently not equipped with electric vehicle (EV) chargers; however, the proposed parking lot would include eight EV chargers for park visitors. The parking lot is also used by visitors to the Tr acy Interfaith Ministries. Automobile access to the parking lot is via a driveway off West Grant Line Road. On‐street parking is also provided along West Kavanagh Avenue along the northern boundary of the project site. Regional access to the project site is provided by the West Grant Line Roa d on‐ and off‐ramps of State Route 205 (SR‐205). Local access to the project site is provided by West Kavanagh Avenue to the north and West Grant Line Road to the south.

Pedestrian access to and throughout the project site is provided by sidewalks and concrete pathw
ays.

2.1.4 Regulatory Seƫng
The project site is designated as Park on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map1 and is within the Low Density ResidenƟal (LDR) zoning district on the City’s Zoning Map.2 The Park land use designaƟon refers to established public and private open spaces and recreaƟonal faciliƟes (e.g., playing fields, miniparks, and neighborhood and community parks). Currently there are approximately 241 acres of park land, 221 of which occur within the city limits. Parks are typically moderately sized and distributed thro ughout Tracy, oŌen in the context of playing fields associated with schools.

The LDR Zone is intended to be uƟlized in the areas designated as low‐medium density residenƟal with a density range from 2.0 to 5.8 dwelling units per gross acre by the General Plan. PermiƩed uses within the LDR Zon
e include single‐family dwellings, accessory dwelling units, mobile homes on an individual lots, crop and tree farming, and public parks, buildings, or schools.

2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
In 2013, the Citywide Public FaciliƟes Master Plan3 idenƟfied the need for one indoor mulƟ‐purpose recreaƟon center to address increasing demands for indoor recreaƟon programming (for all ages) and to meet future needs for gymnasium space within Tracy. The Citywide Public FaciliƟes Master Plan recommended a new mulƟ‐purpose recreaƟon center of approximately 45,000 square feet with dividable gym space, spec
ialized indoor courts, fitness/exercise rooms, a mulƟ‐purpose room, social space, and dedicated spaces for seniors, teens, youth, and pre‐school children. In 2016, City of Tracy voters passed Measure V, which enacted a half‐cent sales tax to fund City services, including park repair and maintenance and buildi ng faciliƟes (e.g., parks and sports fields).

1   City of Tracy. 2011. City of Tracy General Plan Land Use Map. February 1. 2   City of Tracy. 2022. City of Tracy GIS Viewer . Website: hƩps://www.cityoŌracy.org/our‐city/about‐us/city‐ maps/gis‐web‐mapping‐applicaƟon (accessed December 20, 2022). 3   City of Tracy. 2013. Final Report Citywide Public FaciliƟes Master Plan City of Tracy, California. January 15.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 2‐8 In 2022, the City adopted the Parks, RecreaƟon and Trails Master Plan Update4 and the Citywide Public FaciliƟes Master Plan Update.5 Policy 8.E. in the Parks, RecreaƟon and Trails Master Plan Update states that the “City will conƟnue to work toward the creaƟon of a high‐quality indoor recreaƟon space. This may be in the form of a single mulƟ‐generaƟonal recreaƟon center, or mulƟple faciliƟes that provide the desired ameniƟes in cluding a gymnasium, a library and educaƟonal spaces, a teaching kitchen, administraƟon spaces, mulƟ‐purpose rooms, and a lobby and lounge space.” Further, the mulƟ‐generaƟonal recreaƟon center is idenƟfied as one of the eight new Capital Improvement Projects to be constructed over the next 10 ye ars.

In early 2022, the City worked with LPA, the design consultant, to conduct a community‐based design process for the proposed mulƟ‐generaƟonal recreaƟon center . The planning process included numerous meeƟngs with stakeholders and local community organizaƟons, three community workshops, and presentaƟons at public meeƟ ngs of the City of Tracy City Council. Expressed prioriƟes for the mulƟ‐generaƟonal recreaƟon center include a gymnasium, outdoor ameniƟes, a library and educaƟon space, a lobby/lounge space, and a teaching kitchen. AŌer consideraƟon of several different opƟons for the proposed park improv ements and recreaƟon center facility, the City Council selected a preferred site and master plan concept to proceed through final design.

The mulƟ‐generaƟonal recreaƟon center is intended to supplement the exisƟng Community Center and Senior Center with increased space for community rec reaƟon and gathering opportuniƟes.

2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project comprises three components: (1) construcƟon of a mulƟ‐generaƟonal recreaƟon center; (2) renovaƟon of El Pescadero Park; and (3) and associated improvements. Each of these components is described below and shown on Figure 2‐3.

2.3.1 MulƟ‐GeneraƟonal RecreaƟon Center
The proposed mulƟ‐generaƟonal recreaƟon center would consist of an approximately 52,244‐ square‐foot, two‐story building with a maximum height of approximately 35 feet that would be located in the southeastern porƟon of the project site. The ground floor would include a three‐court gymnasium, two mulƟ‐purpose rooms, a food pr eparaƟon area/catering kitchen, an entry lobby, a bouldering wall, a teen lounge and technology area, a makers space, and a restroom facility. Various offices for recreaƟon and other City staff would also be provided. An outdoor courtyard would connect the north and south wings of the building. An elevat ed running track, which would encircle the outdoor courtyard, would be provided on the second floor along with a funcƟonal fitness area, addiƟonal offices, conference rooms, and restrooms. The second floor would also have an outdoor deck facing west to the park.
4   City of Tracy. 2022. City of Tracy Citywide Parks, RecreaƟon & Trails Master Plan Update. August. 5   City of Tracy. 2022. City of Tracy Citywide Public FaciliƟes Master Plan Update. July.

RECREATION

FACILITY
TRACY

INTERFAITH

MINISTRIES
FIRE
DEPT.

LEGEND

NORTH-SOUTH PROMENADE

NATURE TRAILS

ON-STREET PARKING

ENTRY PLAZA AND MONUMENT SIGN

PARKING AND DROP OFF

MULTI-FUNCTIONAL LAWN AND PAVILLION

PLAYGROUND, SPLASH PAD AND RESTROOMS

DOG PARK

SKATE PARK

BASKETBALL COURT

STORMWATER GARDENS
GRANT LINE RD.

KAVANAGH AVE
10 11

MAIN ENTRY

NEIGHBORHOOD
ENTRY

NEIGHBORHOOD
ENTRY
11 67
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
1 2
2 2
8 8
35 4
9 11
1 16008 0
FEET
SOURCE: LPA, 2022
I:\LPX2204\G\Conceptual Site Plan.ai (12/21/2022)
FIGURE 2-3
El Pescadero Park and Mul Ɵ-Genera Ɵonal RecreaƟon Center Project Conceptual Site Plan
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 2‐10 This page intenƟonally leŌ blank
2‐11
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

2.3.2 RenovaƟon of El Pescadero Park
As part of the proposed project, the exisƟng dog park, which is located in the northeastern corner of the park site, would be relocated to the western porƟon of the site. The approximately 0.67‐acre (29,300‐square‐foot) dog park would be enclosed with 4‐foot‐high wire mesh fencing to allow vo ice control for dogs that are off leash. Fencing would also divide the dog park into two disƟnct areas, one for large dogs and another for small dogs. Each area of the dog park would include a paved walkway and syntheƟc turf area surrounded by decomposed granit e and sod. Agility courses, a water fountain, and other elements would be added to enhance use of the dog park.

A series of decomposed gravel trails would be installed in the northwestern corner of the project site that would weave through a natural area with exisƟng and newly planted trees and shrub s. Site furnishings, including benches and trash receptacles, would be provided along the proposed pathways.

The exisƟng skate park would be relocated from its current locaƟon just north of Tracy Interfaith Ministries to the northeastern corner of the site. The basketball court would also be moved from its curre
nt locaƟon within the park to the eastern side of the park and adjacent to the proposed skate park. Light standards would be installed around the proposed basketball court to accommodate evening use. AddiƟonal site furnishings, including picnic tables, trash receptacles, and benches, would also be installed around the pr oposed basketball court and skate park.

The exisƟng playground and restroom facility along West Kavanagh Avenue would remain in its current locaƟon, with a new splash pad added just north of the exisƟng playground.

2.3.2.1 OperaƟon
Similar to exisƟng condiƟons, El Pescadero Park wo uld be open daily to informal use, including walking, biking, picnicking, pick‐up sports, and the general use of park faciliƟes. The park hours are from dawn to 10:00 p.m. Maintenance acƟviƟes would be similar to exisƟng condiƟons and would be performed by exisƟng Parks and Rec reaƟon staff and maintenance contractors hired by the City.

Maintenance acƟviƟes include mowing, facility cleaning, vegetaƟon management, tree care, and general maintenance of the recreaƟon faciliƟes.

2.3.3 Associated Improvements
In addition to the elements described above, the proposed project would result in the construction of related improvements to enhance the existing park and complement the new recreation center, including parking, landscaping, lighting, and utilities. These improvements are described below.

2.3.3.1 Parking
ExisƟng parking at the project site consists of approximately 58 on‐ site parking stalls in the dedicated parking area off of West Grant Line Road. Approximately 25 on‐street parking spaces are available along West Kavanagh Avenue. As part of the proposed project, the exisƟng parking lot would be reconfigured and new parking stalls added to expand the over all parking capacity to approximately 190 on‐site parking stalls. The exisƟng access road/driveway from West Grant Line Road would be extended through the exisƟng parking lot and along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site, E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 2‐12 connecƟng to West Kavanagh Avenue at the northern boundary of the project site. The project would also result in the construcƟon of addiƟonal bike/pedestrian paths to enhance acƟvity within the park and to provide connecƟvity to other adjacent residenƟal neighborhoods. Bike racks would also be provided within the park as
part of the proposed project.

2.3.3.2 Landscaping
ExisƟng landscaping in the park includes 147 exisƟng trees. The exisƟng mature tree canopy at the park is a significant contributor to the park’s character, and the project proposes to retain approximately 83 of the park’s exi sƟng trees. As part of the proposed project, approximately 64 trees would be removed to accommodate planned ameniƟes, road realignments, and parking lots.

However, the proposed project would include installaƟon of new landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grasses, and groundcovers throughout the park. Landscaping would consist of naƟve or drough
t‐tolerant species for water conservaƟon. The turf grass areas would require typical maintenance such as ferƟlizer and irrigaƟon. An automaƟc irrigaƟon system would be designed to minimize water use and be adapted to weather condiƟons.

2.3.3.3 LighƟng
AddiƟonal LED pathway sa fety lighƟng, fixtures, and poles would be installed along pathways and parking lots for security lighƟng. New lights at the relocated basketball court would also be installed to accommodate use during the early evening hours.

2.3.3.4 Drainage and UƟliƟes
The new recreaƟon center woul d connect to exisƟng uƟlity infrastructure located within and in the immediate vicinity of the site. The proposed project includes the installaƟon of a new 8‐inch‐ diameter wastewater line that would connect to the exisƟng 8‐inch‐diameter main line within West Kavanagh Avenue. The proposed project wo uld also include the installaƟon of new water lines connecƟng to the exisƟng 6‐inch‐diameter water service line that currently traverses the site from north to south.

The proposed storm drainage infrastructure would discharge into an exisƟng underground storm drain at the northeastern edge of the project sit e. Stormwater treatment is proposed using a combinaƟon of bioretenƟon basins and modular wetlands. The number of drainage management areas would be determined as part of the final design. The bioretenƟon basins would be vegetated with a layer of special soil and a layer of permeable roc k. Overflow would be discharged from the stormwater treatment areas to the on‐site storm drain system, which would connect to an exisƟng 12‐inch‐diameter storm drain pipe at the northeast corner of the site.

2.3.3.5 Sustainability Features
The mulƟ‐generaƟonal recreaƟon center would achiev e Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) cerƟfied at the Gold Level. The design of the building would maximize sustainable approaches (e.g., implementaƟon of Zero Net Carbon [ZNC], use of solar energy, and/or use of baƩery storage) to meet peak demands. All project elements would be designe d and constructed in compliance with the current version of the California Building Code (CBC). Proposed design features would include:
2‐13
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)  Replacement of nearly 60 percent of the exisƟng water‐intensive turf grass planƟng with a drought‐tolerant plant paleƩe with drip irrigaƟon and a weather‐sensing smart controller;  Biodiverse planƟngs to create pollinator pathways, seasonal interest, and long‐term soil health;  On‐site stormwater run‐off capt ure and treatment through biofiltraƟon media;  PlanƟng of an addiƟonal 209 trees to manage stormwater, sequester carbon, provide shade, and support habitat for endemic species;
 LED outdoor lighƟng; and
 Use of high albedo paving materials to reduce the heat island effect.

2.3.4 ConstrucƟon
ConstrucƟon of the proposed project would commence in December 2023 and would extend for approximately 24 months. ConstrucƟon hours would occur during daylight hours, from approximately 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily consistent with Policy P4. Under objecƟve N‐1.2 in the Noise Element of the City of Tracy General Plan. ConstrucƟ on staging would occur on the project site in areas not proposed to support planned improvements. ConstrucƟon workers, equipment, and deliveries would access the site via West Grant Line Road.

The proposed recreaƟon center at the site would be supported by convenƟonal shallow foundaƟons with interi
or concrete slabs on‐grade. Pavements would likely consist of asphalt concrete (AC) and/or rigid Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement. Project construcƟon would require approximately 39,800 cubic yards of cut and approximately 24,600 cubic yards of fill, for a net export of approximately 15,200 cubic yards. It is anƟcipated that  the maximum depth of construcƟon‐related excavaƟons would be approximately 8 feet below surface for uƟlity trenching and 5 feet below surface across the remainder of the project site.

2.4 PROJECT APPROVALS
A number of permits and approvals would be required for the proposed project. While the City is the Lead Agency for the project, other agencies also have discreƟonary authority related to the project and approvals. A list of these agencies and potenƟal permits and approvals that may be required is provided in Tabl
e 2.4.A.

Table 2.4.A: PotenƟal Permits and Approvals
Lead Agency  PotenƟal Permits/Approvals
City of Tracy   Project approval
 IS/MND adopƟon
 Provision of grading, demoliƟon, construcƟon, tree removal, parking, traffic, erosion, and Storm Water PolluƟon PrevenƟon Plan permits and approvals  Approval of water lines, water hookups, wastewater lines, wastewater hookups Other Agencies
San Joaquin County Fire Authority  Review/Approve fire truck access and site fire flow design San Joaquin County Health Department  Review/Approve mulƟ‐generaƟonal kitchen faciliƟes Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)  ConnecƟon of electricity Source Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc. (2023).

IS/MND = Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 2‐14 This page intenƟonally leŌ blank
3‐1
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potenƟally affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “PotenƟally Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist in Chapter 3.0.

AestheƟcs   Agriculture and Forestry Resources   Air Quality Biological Resources    Cultural Resources   Energy
Geology/Soils   Greenhouse Gas Emissions   Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality   Land Use and Planning   Mineral Resources Noise   PopulaƟon and Housing   Public Services
RecreaƟon   TransportaƟon   Tribal Cultural Resources
UƟliƟes/Service Systems    Wildfire   Mandatory Findings of Significance

3.1 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this iniƟal evaluaƟon:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepar
ed.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “PotenƟally Significant Impact” or “PotenƟally Significant Unless MiƟgated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by miƟgaƟon measur es based on the earlier analysis as described on aƩached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potenƟally significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or miƟgated pursuant to tha t earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or miƟgaƟon measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature   Date

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 3‐2 This page intenƟonally leŌ blank
4‐1
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

4.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

4.1 AESTHETICS
Pote
nƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code SecƟon 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substanƟal adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b. SubstanƟally damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway
c. In non‐urbanized areas, substanƟally degrade the exisƟng visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulaƟons governing scenic quality?
d. Create  a new source of substanƟal light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighƫme views in the area?
a. Would the project have a substan Ɵal effect on a scenic vista? (Less Than Significant Impact) A scenic vista is generally defined as a public vantage point with an expansive view of a significant landscape feature. The project site is not designated as a scenic vista in the City of Tracy General Plan6 or the San Joaquin County General Plan.7 Although the City of Tracy General Plan does not specifically designate any scenic viewsheds within the city, as indicated in the General Plan DraŌ Environmental Impact Report (EIR),  scenic vistas and views consist primarily of surrounding natural hillsides in the western porƟon of Tracy as well as views of agricultural land from high ways and other roadways.8
The project site is located in an urban area, is surrounded by urban uses, and is currently developed with exisƟng park faciliƟes, which include a dog park, skate park, and children’s play area. Due to the relaƟve flat topography of the site and the surrounding urban development, the project site offer s limited views of the surrounding landscape. The proposed project would renovate and relocate exisƟng park features and construct a new, two‐story mulƟ‐generaƟonal recreaƟon center . 6   City of Tracy. 2011. City of Tracy General Plan. February 1. Website: hƩps://www.cityoŌracy.org/our‐ city/departments/planning/general‐plan‐zoning‐ordinance (accessed December 2022). 7   County of San Joaquin. 2016. San Joaquin County General Plan. December . Website:
hƩps://www.sjgov.org/commdev/cgi‐
bin/cdyn.exe/file/Planning/General%20Plan%202035/GENERAL%20PLAN%202035.pdf (accessed May 15, 2023).
8   City of Tracy. 2005. City of Tracy General Plan DraŌ Environmental Impact Report. Website:
hƩps://www.cityoŌracy.org/our‐city/departments/planning/general‐plan‐zoning‐ordinance (accessed January 2023).

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐2 ImplementaƟon of the project would result in construcƟon of a new two‐story building on the site.

The building height would be 34 feet and 8 inches to the top of the parapet, which is within the 35 foot height limit of two and one‐half stories established in the City of Tra cy Municipal Code.9 With the photovoltaic array, the height would extend to 36 feet and 10 inches to the top of the support steel. However, the City of Tracy Municipal Code allows for mechanical equipment (e.g., photovoltaic panels, elevators, etc.) to exceed the building height limits. Therefore, the proposed building would be consistent with the maximum hei ght limits established in the City’s Municipal Code and would be generally consistent with surrounding urban development, which includes 1‐ to 2‐story single‐family and mulƟ‐family residenƟal development, and 1‐2‐sotry commercial development. The exisƟng park is primarily open with mature trees along the perimeter .  The pro posed project would not be readily visible from any scenic vista, nor would the project block exisƟng public views of a scenic vista.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact on publicly accessible scenic vistas.
b. Would the project substan Ɵally damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Less Than Significant Impact)
There are tw
o officially designated Scenic Highway segments in Tracy that are located approximately 5 miles and 12 miles, respecƟvely, from the project site: (1) porƟons of Interstate 580 (I‐580) between Interstate 205 (I‐205) and Interstate 5 (I‐5), and (2) I‐5 between I‐205 and the Stanisla us County border .10 The project site is not visible from these roadways due to the distance from the site and intervening topography. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to proximity to a State‐designated scenic highway.
c. In non ‐urbanized areas, would the project substanƟally degrade the exisƟng visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulaƟons governing scenic quality? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The visual character of the project area is char
acterized by urban development. As outlined in
Chapter 2.0, Project DescripƟon, the project site consists of the exisƟng El Pescadero Park, which includes the Cora K‐9 Dog Park, the El Pescadero Skate Park, a playground, basketball courts, parking, and an open lawn area. Under current condiƟ ons, areas of the park are occupied by homeless tents, their occupants, and dogs and secƟons of the project site, where the homeless tents had previously been situated, have been fenced off to allow vegetaƟon to recover.  Tracy Interfaith Ministries is located in the southwestern porƟon of the projec t site. A building owned by the City that is located in the southwestern corner of the project site is used for the City of Tracy Fire Support Services. The

9   City of Tracy. 2023. City of Tracy Code of Ordinances. Website:
hƩps://library.municode.com/ca/tracy/codes/code_of_ordinances (accessed May 2023). 10   California Department of TransportaƟon (Caltrans). 2018. California State Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website:
hƩps://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aac aa (accessed May 2023).
4‐3
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) project site is bound by West Kavanagh Avenue to the north, residenƟal uses and North Elementary School to the east, West Grant Line Road to the south, and residenƟal and commercial uses to the west.

The project site is located within an urbanized area. As noted in Chapter 2.0, Project DescripƟon, the project sit
e is designated as Park on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map11 and is within the Low Density ResidenƟal (LDR) zoning district on the City’s Zoning Map.12 Development of the proposed project would consist of a 52,244 square‐foot, two‐story, mulƟ‐generaƟonal recreaƟon center with a maximum height of approximately 35 feet, which would be located in the southeastern porƟon of the project site. In addiƟon, exisƟng park faciliƟes (e.g., dog park, skate park,  basketball courts) would be renovated and relocated. AddiƟonal improvements, including walkways, picnic areas, recreaƟon faciliƟes (e.g., courts, play areas), and landscaping, would be provided and would enhance the visual character of the project site, by providing newly renovated faciliƟes and eliminaƟng exisƟng homeless encamp ments and associated refuse.

The Park land use designaƟon refers to established public and private open spaces and recreaƟonal faciliƟes (e.g., playing fields, miniparks, and neighborhood and community parks). The LDR Zone is intended to be uƟlized in the areas designated as low‐medium density residenƟal with a density ran
ge of 2.0 to 5.8 dwelling units per gross acre by the General Plan. PermiƩed uses within the LDR zone include single‐family dwellings, accessory dwelling units, mobile homes on individual lots, crop and tree farming, and public parks, buildings, or schools. The proposed project would under go Development Review consistent with SecƟon 10.08.1260 of the City of Tracy Municipal Code. These exisƟng requirements would include review of the physical improvements to the project site (e.g., overall building scale, massing, and design) to ensure compaƟbility and compliance with City requirements governing scenic quality. Compliance with the design st andards and guidelines outlined for the Park land use designaƟon and LDR Zone would ensure that the proposed project would preserve and enhance the desired character of the exisƟng surrounding residenƟal neighborhoods. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulaƟons gov
erning scenic quality, and this impact would be less than significant. d. Would the project create a new source of substan Ɵal light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighƫme views in the area? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located in a developed area. Streetlights, vehicle head and taillights on area roadways, and lighƟng associated with adjacent development are the exisƟng sources of li ght and glare in the project area. As part of the proposed project, lighƟng would be installed for safety and night use (e.g., light‐emiƫng diodes, fixtures, and poles) along pathways and parking lots.

AddiƟonally, new lighƟng would be installed for the relocated basketball cou rt to accommodate early evening use.

Title 10.08.4000 of the Tracy Municipal Code requires that the site plan and final architectural design include the exisƟng lighƟng standards and devices and be reviewed by the Development and 11   City of Tracy. 2011. City of Tracy General Plan Land Use Map. February 1. 12   City of Tracy. 2022. City of Tracy GIS Viewer . Website: hƩps://www.cityoŌracy.org/our‐city/about‐us/city‐ maps/gis‐web‐mapping‐applicaƟon (accessed December 20, 2022).

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐4 Engineering Services Department. Consistent with the policies outlined in the City’s Municipal Code, each light fixture would be directed downward and away from adjoining properƟes and public right‐ of‐way, so that no on‐site light fixture would directly illuminate any off‐site areas. With adherence to these require
ments, the proposed project would not create a new source of substanƟal light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighƫme views in the area. This impact would be less than significant.
4‐5
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land EvaluaƟon and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of ConservaƟon as an opƟonal model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to for est resources, including Ɵmberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to informaƟon compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire ProtecƟon regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Pr oject, and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

PotenƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
e. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐
agricultural use?

f. Conflict with exisƟng zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
g. Conflict with exisƟng zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code SecƟon 12220(g)), Ɵmberland (as defined by Public Resources Code SecƟon
4526), or Ɵmberland zoned Timberland ProducƟon (as
defined by Government Code SecƟon 51104(g))?

h. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?
i. Involve other changes in the exisƟng environment which, due to their locaƟon or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use?

a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use? (No Impact) The project site is currently developed and located within an urbanized area of Tracy. No agricultural uses are located within or adjacent to the project site. AddiƟonally, the project area is classified as “Urban and Built‐Up Land” by the State Department of ConservaƟon;13 therefore, the proposed project would not involve the conversion of agricultural land to a non‐agricultural use. The proposed

13   State of California, Department of ConservaƟon. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder . Website:
hƩps://maps.conservaƟon.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff (accessed January 2023).

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐6 project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non‐agricultural use. No impact would occur . b. Would the project con flict with exisƟng zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact)
The project site is zoned as LDR with a density range of 2.0 to 5.8 dwelling units per gross acre. In addiƟ
on, the project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with exisƟng zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur .
c. Would the project con flict with exisƟng zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code SecƟon 12220(g)), Ɵmberland (as defined by Public Resources Code SecƟon 4526), or Ɵmberland zoned Timberland ProducƟon (as defined by Government Code SecƟon 51104(g))? (No Impact)
The pr
oject site is currently developed with an exisƟng park. Land use surrounding the project site is primarily residenƟal with some lands zoned for commercial use. The project site is zoned as LDR, which does not allow development of the project site for Ɵmberland use. No parcels adjacen t to or near the project site are zoned for forest land, Ɵmberland, or Ɵmberland producƟon. The proposed project would not conflict with exisƟng zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or Ɵmberland, nor would it result in the loss of forest land or conversion of fore st land to non‐forest uses. As such, no impact to forest land or Ɵmberland would occur .
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forestland to non ‐forest use? (No Impact)
Refer to SecƟon 4.2.c above. The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest uses. Therefore, the proposed project wo uld have no impact related to loss of forest land or conversion of forest land. e. Would the project involve other changes in the exis Ɵng environment which, due to their locaƟon or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use? (No Impact)
Refer to SecƟons 4.2.a and 4.2.c above. The proposed project would not involve any other changes to the exisƟng environment which, due to their locaƟon or natur e, could result in conversion of Farmland to a non‐agricultural use, or conversion of forest land to a non‐forest use. No impact would occur .
4‐7
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air polluƟon control district may be relied upon to make the following determinaƟons.

Pote
nƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementaƟon of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulaƟvely considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐ aƩainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensiƟve receptors to substanƟal pollutant
concentraƟons?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecƟng a substanƟal number of people?
a. Would the project con flict with or obstruct implementaƟon of the applicable air quality plan? (Less Than Significant with MiƟgaƟon Incorporated)
The City of Tracy is part of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), which is within the jurisdicƟon of the San Joaquin Valley Air PolluƟon Control District (SJVAPCD). The SJVAPCD is responsible for air quality regulaƟon within the eight‐co unty San Joaquin Valley region. Both the State and the federal government have established health‐based Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead, and suspended parƟculate maƩer (PM2.5 and PM10). The SJVAB is designated as non‐aƩainment for O3 and PM2.5 for federal standards and non‐aƩainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards.

CEQA requires that certain proposed projects be analyzed for consistency with the applicable air quality plan. An air quality plan describes air polluƟon control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a non‐aƩainment area. The main purpose of the air quality plan is to bring the area into co
mpliance with the requirements of the federal and State air quality standards.

To bring the SJVAB into aƩainment, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2022 Plan for the 2015 8‐Hour Ozone Standard in December 2022 to saƟsfy Clean Air Act requirements and ensu re aƩainment of the 70 parts per billion (ppb) 8‐hour ozone standard.

To ensure the SJVAB’s conƟnued aƩainment of the U.S. Environmental ProtecƟon Agency (USEPA) PM10 standard, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan in September 2007. SJVAPCD RegulaƟon VIII (FugiƟve PM10 ProhibiƟons) is designed to reduce PM10 emissions generated by human acƟvity. The SJVAPCD adopted the 2018 plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 standards to address the USEPA federal annual PM2.5 standard of 12 µg/m3, established in 2012.

For a project to be consistent with SJVAPCD air quality plans, the pollutants emiƩed from a project should not exceed the SJVAPCD emission thresholds or cause a significant impact on air quality. In E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐8 addiƟon, emission reducƟons achieved through implementaƟon of offset requirements are a major component of the SJVAPCD air quality plans. As discussed below, construcƟon of the proposed project would not result in the generaƟon of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Implemen taƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure AIR‐1, described in SecƟon 4.3.b. would further reduce construcƟon dust impacts. As discussed below, long‐term operaƟonal emissions associated with the proposed project, including area, energy, and mobile source emissions, would also not exceed SJVAPCD established significance thresholds. Theref ore, impacts related to the proposed project’s potenƟal to conflict with or obstruct implementaƟon of the applicable air quality plan would be less than significant with miƟgaƟon incorporated. b. Would the project result in a cumula Ɵvely considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐aƩainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Less Than Significant with MiƟgaƟon Incorporated) The SJVAB is designated  as non‐aƩainment for O3 and PM2.5 for federal standards and non‐ aƩainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards. The SJVAPCD’s non‐aƩainment status is aƩributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulaƟve basis. By its very nature, air polluƟon is largely a cumulaƟve impact. No single project is sufficien t in size to, by itself, result in non‐aƩainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to exisƟng cumulaƟvely significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribuƟon to the cumulaƟve impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality wou ld be considered significant.

In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the SJVAPCD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulaƟvely considerable. If a project exceeds the idenƟfied significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulaƟvely considera ble, resulƟng in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s exisƟng air quality condiƟons.

Therefore, addiƟonal analysis to assess cumulaƟve impacts is unnecessary. The following analysis assesses the potenƟal project‐level construcƟon‐ and operaƟon‐related air quality impacts.

Short‐Term ConstrucƟon Emissions. During co nstrucƟon, short‐term degradaƟon of air quality may occur due to the release of parƟculate emissions generated by grading, paving, building, and other acƟviƟes. Emissions from construcƟon equipment are also anƟcipated and would include CO, NOx, reacƟve organic gases (ROGs), directly emiƩed parƟculate maƩer (PM2.5 and PM10), and toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as diesel exhaust parƟculate maƩer .

Project construcƟon acƟviƟes would include site preparaƟon, grading, building construcƟon, paving, and architectural coaƟng acƟviƟes. ConstrucƟon‐related effects on air quality from the proposed project would be greatest during the site pr eparaƟon phase due to the disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these acƟviƟes would temporarily generate parƟculate emissions. Sources of fugiƟve dust would include disturbed soils at the construcƟon site. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local st reets, which could be an addiƟonal source of airborne dust aŌer it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construcƟon acƟvity and local weather condiƟons. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operaƟng equipment. 4‐9
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) Larger dust parƟcles would seƩle near the source, while fine parƟcles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construcƟon site.

Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulƟng in emission reducƟons of 50 percent or more. The SJVAPCD has implemented Regul aƟon VIII measures for reducing fugiƟve dust emissions (PM10). With the implementaƟon of RegulaƟon VIII measures, fugiƟve dust emissions from construcƟon acƟviƟes would not result in adverse air quality impacts.

In addiƟon to dust‐related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construcƟon equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, ROG, and some soot parƟculate (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construcƟon acƟviƟes were to increase traffic congesƟon in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles idle in traffic. These emissions would be temporary in nature and limited to the immediate area surrounding the cons
trucƟon site.

The SJVAPCD has established construcƟon emissions thresholds on an annual basis as shown in Table

4.3.A below. ConstrucƟon emissions for the proposed project were analyzed using the California Emissions EsƟmator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1. ConstrucƟon of the proposed project is anƟcipated to begin in December 2023 and conƟnue for a period of 24 mon ths, ending in 2025.

Based on the proposed project grading plans, approximately 39,800 cubic yards of soil would be cut and approximately 24,600 cubic yards of soil would be fill, for a net total of 15,200 cubic yards of soil cut, which was included in CalEEMod. Ot
her precise details of construcƟon acƟviƟes are unknown at this Ɵme; therefore, default assumpƟons (e.g., construcƟon worker and truck trips and fleet acƟviƟes) from CalEEMod were used. ConstrucƟon‐related emissions are presented in Table 4.3.A.

CalEEMod output sheets are inc
luded in Appendix A.

Table 4.3.A: Project ConstrucƟon Emissions (Tons per Year) ConstrucƟon Year  ROG  NOX  CO  SOX  PM10  PM2.5
2023  <0.1  0.4  0.3  <0.1  0.1  0.1
2024  0.1  3.1  2.5  <0.1  0.3  0.1
2025  0.1  2.4  2.1  <0.1  0.2  0.1
Maximum Annual ConstrucƟon Emissions  0.1  3.1  2.5  <0.1  0.3  0.1 SJVAPCD Significance Threshold  10.0  10.0  100.0  27.0  15.0  15.0 Exceed Threshold?  No  No  No  No  No  No
Source: LSA (May 2023).

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = parƟculate maƩer less than 2.5 microns in size
PM10 = parƟculate maƩer less than 10 microns in size
ROG = reacƟve organic gas
SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air PolluƟon Control District SOX = sulfur oxides
As shown in Table 4.3.A, construcƟon emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD threshold for annual construcƟon emissions for the proposed project. In addiƟon to the construcƟon period thresholds of significance, the SJVAPCD has implemented RegulaƟon VIII measures for dust control during construcƟon to reduce construcƟon fugiƟ ve dust impacts to a less than significant level. These measures are required by MiƟgaƟon Measure AIR‐1, as follows:

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐10 MiƟgaƟon Measure AIR‐1:  Consistent with SJVAPCD RegulaƟon VIII (FugiƟve PM10 ProhibiƟons), the following controls are required to be included as specificaƟons for the proposed project and implemented at the construcƟon site:
 All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being acƟvely uƟlized for construcƟon purposes, shall be effecƟvely stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemic al stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetaƟve ground cover .
 All on‐site unpaved roads and off‐site unpaved access roads shall be effecƟvely stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
 All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavaƟon, land le veling, grading, cut and fill, and demoliƟon acƟviƟes shall be
effecƟvely controlled of fugiƟve dust emissions uƟlizing applicaƟon of water or by presoaking.
 When materials are transported off site, all material shall be covered, or effecƟvely weƩed to limit visible dus t emissions, and at least 6 inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
 All operaƟons shall limit or expediƟously remove the
accumulaƟon of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rota ry brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient weƫng to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden).
 Following the addiƟon of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of out‐door storag e piles, said piles shall be effecƟvely stabilized of fugiƟve dust emission uƟlizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

ImplementaƟon of the fugiƟve dust control measures outlined in MiƟgaƟon Measure AIR‐1 would ensure that the proposed project complies with RegulaƟon VIII and further r educes the short‐term construcƟon period air quality impacts. Therefore, with implementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure AIR‐ 1, construcƟon of the proposed project would result in a less‐than‐significant impact related to a cumulaƟvely considerable net increase of any criteria pollutan t for which the project region is in non‐aƩainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS.

Long‐Term OperaƟonal Emissions. Long‐term air pollutant emission impacts associated with the proposed project are those related to mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., 4‐11
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) natural gas), and area sources (e.g., architectural coaƟngs and the use of landscape maintenance equipment).

PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, Ɵre and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM10 occurs when vehicle Ɵres pulverize small rocks and pavement and the vehicle wakes generate airborne dust. The contribuƟon of Ɵre and brake wear is small compared to the other PM emission processes. Gasoline‐ powered engines have small rates of parƟculate maƩer emissions compared with diesel‐powered vehicles.

Energy source emissions res ult from acƟviƟes in buildings for which natural gas is used. The quanƟty of emissions is the product of usage intensity (i.e., the amount of natural gas) and the emission factor of the fuel source. Greater building or appliance efficiency reduces the amount of energy for a giv
en acƟvity and thus lowers the resultant emissions. The emission factor is determined by the fuel source, with cleaner energy sources, like renewable energy, producing fewer emissions than convenƟonal sources. The proposed recreaƟonal center would be designed to maximize sustainable approaches, such as the implementaƟon of Zero Net Car bon (ZNC), the use of solar energy and/or the use of baƩery storage to meet peak demands. The proposed recreaƟonal center would also be Gold LEED cerƟfied, which would help reduce energy consumpƟon associated with the project by implemenƟng best pracƟces for ener gy use, water use, indoor environmental quality, material selecƟon, and site and locaƟon within the surrounding community. However, no reducƟons were accounted for in the analysis to reflect LEED cerƟficaƟon since the precise features and associated energy savings have not yet been determined.

Ty
pically, area source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions located at the project site, including architectural coaƟngs and the use of landscape maintenance equipment. Area source emissions associated with the project would include emissions from the use of landscaping equipment and the use of consumer products.

Emission esƟmate
s for operaƟon of the proposed project were calculated using CalEEMod. Model results are shown in Table 4.3.B. Trip generaƟon rates for the proposed project were based on the project’s trip generaƟon esƟmate, as idenƟfied in SecƟon 4.17, TransportaƟon. As discussed in SecƟon 4.17, Tran
sportaƟon, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,760 average daily trips.

The primary emissions associated with the proposed project are regional in nature, meaning that air pollutants are rapidly dispersed on release or, in the case of vehicle emissions associated with the proposed project; emissions are released in other areas  of the Air Basin. The annual emissions associated with project operaƟonal trip generaƟon and area sources are idenƟfied in Table 4.3.B.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐12 Table 4.3.B: Project OperaƟon Emissions (Tons per Year) ROG  NOX  CO  SOx  PM10  PM2.5
Mobile Source Emissions  1.2  1.1  7.8  <0.1  0.6  0.1
Area Source Emissions  0.3  <0.1  0.5  <0.1  <0.1  <0.1 Energy Source Emissions  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
Total Project OperaƟon
Emissions  1.5  1.1  8.3  <0.1  0.6  0.1
SJVAPCD Significance Threshold  10.0  10.0  100.0  27.0  15.0  15.0 Exceed Threshold?  No  No  No  No  No  No
Source: LSA (May 2023).

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = parƟculate maƩer less than 2.5 microns in size
PM10 = parƟculate maƩer less than 10 microns in size
ROG = reacƟve organic gas
SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air PolluƟon Control District SOX = sulfur oxides

The results shown in Table 4.3.B indicate the proposed project’s operaƟonal emissions would not exceed the significance criteria for annual CO, NOx, ROG, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, operaƟon of the proposed project would not result in a cumulaƟvely considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the proposed project region is in non‐aƩainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS. As a result, impacts would be less than significant with miƟgaƟon incorpor
ated.
c. Would the project expose sensi Ɵve receptors to substanƟal pollutant concentraƟons? (Less Than Significant Impact)
SensiƟve receptors are defined as people that have an increased sensiƟvity to air polluƟon or environmental contaminants. SensiƟve receptor locaƟons include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residenƟal dw elling units. The closest sensiƟve receptors are the residences located west and southeast, approximately 10 feet from the project site boundary.

ConstrucƟon of the proposed project may expose surrounding sensiƟve receptors to airborne parƟculates, as well as a small quanƟty of construcƟon equipment polluta nts (i.e., usually diesel‐ fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construcƟon contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following the RegulaƟon VIII, FugiƟve PM10 ProhibiƟons as required by MiƟgaƟon Measure AIR‐1. Project construcƟon emissions would be below the SJVAPCD significance thresholds. Once the proposed project is constructed, the proposed project would not be a significant source of long‐term operaƟonal emissions. Therefore, sensiƟve receptors would not be exposed to subst anƟal pollutant concentraƟons during project operaƟon.

This impact would be less than significant.
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely a ffecƟng a substanƟal number of people?  (Less Than Significant Impact) During construcƟon, the various diesel‐powered vehicles and equipment in use on the site would create localized odors. These odors would be te mporary and are not likely to be noƟceable for extended periods of Ɵme beyond the project site. The potenƟal for diesel odor impacts is therefore 4‐13
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) considered less than significant. In addiƟon, the proposed uses that would be developed within the project site are not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result in frequent odor complaints. The proposed project would not create objecƟonable odors affecƟng a substanƟal number of people during  project construcƟon or operaƟon, and this impact would be less than significant.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐14

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

PotenƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substanƟal adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modificaƟons, on any species idenƟfied as a
candidate, sensiƟve, or special‐status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulaƟons, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Ser
vice?

b. Have a substanƟal adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensiƟve natural community idenƟfied in local or
regional plans, policies, regulaƟons or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?

c. Have a substanƟal adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interrupƟon, or other means?

d. Interfere substanƟally with the movement of any naƟve resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established naƟve resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of naƟve wildlife nursery sites?

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecƟng biological resources, such as a tree preservaƟon policy or ordinance?

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
ConservaƟon Plan, Natural Community ConservaƟon Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservaƟon plan?

Most of the project site consists of grass fields, playground structures, parking lots, and landscaping, including trees. Trees observed include mostly ornamental trees, such as lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). NonnaƟve grasses and forbs were growing in the centrally located field and in patc hes underneath the trees.

The project site is located within a developed area with planted trees, grass fields, and patches of ruderal vegetaƟon. Trees on the project site provide nesƟng habitat for bird species, such as California scrub‐jay (Aphelocoma californica) and Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna). Some birds cou
ld also nest in the eaves of the buildings. The terra coƩa roofing of the exisƟng Tracy Interfaith Ministries building provides suitable nesƟng habitat for house sparrow (Passer domesƟcus).

Wildlife observed during the field survey consists of mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypt e anna), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), rock pigeon (Columba livia), northern mockingbird (Mimus polygloƩos), western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), American robin (Turdus migratorius), house sparrow (Passer domesƟcus), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), dark‐eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), white‐crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), and yellow‐ rumped warbler (Setophaga 4‐15
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) coronate). Bats could roost in the trees and buildings, but no bats or sign of roosƟng bats were observed during the field survey. The following analysis assumes many addiƟonal species are likely to occur on the project site throughout the year.
a. Would the project have a substan Ɵal adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modificaƟons, on any species idenƟfied as a candidate, sensiƟve, or special‐status species in l ocal or regional plans, policies, or regulaƟons, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less Than Significant with MiƟgaƟon Incorporated) Special‐status species are defined as follows:
 Species that are listed, formally proposed for lisƟng, or designated as candidates for lisƟng as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act;  Species that are listed, or designat ed as candidates for lisƟng, as rare, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act;  Plant species on California Rare Plant Rank Lists 1A, 1B, and 2 in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants;
 Animal species designated as Species of Special Concern or Fully Prote cted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
 Species that meet the definiƟon of rare, threatened, or endangered under SecƟon 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines; and
 Species considered being a taxon of special concern by the relevant local agencies.

To idenƟfy special‐status plan t and wildlife species known to occur or potenƟally occurring in the project site vicinity, the following resources were queried: (1) California Department of Fish and Wildlife California, Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB14) for species records in the project vicinity; (2) California NaƟve Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California15 for rec
ords of special‐status plant species in the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Union Island

7.5‐minute quadrangle; and (3) United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) InformaƟon for Planning and ConsultaƟon (IPaC) on‐line system.16
A re
connaissance‐level field survey was conducted at the project site on February 21, 2023. During this survey, preliminary informaƟon on vegetaƟon types, wildlife habitat, and potenƟal jurisdicƟonal features (e.g., wetlands) was collected.
14   California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023. California Natural Diversity Database, commercial version. February.
15   California NaƟve Plant Society (CNPS). 2023. Rare Plant Program, Rare Plant Inventory (online ediƟon, v9.5). Website: hƩps://www.rareplants.cnps.org (accessed February 20, 2023). 16   United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. InformaƟon for Planning and ConsultaƟon (IPaC).

February 20.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐16 The scienƟfic and vernacular nomenclature for the plant and wildlife species used in this analysis are from the following standard sources: (a) Plants17 and updates listed on the Jepson Herbarium website,18 (b) amphibians and repƟles,19 (c) birds through 2022,20 and (d) mammals.21 Special‐Status Plants.The project site is completely developed, does not contain any natural habitat, and therefore does not provide suitable habitat for any special‐status plants.

Special‐Status Wildlife. Based on the results of the database search and literature review and as shown in Table 4.4.A, four special‐status species were evaluated for the pr oposed project:

Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Townsend’s western big‐eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), and pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). Based on the results of the reconnaissance‐level field survey, two of the four aforemenƟoned special‐status wildlife species were determined to be potenƟally presen t on the project site due to the presence of suitable habitat: Townsend’s western big‐eared bat (a California Species of Special Concern) and pallid bat (also a California Species of Special Concern). 17 Baldwin, B.G., D.H . Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. PaƩerson, T. J . Rosaƫ, and D.H. Wilken, eds. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second EdiƟon. University of California Press, Berkeley. 18 University of California, B erkeley. 2023. Jepson Herbarium website: hƩps://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ (accessed February 28, 2022).
19 Crother, B.I. (ed .). 2017. ScienƟfic and Standard English Names of Amphibians and RepƟles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in Our Understanding, pp. 1‐102. SSAR Herpetological Circular No. 43.
20 American Ornithologis ts’ Union (AOU). 1998. Checklist of North American Birds. 7th EdiƟon. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
21 Bradley, R.D. , L.K. Ammerman, R.J. Baker, L.C. Bradley, J.A. Cook, R.C. Dowler, D.J. Schmidly, F.B . Stangl, Jr ., R.A. Van Den Bussche, and B. Würsig. 2014. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, 2014. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University No. 237. 4‐17
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) Table 4.4.A: Special‐Status Species Evaluated for the Project Species  Status1  Habitat/Blooming Period  Discussion
Birds
Swainson’s hawk
Buteo swainsoni
ST  Open grasslands, meadows, or
agriculture fields. Requires tall lone
trees for nesƟng and perching.

No suitable nesƟng habitat is present on the project
site. Trees are relaƟvely close together.

Western burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
SSC  Dry open grasslands and meadows.

Requires mammal ground burrows
for nesƟng.

No suitable habitat or ground burrows observed on the
project site.

Mammals
Townsend’s western big‐
eared bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
SSC  Found in wooded areas with caves
or old buildings for roost sites.

Suitable roosƟng and hibernaƟng habitat may be
present in buildings along the southwest corner of the
project site; could forage over the site.

Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
SSC  Roosts in caves, tunnels, buildings,
under bridges, and in tree hollows;
forages over variety of habitats.

Suitable roosƟng habitat may present in buildings along the southwest corner of the project site; this bat
species could occasionally occur as a transient while
foraging at night. No trees with large hollows  observed during the field survey.

Source: Compiled by LSA Associates Inc. (2023).
1   Status Codes:

SSC = California Species of Special Concern
ST = State Listed as Threatened
Two spec
ial‐status wildlife species are known to occur or have the potenƟal to occur at the project site (see Table 4.4.A). This secƟon describes the types of impacts that could affect these special‐ status wildlife species and the associated miƟgaƟon measures that would be implemented to minimize and miƟ
gate impacts. Special‐status wildlife species could be impacted both directly and indirectly during construcƟon acƟviƟes. The potenƟal for protected resources to be impacted by construcƟon of the proposed project are a funcƟon of the likelihood the species is present when the project is con
structed, as well as the type and duraƟon of construcƟon acƟviƟes. Another factor is the sensiƟvity of the species or resource to disturbance. For example, roosƟng bats may not react to construcƟon acƟviƟes near its roost during the day, whereas a rap tor may abandon its nest if construcƟon is within 100 feet from the nest.

NesƟng Birds. The site contains a few large mature trees or shrubs that may provide some shelter and nesƟng habitat for resident and migratory bird species occurring in the region (e.g., scrub jay, northern mocking bird, American crow, collared dove, and mourning dove). Although the species likely to use the project site are considered common and widespread, their acƟve nests are protected from removal by a variety of State and federal laws, including California Fish and Game Code SecƟons 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 and the Migra tory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).

If construcƟon would be conducted during the nesƟng season, potenƟal disturbance or loss of nesƟng birds protected under California Fish and Game Code SecƟons 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 and the MBTA could occur as a result of cons trucƟon acƟvity. This impact would be considered significant. ImplementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure BIO‐1 would reduce this impact to nesƟng and breeding birds to less than significant by avoiding the nesƟng season, idenƟfying the presence or absence of acƟve migratory bird nes ts, and if present, prevenƟng the loss of eggs or young. With implementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure BIO‐1, this impact would be less than significant.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐18 MiƟgaƟon Measure BIO‐1:  Prior to construcƟon acƟviƟes occurring during the nesƟng bird season (February 1 through August 31), pre‐construcƟon acƟvity surveys for nesƟng birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during  project implementaƟon. Surveys shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to the iniƟaƟon of construcƟon acƟviƟes. During this survey, the biologist shall inspect all trees and other potenƟal nesƟng habitats (e.g., shrubs, ground, and structures) in the impact area plus a surrounding 300
‐foot buffer for nests. If removal of potenƟal
nesƟng substrate or project grading will occur during more than one nesƟng season, or in different parts of the project site in phases over the course of a single season, then addiƟonal pre‐acƟvity surv
eys must be performed within 7 days prior to iniƟaƟon of work in any parƟcular area. If the pre‐construcƟon acƟvity survey does not idenƟfy the presence of any acƟve nests on or within 300 feet of the site, construcƟon acƟviƟes may proc eed.

If nests known to have eggs or young, or that cannot be confirmed to be inacƟve or to lack eggs or young, are found, or adults are demonstraƟng nesƟng behavior, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate construcƟon‐free buffer around each nes t. Generally, a buffer of 300 feet for raptors or 100 feet for songbirds is adequate to avoid causing nest abandonment. The buffer shall remain in place unƟl the qualified biologist has confirmed that the nest is no longer acƟve.

If less than a 100‐foot nest buffer is necessary and det ermined to be
appropriate for a parƟcular nest or nests, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest(s) before construcƟon to document baseline nesƟng behavior, and then monitor the nest during construcƟon to ensure nesƟng birds are not  exhibiƟng signs of stress and territorial behavior . If signs of stress are observed during the monitoring, construcƟon acƟviƟes shall cease or the buffer shall be increased, as determined by a qualified biologist, to a sufficient distance such that the nesƟng birds are no long er exhibiƟng signs of stress.

To prevent encroachment, the buffer shall be clearly marked for avoidance. The established buffer shall remain in effect unƟl the young have fledged or the nest is no longer acƟve as confirmed by the biologist.

Imp
lementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure BIO‐1 requires avoiding tree removal and other work acƟviƟes during the nesƟng season and, if possible, conducƟng pre‐construcƟon surveys for nesƟng migratory birds prior to any work during the nesƟng season, as well as addiƟonal measu res to ensure avoidance of any “take” . ImplementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure BIO‐1 would reduce potenƟal 4‐19
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) construcƟon‐related impacts, both permanent and temporary in nature, on nesƟng migratory birds to a less‐than‐significant level with miƟgaƟon incorporated.

Pallid Bat and RoosƟng Bats. The pallid bat is a California Species of Special Concern that could roost and/or forage within the site. Pallid bats roost in  caves, tunnels, and occasionally buildings and hollow trees. Suitable roosƟng habitat may be present in the structures and larger trees on and adjacent to the site. No bat roosts or signs of roosƟng bats were observed in the on‐site structure or trees during the reconnaissance‐level survey .

Bats, including special‐status bats such as the pallid bat, could roost in the structures and large trees in the project area and forage on the project site. RoosƟng bats could be disturbed, killed, or injured by tree removal and/or building demoliƟon acƟviƟes, if present in cons trucƟon areas. Disturbance of roosƟng special‐status bats would be a potenƟally significant impact.ImplementaƟon of the following miƟgaƟon measure would reduce potenƟal impacts to roosƟng bats to a less‐than‐ significant level. MiƟgaƟon Measure BIO‐2:   Prior to any tree rem oval, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats within the project site. The habitat assessment shall include a visual inspecƟon of potenƟal roosƟng features (e.g., caviƟes, crevices in wood and bark, exfoliaƟng bark for colonial species, and suitable canopy for fo liage roosƟng species). If suitable habitat trees are found, they shall be flagged or otherwise clearly marked and tree trimming or removal shall not proceed unless the following occur:

In trees with suitable habitat, presence of bats is presumed, or documented during the surveys described below and removal using a two‐ste
p removal process detailed below occurs only during
seasonal periods of bat acƟvity, from approximately March 1 through April 15 and September 1 through October 15; or AŌer a qualified biologist conducts night emergence surveys or completes visual examinaƟon of roost features that esta blish absence of roosƟng bats.

Two‐step tree removal shall be conducted over two consecuƟve days as follows:
 The first day (in the aŌernoon), under the direct supervision and instrucƟon by a qualified biologist with experience conducƟng two‐step tree removal, limbs and branches shall be removed by a tree cuƩer using chainsaws only. Limbs with caviƟes, crevices, and deep bark fissures shall be avoided.
 The second day the enƟre tree shall be removed.

ImplementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure BIO‐2 would require a focused habitat assessment, pre‐ construcƟon survey, tree and structure removal (as needed), and measures for bat exclusion (as needed). ImplementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure BIO‐2 would reduce pot enƟal construcƟon‐related E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐20 impacts, both permanent and temporary in nature, on special‐status bats to a less‐than‐significant level with miƟgaƟon incorporated.
b. Would the project have a substan Ɵal adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensiƟve natural community idenƟfied in local or regional plans, policies, regulaƟons, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact) The CDFW tracks the occurrences of natural plant communiƟes that are of limited distribuƟon Statewide or within a count y or region and that are oŌen vulnerable to environmental effects of projects. A Manual of California VegetaƟon, Second EdiƟon,22 lists vegetaƟon alliances with State rarity rankings of S1‐S3 as considered “highly imperiled” and project impacts to “high‐quality occurrences” of these alliances could be considered significant under CEQA. Most types of wetlands, including alkali wetlands, and riparian communiƟes are also considered sensiƟve natural communiƟes due to their limite d distribuƟon in California. The CNDDB does not idenƟfy any sensiƟve natural communiƟes on the site,23 and no sensiƟve plant communiƟes were observed during the reconnaissance‐level survey. No riparian habitat or other sensiƟve natural communiƟes occur at the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substanƟal adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensiƟve natural community. No impa ct would occur . c. Would the project have a substan Ɵal adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interrupƟon, or other means? (No Impact)
The project site does not contain any wetlands or other potenƟal jurisdicƟonal features. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substanƟal adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands. No impact would occur .
d. W o
uld the project interfere substanƟally with the movement of any naƟve resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established naƟve resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of naƟve wildlife nursery sites? (Less Than Significant Impact) Wildlife Movement Corridors. Wildlife movement includes migraƟon (i.e., usually annual roundtrip), inter‐populaƟon movement (i.e., long‐term geneƟc flow), and small travel pathways (i.e., daily movement corridors within an animal’s territory). While small travel pathways usually facilit ate movement for daily home range acƟviƟes such as foraging or escape from predators, they also provide connecƟon between outlying populaƟons and the main corridor, permiƫng an increase in gene flow among populaƟons. Landscape elements that facilitate local and/or regional wildlife movement include stream drainage s, canyons, ridges, or other prominent natural or man‐made landscape features.

The project site is currently developed with an exisƟng park and is surrounded by urban development. Wildlife that currently move through or around the project site would likely conƟnue 22   Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler‐Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California VegetaƟon. Second ediƟon.

California NaƟve Plant Society Press, Sacramento.
23   California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. op. cit. 4‐21
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) to move through or around the site during and aŌer construcƟon of the project since most of the species that likely occur in the area are generalists that are adept at moving through urban landscapes. Therefore, impacts to wildlife movement corridors would be less than significant.

Nursery Sites. The project site does not conta in naƟve wildlife nursery sites (e.g., heron rookeries or salmonid spawning areas). ImplementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measures BIO‐1 and BIO‐2 would reduce potenƟal impacts to any bat roosts or bird nests, if present, to a less‐than‐significant level.

Given tha
t the proposed project would not interfere substanƟally with the movement of any naƟve resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established naƟve resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of naƟve wildlife nursery sites, related impacts would be less than significant.
e. W
ould the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecƟng biological resources, such as a tree preservaƟon policy or ordinance? (No Impact) Chapter 7.08 of the City Municipal Code protects trees and shrubs growing within the City’s public right‐of‐way. The City right‐of‐way refers to the porƟon of the public street right‐of‐way between the curb, or curb line, and the adjacent pro perty line used for the purpose of planƟng and maintaining City street trees. A permit from the City would be required for the removal of any trees and shrubs within the City right‐of‐way. Since the proposed project would not impact any street trees within the City right‐of‐wa
y, no permits would be required. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecƟng biological resources. No impact would occur . f. Would the project con flict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ConservaƟon Plan, Natural Community ConservaƟon Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservaƟon plan? (No Impact)
The proposed project is not located within any approved local, regional, or State conservaƟon plan.

There
fore, the project would not conflict with any approved local, regional, or State habitat conservaƟon plan. No impact would occur .

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐22

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Pote
nƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substanƟal adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b. Cause a substanƟal adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
a. Would the project cause a substan Ɵal adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? (Less Than Significant with MiƟgaƟon Incorporated) CEQA defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria:
 Listed in, or eligible for lisƟng in, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register);
 Listed in a local register of historic al resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) SecƟon 5020.1(k);
 IdenƟfied as significant in a historical resource survey meeƟng the requirements of PRC SecƟon 5024.1(g); or
 Determined to be a historical resource by a project’s lead agency (PRC SecƟon 21084.1 and CEQA Gui
delines SecƟon 15064.5[a]).

The California Register defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) associated with events that have made a significant contribuƟon to the broad paƩerns or local or regional history of the cultural heri tage of California or the United States; (2) associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or naƟonal history; (3) embodies the disƟncƟve characterisƟcs of a type, period, region, or method of construcƟon or represents the work of a master or possesses high arƟsƟc values; or (4) has yielded, or has the pot
enƟal to yield, informaƟon important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the naƟon. Under CEQA, historical resources can include pre‐contact (i.e., NaƟve American) archaeological deposits, historic‐period archaeological deposits, historic buildings, and hist oric districts.

A Cultural Resources Study24 was conducted for the proposed project that consisted of background research and a field survey. The results of the study are summarized below. 24   LSA Associates, Inc. 2023. Cultural Resource Study for the El Pescadero Park & MulƟ‐GeneraƟonal RecreaƟon Center Project, Tracy, San Joaquin County, California (LSA Project No. LPX2204). April. 4‐23
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) On January 24, 2023, the staff of the Central California InformaƟon Center (CCaIC) conducted a records search (#12423L) of the project site and vicinity. The CCalC, an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic PreservaƟon, is the official State repository of cultural resource records and repor
ts for San Joaquin County. As part of the background research, local and State inventories for cultural resources were also reviewed, and the NaƟve American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted. No recorded cultural resources were idenƟfied within the project site or within a

0.5‐mile radius of the project site.

LS
A submiƩed a request to the NAHC to search the Sacred Lands File (SLF) for NaƟve American cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed project. The NAHC maintains the SLF database and is the official State repository of NaƟve American sacred‐site locaƟon reco rds in California. Pricilla Torres‐Fuentes, NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, responded to the SLF search request on February 28, 2023, staƟng that the results were negaƟve and that there were no known NaƟve American cultural resources in the project site.

A pedestrian survey of the project site was c onducted on February 21, 2023. No archaeological evidence was observed during the field survey.

No archaeological resources were idenƟfied within the project site during the course of the Cultural Resources Study. Background research indicated that development of the project site began in the late 1960s or early 1970s aŌer the project sit e was designated as El Pescadero Park. By 1974, the extant park entrance road and parking lot had been constructed, as well as an intermiƩent pond and an unidenƟfied structure in the center of the park, and a pathway extending through the center and along the eastern side of the park tha
t connected the parking lot and West Kavanagh Avenue. The pond, structure, and early pathway were removed between 1993 and 2005 and replaced by the current configuraƟon of park elements.

Although the Cultural Resources Study did not yield historically significant resources, ther e is a possibility that construcƟon of the proposed project could impact as‐yet‐unrecorded subsurface deposits on the project site. Should archaeological deposits be encountered during project ground disturbance, a substanƟal adverse change in the significance of a historical resource would occur from its demoliƟon, destrucƟ on, relocaƟon, or alteraƟon such that the significance of the resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines SecƟon 15064.5(b)(1)). ImplementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure CULT‐1 would reduce potenƟal impacts to historical resources to a less‐than‐significant level.

MiƟgaƟon Measu re CULT‐1:   If deposits of pre‐contact or historical archaeological materials are encountered during project acƟviƟes, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected, and the qualified archaeologist should assess the situaƟon, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendaƟons for the treatmen t of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials.

Archaeological materials can include flaked‐stone tools (e.g., projecƟle points, knives, and choppers) or obsidian, chert, basalt, or quartzite toolmaking debris; bone tools; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil oŌen containing heat‐affected roc k, ash and E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐24 charcoal, shellfish remains, bones, and other cultural materials); and stone‐milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, and handstones).

Pre‐contact archaeological sites oŌen contain human remains.

Historic‐period materials can include wood, stone, concrete, or adobe fooƟngs, walls, and other structural remains; debris‐filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, cer amics, metal, and other refuse.

Impacts to archaeological cultural resources shall be avoided by project acƟviƟes. If such deposits cannot be avoided, the City of Tracy (City) should, in consultaƟon with local California tribal groups, evaluate the significance of the find under the California En
vironmental Quality Act (CEQA). If the find is determined to qualify as a historical resource (Public Resources Code [PRC] SecƟon 21084.1) or unique archaeological resource (PRC SecƟon 21083.2), impacts to the deposit will need to be avoided or such impacts must be treated. If treatment is required, a plan shall  be developed to miƟgate, avoid, or minimize impacts to cultural resources.

Treatments may consist of, but are not necessarily limited to, systemaƟc recovery and analysis of archaeological deposits; recording the resource; preparing a report of findings; accessioning recovered archaeological materials at an appropriate curaƟon fa
cility; and community outreach. All reports produced as part of the evaluaƟon and treatment of cultural resources idenƟfied during the project shall be submiƩed to the City for review and comment.

All final documents shall be submiƩed to the Central California InformaƟon Center (CCaIC).

With impl
ementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure CULT‐1, which requires work stoppage in the event of an archaeological discovery, potenƟal impacts to archaeological historical resources would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level with miƟgaƟon incorporated. b. Would the project cause a substan Ɵal adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (Less Than Significant with MiƟgaƟ on Incorporated) According to the CEQA Guidelines, “When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource” (CEQA Guidelines SecƟon 15064.5(c)(1)). Those archaeological sites that do not qualify as historical resources shall be assessed to determine if they qualify as “uniqu e archaeological resources” (California PRC SecƟon 21083.2).

Archaeological deposits idenƟfied during project construcƟon would be treated by the City—in consultaƟon with a qualified archaeologist meeƟng the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional QualificaƟons Standards for Archaeology—in accordance with MiƟgaƟon Measure CUL T‐1. With implementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure CULT‐1, idenƟfied above, impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level with miƟgaƟon incorporated. 4‐25
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) c. Would the project disturb any humans remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Based on previous archaeological invesƟgaƟon and analysis, there is a low potenƟal for the disturbance of archaeological cultural resources or human remains at the project site. However, if human remains are encountered at the project site, State Health and Safety Code SecƟon 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines SecƟon 15064.5(e)(1
) state that no further disturbance shall occur to the area of the find unƟl the County Coroner has made a determinaƟon of origin and disposiƟon of the human bone pursuant to PRC SecƟon 5097.98. The County Coroner must be noƟfied of the find immediately and shall
make a determinaƟon within two working days of being noƟfied. If the remains are determined to be NaƟve American, the County Coroner shall noƟfy the NAHC by phone within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall then immediately determine and noƟfy a Mos t Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representaƟve, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspecƟon and make recommendaƟons or preferences for treatment of the remains within 48 hours of being granted access to the sit
e. MLD recommendaƟons may include scienƟfic removal and nondestrucƟve analysis of human remains and items associated with NaƟve American burials, preservaƟon of NaƟve American human remains and associated items in place, relinquishment of NaƟve American human remains and associated items to the des cendants for treatment, or any other culturally appropriate treatment.

Compliance with SecƟon 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and PRC SecƟon 5097.98 regarding the treatment of human remains would ensure that potenƟal impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐26

4.6 ENERGY
Pote
nƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potenƟally significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumpƟon of
energy resources during project construcƟon or operaƟon? b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
a. Would the project result in a poten Ɵally significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumpƟon of energy resources during project construcƟon or operaƟon? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The discussion and analysis provided below is based on data included in the CalEEMod output, which is included in Appendix A.

ConstrucƟon‐Period Energy Use. The anƟcipated construcƟon schedule assumes that the proposed project would be built over appro ximately 24 months. The proposed project would require grading, site preparaƟon, and building acƟviƟes during construcƟon.

ConstrucƟon of the proposed project would require energy for the manufacture and transportaƟon of construcƟon materials, preparaƟon of the site for demoliƟon and grading acƟviƟes,  and construcƟon of the residences. Petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) would be the primary sources of energy for these acƟviƟes. ConstrucƟon acƟviƟes are not anƟcipated to result in an inefficient use of energy as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construcƟ on contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs on the project. Energy usage on the project site during construcƟon would be temporary in nature and would be relaƟvely small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources. Therefore, the proposed pro ject would result in a less‐than‐significant impact during project construcƟon.

OperaƟonal Energy Use. OperaƟonal energy usage is typically associated with natural gas use, electricity consumpƟon, and fuel used for vehicle trips. As described in Chapter 2.0, Project DescripƟon, the proposed project woul d include the construcƟon of a new recreaƟon center and the renovaƟon of El Pescadero park and dog park.

The proposed mulƟ‐generaƟonal recreaƟon center would be designed to Gold LEED Standards, which would further reduce energy associated with the project by implemenƟng best pracƟces  for energy use, water use, indoor environmental quality, material selecƟon, and site and locaƟon within the surrounding community. However, no reducƟons were accounted for in the analysis to reflect LEED since the precise features and associated energy savings have not yet been determined. In addiƟon, the proposed proj
ect would maximize sustainable approaches, such as Zero Net Carbon, solar energy and/or baƩery storage, which was included in CalEEMod. The proposed project would be constructed using energy efficient modern building materials and construcƟon pracƟces, and the 4‐27
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) proposed project would also use new modern appliances and equipment, in accordance with the Appliance Efficiency RegulaƟons (Title 20, CCR SecƟons 1601 through 1608). The proposed project would also be constructed to meet the 2022 Title 24 standards. Therefore, based on the nature of the proposed project and the building design feat ures, the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumpƟon of energy resources.

In addiƟon, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline to fuel project‐related trips. Based on the CalEEMod analysis, the proposed project would result in approxim
ately 4,175,094 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per year. The average fuel economy for light‐ duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and SUVs) in the United States has steadily increased from about

14.9 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1980 to 22.9 mpg in 2020, the year for which the most recent data is availa
ble.25 Therefore, using the average fuel economy esƟmates for 2020 the proposed project would result in the consumpƟon of approximately 144,646 gallons of gasoline per year and approximately 104,593 gallons of diesel fuel per year. Based on fuel consumpƟon obtained from EMFAC2021, approximately 92 million gallons of diesel and approximately 286 million gallons of g
asoline will be consumed from vehicle trips in San Joaquin County in 2023. Therefore, gasoline and diesel fuel demand generated by vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would increase the annual fuel use in San Joaquin County by approximately 0.05 percent for gasoline fuel usage and

0.1 perce
nt for diesel fuel usage. Fuel consumpƟon associated with vehicle trips generated by project operaƟons would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.

Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less‐than‐significant impact during project operaƟ
on. As such, the proposed project would not result in a potenƟal significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumpƟon of energy resources during project construcƟon or operaƟon. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. Con flict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (Less Than Significant Impact)
In 2002, the Leg
islature passed Senate Bill 1389, which required the California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop an integrated energy plan every two years for electricity, natural gas, and transportaƟon fuels, for the California Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformaƟon of the transport aƟon system to improve air quality, reduce congesƟon, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan idenƟfies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implemenƟng incenƟ ve programs for zero emission vehicles and their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce VMT and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.
25   U.S. Department of TransportaƟon (DOT). “T able 4‐23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles.” Website: hƩps://www.bts.gov/content/average‐fuel‐efficiency‐us‐light‐duty‐vehicles (accessed May 2023).

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐28 The most recently CEC adopted energy reports are the 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report26 and 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update.27 The Integrated Energy Policy Reports provide the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require acƟon if the State is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining energy reliability and controlling costs. The Integrated Energy Po licy Reports cover a broad range of topics, including implementaƟon of Senate Bill 350, integrated resource planning, distributed energy resources, transportaƟon electrificaƟon, soluƟons to increase resiliency in the electricity sector, energy efficiency, transportaƟon electrificaƟon, barriers faced by disadvantaged communiƟes, demand response, tr ansmission and landscape‐scale planning, the California Energy Demand Preliminary Forecast, the preliminary transportaƟon energy demand forecast, renewable gas (in response to Senate Bill 1383), updates on Southern California electricity reliability, natural gas outlook, and climate adaptaƟon and resiliency.

As indicated above, the proposed project would not resul t in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumpƟon of energy resources, during project construcƟon or operaƟon. Because California’s energy conservaƟon planning acƟons are conducted at a regional level, and because the proposed project’s total impact to regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed project would not conflict
with California’s energy conservaƟon plans as described in the CEC’s Integrated Energy Policy Reports.   Impacts would be less than significant, and no miƟgaƟon is required. 26   California Energy Commission, 2021. 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission.

Docket # 21‐IEPR‐01. (accessed May 2023)
27   California Energy Commission, 2022. 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. California Energy Commission. Docket # 22‐IEPR‐01.
4‐29
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Pote
nƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potenƟal substanƟal adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a know n earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substanƟal evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special PublicaƟon 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefacƟon? iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substanƟal soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potenƟally result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefacƟon or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creaƟng substanƟal direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporƟng the use of sepƟc tanks or alternaƟve waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause poten Ɵal substanƟal adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist ‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substanƟal evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special PublicaƟon 42. (No Impact)
The State of California enacted the Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1972, requiring the State Geologist to delineate Earthquake Fault Zones (EFZs) along known acƟve faults that have high potenƟal for fault rupture. AcƟve faults are defined as a fau lt that has surface displacement within the last 11,000 years.28 State regulaƟons prohibit habitable structures from being sited within 50 feet of an acƟve fault. The project site is not located within or adjacent to an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake 28   State of California. 2023. Department of ConservaƟon. Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Website:
hƩps://www.conservaƟon.ca.gov/cgs/alquist‐priolo (accessed January 19, 2023).

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐30 Fault Zone.29 Therefore, fault rupture through the site is not anƟcipated, and the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substanƟal adverse effects related to fault rupture. No impact would occur .
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site is located in an area of low to moderate seismicity and there ar e no known acƟve faults that cross the project site. The nearest earthquake fault zoned as acƟve by the State of California Geological Survey is the Vernalis Fault, which is located approximately 2.7 miles northeast of the project site. Other faults capable of producing ground shaking at the project site include the Black BuƩe Fa
ult (5.6 miles southwest of the site), Midway Fault (7.0 miles southwest of the site), San Joaquin Fault (8.7 miles southwest of the site), Corral Hollow‐Carnegie Fault (14.2 miles southwest of the site), and Greenville Fault (15.5 miles southwest of the site). Any one of these fau
lts could generate an earthquake capable of causing strong ground shaking at the subject site.

While this area is not within an area of high seismic acƟvity, relaƟvely large earthquakes are known to occur nearby along the margins of the Central Valley; the greatest potenƟ al for significant ground shaking would occur along the Calaveras, Hayward, San Andreas, and Greenville Faults.

Seismic ground shaking generally refers to all aspects of moƟon of the earth’s surface resulƟng from an earthquake and is normally the major cause of damage in seismic events. The extent of ground shaking is c
ontrolled by the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and local geologic condiƟons. The magnitude of a seismic event is a measure of the energy released by an earthquake; it is assessed by seismographs that measure the amplitude of seismic waves. The inte
nsity of an earthquake is a subjecƟve measure of the percepƟble effects of a seismic event at a given point. The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale is the most commonly used scale to measure the subjecƟve effects of earthquake intensity. It uses values ranging from I to XII.30 The most significant adverse impact associated with strong seismic shaking is potenƟal damage to structures and improvements and possible injury or loss of life. The proposed project would renovate and relocate exisƟng park features and construct a new, two‐story mulƟ‐generaƟonal recreaƟon center . ImplementaƟon of the proposed projec t would increase the use of the project site and result in the construcƟon of improvements in areas subject to seismic shaking. The risk of ground shaking impacts is reduced through adherence to the design and materials standards set forth in building codes. The City of Tracy has adopte d the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) (Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of RegulaƟons [CCR]), which provides for stringent construcƟon requirements on projects in areas of high seismic risk. The design and construcƟon for the proposed project would be required to conform with, or exceed, current  best standards for earthquake‐ resistant construcƟon in accordance with the most recent CBC adopted by the City and with the generally accepted standards of geotechnical pracƟce for seismic design in Northern California. 29   California Geological Survey. 2021. California Earthquake Hazards Zone ApplicaƟon. Website:
hƩps://maps.conservaƟon.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed January 19, 2023). 30   United States Geological Survey (USGS). n.d. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Website:
hƩps://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake‐hazards/modified‐mercalli‐intensity‐scale (accessed January 19, 2023).
4‐31
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) Adherence to the 2022 CBC requires a site‐specific geotechnical invesƟgaƟon to be performed for the proposed project to evaluate soil stability, soil strength, posiƟon and adequacy of load‐bearing soils, the effect of moisture variaƟon on soil‐bearing capacity, compressibility, liquefacƟon, and expansiveness, as well as a ge otechnical report prepared to provide recommendaƟons on foundaƟon type and design criteria.

In addiƟon, the Safety Element of the City of Tracy General Plan includes several goals, objecƟves, and policies to reduce the risks to the community from earthquakes and other geologic hazards. In parƟcular, the fo
llowing policies would apply to the project site:
 SA‐1.1, Policy P2: Geotechnical reports shall be required for development in areas where potenƟally serious geologic risks exist. These reports should address the degree of hazard, design parameters for the project based on the hazard, and appropriate miƟgaƟon measu res.  SA‐1.2, Policy P1: All construcƟon in Tracy shall conform to the California Building Code and the Tracy Municipal Code, including provisions addressing unreinforced masonry buildings.

Compliance with the requirements of the CBC and the City of Tracy General Plan policies idenƟfied above woul
d ensure that impacts associated with seismic hazards would be less than significant. iii. Seismic ‐related ground failure, including liquefacƟon? (Less Than Significant Impact) LiquefacƟon is the transformaƟon of loose, fine‐grained sediment to a fluid‐like state similar to quicksand. This phenomenon occurs due to strong seismic acƟvity and lessens the soil’s ability to support a str
uctural foundaƟon. The primary factors affecƟng the possibility of liquefacƟon in soil are: (1) intensity and duraƟon of earthquake shaking; (2) soil type and relaƟve density; (3) overburden pressures; and (4) depth to groundwater . Soil most suscepƟble to lique facƟon is clean, loose, fine‐grained sands and non‐plasƟc silts that are saturated.

The California Geological Survey (CGS) has mapped Seismic Hazard Zones that delineate areas suscepƟble to liquefacƟon and/or landslides for which proposed new developments are required to conduct addiƟonal invesƟgaƟons to de termine the extent and magnitude of potenƟal ground failure.

According to CGS data, the project site is located in an area that has not been evaluated for liquefacƟon hazards. The proposed project would be designed and constructed consistent with the most current earthquake resistance standards for Sei smic Zone 3 in the CBC, which includes specificaƟons for site preparaƟon (e.g., compacƟon requirements for foundaƟons). The potenƟal for substanƟal adverse effects to the project due to seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefacƟon, would therefore be less than significant.
iv. Landslides? (L
ess Than Significant Impact)
The project site is relaƟvely flat, does not have any substanƟal slopes, and is not adjacent to an area with substanƟal slopes. The project site is not located along riverbanks, foothills, or mountain terrain that would make it suscepƟble to landslides. As such, the project sit e is exposed to liƩle or no risk from landslides. This impact would be less than significant.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐32 b. Would the project result in substan Ɵal soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Grading and earthmoving during project construcƟon has the potenƟal to result in erosion and loss of topsoil. The potenƟal for soil erosion exists during the period of earthwork acƟviƟes between the Ɵme when earthwork is completed and new vegetaƟon is est ablished or hardscape is installed.

Exposed soils could be entrained in stormwater runoff and transported off the project site. Because the proposed project would involve over 1 acre of land disturbance, it would be required to comply with the ConstrucƟon General Permit,31 which requires preparaƟon and implementaƟon of a Stormwater PolluƟon and PrevenƟon Plan (SWPPP) prior to any ground‐disturbance acƟviƟes.

Although designed primarily to protect stormwater quality, the SWPPP would provide the details of the erosion control measures to be applied on the project site during the construcƟon period , including Best Management PracƟces (BMPs) for erosion control that are recognized by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). AddiƟonal details regarding the SWPPP are provided in SecƟon 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. Compliance with the requirements of the ConstrucƟon General Permit would ensure tha t the proposed project would result in less‐than‐significant impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potenƟally result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefacƟon or collapse? (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with standard engineering pracƟces and the CBC. The project sit e is not anƟcipated to become unstable as a result of the proposed project, or potenƟally result in on‐ or off‐site landslides, liquefacƟon, or lateral spreading.

Further, compliance with the CBC and City of Tracy General Plan policies, which require preparaƟon of a site‐specific ge otechnical evaluaƟon and implementaƟon of proposed geotechnical recommendaƟons, would ensure that the proposed project would not result in a geologic hazard from landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefacƟon, or collapse. This impact would be less than significant.
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as de fined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creaƟng substanƟal direct or indirect risks to life or property? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Expansiv
e soils are characterized by the potenƟal for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content of the soil decreases and increases, respecƟvely. Shrink‐swell potenƟal is influenced by the amount and type of clay minerals present and can be measured by the percentage of cha nge in the soil volume. Soils underlying the project site are composed of Capay‐Urban land complex, 0 percent

31   State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. 2022. NaƟonal Pollutant Discharge EliminaƟon System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with ConstrucƟon and Land Disturbance AcƟviƟes (General Permit) Order WQ 2022‐0057‐DWQ, NPDES No.

CAS000002 Website:
hƩps://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2022/wqo_2022‐0057‐ dwq.pdf (accessed Febr uary 2023).
4‐33
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) slopes, according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources ConservaƟon Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey.32
The Capay series consists of very deep, moderately well and somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in fine‐textured alluvium derived from mostly sandstone and shale. According to the San Joaquin County District Viewer, soils on the project are classified as having very high soil expansion potenƟal. As described above, the pr oposed project would be required to comply with the CBC and the geotechnical recommendaƟons idenƟfied in the site‐specific geotechnical invesƟgaƟon, as required by the CBC and the City of Tracy General Plan. Compliance with geotechnical recommendaƟons and the CBC during design and con strucƟon would ensure that the potenƟal impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately suppor Ɵng the use of sepƟc tanks or alternaƟve wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (No Impact)
The proposed project would connect to the exisƟng wastewater conveyance system. On‐site treatment and disposal of wastewater is not proposed for the project; ther efore, the proposed project would have no impacts associated with soils incapable of supporƟng alternaƟve wastewater disposal systems.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Less Than Significant with MiƟgaƟon Incorporated) There are no known paleontological resources located in the project area. However, development of the proposed project could result in the disc overy and disturbance of previously unknown or undiscovered paleontological resources. While fossils are not expected to be discovered during construcƟon, it is possible that significant fossils could be discovered during excavaƟon acƟviƟes.

Even in areas with a low likelihood of occurrence, fossils encountered during  excavaƟon could be inadvertently damaged.

If a unique paleontological resource is discovered, the impact to the resource could be substanƟal.

MiƟgaƟon Measure GEO‐1 would require that a qualified paleontologist monitor grading and excavaƟon acƟviƟes, and a paleontologist be noƟfied if paleonto logical resources are found. If any scienƟfically important large fossil remains are uncovered, the paleontologist would have the authority to divert heavy equipment away from the fossil site. With implementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure GEO‐1 and consistency with City ordinances, policies, and goals, impacts associated with paleon
tological resources would be less than significant.

MiƟgaƟon Measure GEO‐1:   Paleontological Resources. If paleontological resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbance, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected and a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find for scienƟ fic significance.

32   United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources ConservaƟon Service (NRCS). n.d. Web Soil Survey. Website: websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed February 2023).

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐34 If determined to be significant, the fossil shall be collected from the field. The paleontologist may also make recommendaƟons regarding addiƟonal miƟgaƟon measures, such as paleontological monitoring.

ScienƟfically significant resources shall be prepared to the point of idenƟficaƟon, idenƟfied to the lowest taxo nomic level possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collecƟons of a museum repository. If scienƟfically significant paleontological resources are collected, a report of findings shall be prepared to document the collecƟon.

ImplementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure GEO‐1 would reduce the level  of the potenƟal impact through the idenƟficaƟon of paleontological resources during construcƟon; the evaluaƟon of unanƟcipated discoveries; and the recovery of significant paleontological data from those resources that warrant such invesƟgaƟon. This process would recover scienƟfically consequenƟal in formaƟon from at‐risk resources to offset their potenƟal loss. Therefore, with implementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure GEO‐1, this impact would be less than significant with miƟgaƟon incorporated. 4‐35
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

PotenƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulaƟon adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Greenhouse  gas  emissions  (GHGs)  are  present  in  the  atmosphere  naturally,  and  are  released  by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. However, over the last 200 years, human activities have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG  concentrations in the atmosphere, and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global climate change.

The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human‐induced global climate change are:

 Carbon dioxide (CO2)
 Methane (CH4)
 Nitrous oxide (N2O)
 Hydrofluorocarbons
 Perfluorocarbons
 Sulfur Hexafluoride

Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short‐lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of Ɵme, contribuƟng to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short‐liv ed in the atmosphere and its
atmospheric concentraƟons are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporaƟon.

These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming PotenƟal (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphe re relaƟve to another gas. GWP is based on several factors, including the relaƟve effecƟveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiaƟon and the length of Ɵme that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifeƟme”).

The GWP of each gas is measured rel aƟve to CO2, the most abundant GHG; the definiƟon of GWP for a parƟcular GHG is the raƟo of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the raƟo of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified Ɵme period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).

The State CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project would normally have a significant adverse green‐ house gas emission impact if the project would:

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐36  Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reduction the emissions of greenhouse gases.

SecƟon 15064.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that: “A lead agen cy should make a good‐faith effort, based to the extent possible on scienƟfic and factual data, to describe, calculate or esƟmate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulƟng from a project.” In performing that analysis, the lead agency has discreƟon to determine whether to use a model or methodology to quanƟfy  GHG emissions, or to rely on a qualitaƟve analysis or performance‐based standards. In making a determinaƟon as to the significance of potenƟal impacts, the lead agency then considers the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as  compared to the exisƟng environmental seƫng, whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project, and the extent to which the project complies with regulaƟons or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regio nal, or local plan for the reducƟon or miƟgaƟon of GHG emissions.

Neither the City of Tracy, nor the SJVAPCD has developed or adopted numeric GHG significance thresholds. Therefore, this analysis evaluates the GHG emissions based on the project’s design elements consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Managemen t District (BAAQMD) GHG thresholds.

The BAAQMD GHG thresholds would be applicable to projects in the SJVAPCD because the thresholds were developed using the approach endorsed by the California Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) (62 Cal.4th 204), which evaluates a project based on its effect on California’s efforts to meet the State’s long‐ter m climate goals.33 As the Supreme Court held in that case, a project that would be consistent with meeƟng those goals can be found to have a less‐than‐significant impact on climate change under CEQA. If a project would contribute its “fair share” of what will be required to achieve those long‐term climat e goals, then a reviewing agency can find that the impact will not be significant because the project will help to solve the problem of global climate change (62 Cal.4th 220–223). Applying this approach, the BAAQMD has analyzed what will be required of new land use development projects to achieve California’
s long‐term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.34 As such, since the BAAQMD’s GHG thresholds are based on the State’s GHG reducƟon goals, these thresholds would be applicable to the proposed project.
33   Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. JusƟficaƟon Report: CEQA Thresholds for EvaluaƟng the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April. 34   Ibid.
4‐37
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emi ssions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less Than Significant with MiƟgaƟon Incorporated)
The following includes a discussion of the project’s potenƟal impact related to the release of GHG emissions for both construcƟon and project operaƟon.

ConstrucƟon Emissions.  ConstrucƟon acƟviƟes associated with the proposed project would produce co
mbusƟon emissions from various sources. During construcƟon, GHGs would be emiƩed through the operaƟon of construcƟon equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil‐based fuels to operate. The combusƟon of fossil‐based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emiƩed during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on‐site construcƟon acƟviƟes would vary daily as construcƟon acƟvity levels change.

The City of Tracy does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construcƟon related GHG emissions. As menƟoned above, emissions that woul d occur during construcƟon were quanƟfied and are disclosed for informaƟonal purposes. Using CalEEMod, it is esƟmated that construcƟon of the proposed project would generate approximately 953.0 metric tons of CO2e. Details are provided in the CalEEMod output in Appendix A.

Even though the City of Tracy does not have any adopted GHG emission thresholds, the emission results would be temporary in nature, and would only occur for the duraƟon construcƟon.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

OperaƟonal GHG Emis
sions. Long‐term GHG emissions are typically generated from mobile sources (e.g., cars, trucks, and buses), area sources (e.g., maintenance acƟviƟes and landscaping), indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumpƟon, waste sources (land filling and waste disposal), and water sources (water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribuƟ on). Mobile‐ source GHG emissions would include project‐generated vehicle trips to and from the project site.

Area‐source emissions would be associated with acƟviƟes such as landscaping and maintenance on the project site. Energy source emissions would be generated at off‐site uƟlity providers as a res ult of increased electricity demand generated by the project. The proposed recreaƟonal center would be designed to maximize sustainable approaches, such as the implementaƟon of Zero Net Carbon, the use of solar energy, and/or the use of baƩery storage to meet peak demands. The proposed recre
aƟonal center would also be Gold LEED cerƟfied, which would help reduce energy consumpƟon. However, no reducƟons were accounted for in the analysis to reflect LEED cerƟficaƟon since the precise features and associated energy savings have not yet been determined. Waste source emissions gener ated by the proposed project include energy generated by land filling and other methods of disposal related to transporƟng and managing project‐generated waste. In addiƟon, water source emissions associated with the proposed project are generated by water supply and conveyance, water treatment, water distribuƟon, and wastewater treatmen t.

The SJVAPCD has not established a numeric threshold for GHG emissions. As such, emission esƟmates for operaƟon of the proposed project are quanƟfied and disclosed for informaƟonal purposes. Table 3 shows the emissions sources by category; mobile source emissions are the largest E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐38 category, at approximately 86 percent of total CO2e emissions, followed by energy source emissions at approximately 6 percent of the total, waste source emissions at approximately 5 percent of the total, water source emissions at approximately 3 percent of the total emissions, and area source emissions at less than 1 percent of the total. As shown in Table 4.8.A, the proposed project wo uld generate approximately 1,901.2 metric tons of CO2e annually. CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix A.

Table 4.8.A: OperaƟonal Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Category
OperaƟonal Emissions (Metric Tons per Year)
CO2 CH4 N2O  CO2e  Percent of Total
Mobile Source  1,605.0  0.1  0.1  1,636.0  86
Area Source  1.9  <0.1  <0.1  1.9  <1
Energy Source  106.0  <0.1  <0.1  108.0  6
Water Source  18.7  1.4  <0.1  62.1  3
Waste Source  26.6  2.7  0.0  93.2  5
Total OperaƟonal  1,901.2  100.0
Source: Compiled by LSA (May 2023).

Note = Some values may not appear to add up correctly due to rounding.

CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
N2O = nitrous oxide
As discussed above, the signi
ficance of GHG emissions may be evaluated based on locally adopted quanƟtaƟve thresholds or consistency with a regional GHG reducƟon plan (such as a Climate AcƟon Plan). Neither the City of Tracy, nor the SJVAPCD has developed or adopted numeric GHG significance thresholds. Ther efore, the proposed project was evaluated for consistency with the BAAQMD’s GHG thresholds. The BAAQMD adopted the JusƟficaƟon Report: CEQA Thresholds for EvaluaƟng the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans35 document which idenƟfies applicable GHG significance thresholds, which would be applicable for the proposed project. These thresholds evaluate a project based on its effect on achieving California’s long‐term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. Based on this research, the BAAQMD has determined that new land use development projects must inc orporate specified design elements to contribute the “fair share” towards implementaƟon of the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. If a project is designed and built to incorporate the idenƟfied design elements, then it would contribute its porƟon of what is necessary to achieve Califo rnia’s long‐term climate goals—its “fair share”—and an agency reviewing the project under CEQA can conclude that the project would not make a cumulaƟvely considerable contribuƟon to global climate change. The document concludes that if a project does not incorporate these design elements, then it should be found to resu lt in a significant climate impact because it would hinder California’s efforts to address climate change. A project would have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions if it would:
a. Include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:
35   Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. op. cit. 4‐39
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residenƟal and nonresidenƟal development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary electrical usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA SecƟon 21100(b)(3) and SecƟon 15126.2(b) of the State CEQ
A Guidelines.

2. TransportaƟon
a. Achieve a reducƟon in project‐generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecƟng the recommen daƟons provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on EvaluaƟng TransportaƟon Impacts in CEQA:

1. ResidenƟal projects: 15 percent below the exisƟng VMT per capita

2. Office projects: 15 percent below the exisƟng VMT per employee

3. Retail projects: no net increase in exi sƟng VMT
b. Achieve compliance with off‐street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
b. Or be consistent with a local GHG reducƟon strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines SecƟon 15183.5(b).

Therefore, this secƟon evaluates the prop osed project’s consistency with these project design elements.

Natural Gas Usage. A less than significant GHG impact would occur if the project does not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing. Electricity and gas service is currently provided to the project site by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (P G&E). The proposed project would not include the use of natural gas. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this design element.

Energy Usage. The project must not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under SecƟon 21100(b)(3) and SecƟon 15126.2(b) of the Stat
e CEQA Guidelines. Energy use consumed by the proposed project would be associated with fuel used for vehicle trips associated with the project. Energy consumpƟon was esƟmated for the project using default energy intensiƟes by land use type in the CalEEMod output, which is included in Appendix A.

As discussed in Se
cƟon 4.6, Energy, the proposed project would be designed to Gold LEED Standards, which would reduce energy usage associated with the project by implemenƟng best pracƟces for

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐40 energy use, water use, indoor environmental quality, material selecƟon, and site and locaƟon within the surrounding community. In addiƟon, the proposed project would maximize sustainable approaches, such as the implementaƟon of ZNC, solar energy and/or baƩery storage. The proposed project would be constructed using energy efficient modern building ma terials and construcƟon pracƟces, and the proposed project would also use new modern appliances and equipment, in accordance with the Appliance Efficiency RegulaƟons (Title 20, CCR SecƟons 1601 through 1608).

The proposed project would also be constructed to meet the 2022 Title 24 sta ndards. Therefore, based on the nature of the proposed project and the building design features, the proposed project would not be expected to generate energy emissions during operaƟon of the proposed project.

In addiƟon, the proposed project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline to fuel project‐r
elated trips. As discussed in SecƟon 4.6, Energy, vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would result in the consumpƟon of approximately 144,646 gallons of gasoline per year and approximately 104,593 gallons of diesel fuel per year. Based on fuel consumpƟon obtained from EMFAC2021, approximately 92 million gallons of diesel and appro ximately 286 million gallons of gasoline will be consumed from vehicle trips in San Joaquin County in 2023. Therefore, gasoline and diesel fuel demand generated by vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would increase the annual fuel use in San Joaquin County by approximately 0.05 percent for g asoline fuel usage and

0.1 percent for diesel fuel usage. Fuel consumpƟon associated with vehicle trips generated by project operaƟons would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.

As such, based on this analysis, as required under CEQA SecƟ on 21100(b)(3) and SecƟon 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumpƟon of fuel or energy and would incorporate renewable energy and energy efficiency measures into the building design, equipment use, and transportaƟon. As such, the proposed pro
ject would be consistent with this design element.

Vehicle Miles Traveled. To meet the BAAQMD’s VMT threshold, the project must achieve a reducƟon in project generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan or meet a locally adopte d SB 743 VMT target, reflecƟng the recommendaƟons provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s 2018 Technical Advisory on EvaluaƟng TransportaƟon Impacts in CEQA. As discussed in SecƟon 4.17, TransportaƟon, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant VMT imp act. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with this design element.

Electric Vehicle Requirements. This criterion requires that the project achieve compliance with off‐ street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Tier 2 measures. It is not yet known whether the proposed project wo
uld include electric vehicle charging; therefore, implementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure GHG‐1 would be required to ensure the proposed project would provide electric vehicle charging.

MiƟgaƟon Measure GHG‐1   In order to meet the Bay Area Air Quality Managemen t District (BAAQMD) greenhouse gas (GHG) threshold requirements, the proposed project shall provide electric vehicle charging capabiliƟes 4‐41
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) consistent with the most recently adopted version of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Tier 2 measures.

With implementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure GHG‐1, the proposed project would be consistent with the project design elements that would achieve California’s long‐term climate goals. As such, the proposed project would not  generate significant GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment, and this impact would be less than significant with miƟgaƟon incorporated. b. Would the project con flict with an applicable plan, policy or regulaƟon adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less Than Significant Impact) The SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Change AcƟon Plan (CCAP), which includes sugges ted best performance standards (BPS) for proposed development projects. However, the SJVAPCD’s CCAP was adopted in 2009 and was prepared based on the State’s 2020 GHG targets, which are now superseded by State policies (i.e., the 2019 California Green Building Code) and the 2030 GHG targets, established in SB 32. As such, the proposed projec t was analyzed for consistency with the goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan. The following discussion evaluates the proposed project according to the goals of the 2022 Scoping Plan, ExecuƟve Order (EO) B‐30‐15, SB 32, and Assembly Bill (AB) 197.

EO B‐30‐15 added the immed iate target of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. CARB released a second update to the Scoping Plan, the 2017 Scoping Plan,36 to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B‐30‐15 and codified by SB 32. SB 32 affirms the importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions reducƟons target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 contained in EO B‐30‐15. SB 32 builds on AB 32 and keep s us on the path toward achieving the State’s 2050 objecƟve of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The companion bill to SB 32, AB 197, provides addiƟonal direcƟon to the CARB related to the adopƟon of strate
gies to reduce GHG emissions. AddiƟonal direcƟon in AB 197 intended to provide easier public access to air emissions data that are collected by CARB was posted in December 2016.

In addiƟon, the 2022 Scoping Plan assesses progress toward the statutory 2030 target, while laying out a path to achiev
ing carbon neutrality set by AB 1279 no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s long‐ term climate objecƟves and support a ra nge of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental jusƟce, and public health prioriƟes.

The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on building clean energy producƟon and distribuƟon infrastructure for a carbon‐neutral future, including transiƟoning exisƟng energy producƟon and transmission infrastructure to produce zero‐ca rbon electricity and hydrogen, and uƟlizing biogas resulƟng from wildfire management or landfill and dairy operaƟons, among other subsƟtutes. The 2022 Scoping Plan states that in almost all sectors, electrificaƟon will play an important role. The 2022 Scoping Plan evaluates clean energy and t echnology opƟons and the transiƟon away from fossil fuels, including adding four Ɵmes the solar and wind capacity by 2045 and about 1,700 Ɵmes the amount of current hydrogen supply. As discussed in the 2022 Scoping Plan, EO N‐79‐20 requires that all new 36   California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November .

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐42 passenger vehicles sold in California will be zero‐emission by 2035, and all other fleets will have transiƟoned to zero‐emissions as fully possible by 2045, which will reduce the percentage of fossil fuel combusƟon vehicles.

Energy efficient measures are intended to maximize energy efficiency building and appliance st
andards, pursue addiƟonal efficiency efforts including new technologies and new policy and implementaƟon mechanisms, and pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California. In addiƟon, these measures are designed to expand the use of green building pracƟces to red uce the carbon footprint of California’s new and exisƟng inventory of buildings. As menƟoned above, the proposed project would be designed to Gold LEED Standards and would implement ZNC, solar energy and/or baƩery storage. In addiƟon, the proposed project would also comply with the CALGre en Code, regarding energy conservaƟon and green building standards.

Therefore, the proposed project would comply with applicable energy measures.

Water conservaƟon and efficiency measures are intended to conƟnue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Increasing the efficiency of water transport and red
ucing water use would reduce GHG emissions. As noted above, the project would comply with the CALGreen Code, which includes a variety of different measures, including the reducƟon of wastewater and water use. The proposed project would be required to comply with the California Model Water Efficient Landscap e Ordinance. In addiƟon, the proposed project would also include drought tolerant landscape and implement drip irrigaƟon systems. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any of the water conservaƟon and efficiency measures.

The goal of transportaƟon and motor vehicle measures is to devel op regional GHG emissions reducƟon targets for passenger vehicles. Specific regional emission targets for transportaƟon emissions would not directly apply to the proposed project. The second phase of Pavley standards will reduce GHG emissions from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025, resulƟng in a 3 perc
ent decrease in average vehicle emissions for all vehicles by 2020. Vehicles traveling to the project site would comply with the Pavley II (LEV III) Advanced Clean Cars Program. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the idenƟfied transportaƟon and motor vehicle measures.

There
fore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulaƟon adopted for the purpose of reducing the GHG emissions. This impact would be less than significant. 4‐43
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Pote
nƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the rouƟne transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create  a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
condiƟons involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐
quarter mile of an exisƟng or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
SecƟon 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementaƟon of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuaƟon
plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
a. Would the project create a signi ficant hazard to the public or the environment through the rouƟne transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Less Than Significant Impact) Small quanƟƟes of commercially available hazardous materials (e.g., paint, cleaning supplies) would be rouƟnely used at the project site and in the new community center during operaƟon. However, the City would be required to comply with exisƟng government regulaƟons37 regarding the use of such materials and their disposal, and those materials would not be used in sufficient strength or quanƟty to create a substanƟal risk to human or environmental health. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to the rouƟne transport, use, or disposal of haz
ardous materials.
37   The United States Environmental ProtecƟon Agency regulates “small‐quanƟty generators” (SQGs) of hazardous wastes, which are defined as faciliƟes that generate more than 100 kg (approximately 220 lbs), but less than 1,000 kg (2,200 lbs), of hazardous waste per month.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐44 b. Would the project create a signi ficant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condiƟons involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact) As described above, small quanƟƟes of common hazardous materials would be used at the project site during construcƟon and operaƟon of the proposed project. Improper use, storage, or handling could result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment that  could pose a risk to construcƟon workers and the public. However, the City would be required to comply with exisƟng government regulaƟons regarding the use and disposal of those materials, and such materials would not be used in sufficient strength or quanƟty to create a subst anƟal risk to human or environmental health.

ConstrucƟon of the proposed project would involve the transport, use, and disposal of chemical agents, solvents, paints, fuel and oil for construcƟon equipment, and other hazardous materials that are commonly associated with construcƟon acƟviƟes. The rouƟne handling and use of haz ardous materials by construcƟon workers would be performed in accordance with OccupaƟonal Safety and Health AdministraƟon (OSHA) regulaƟons, which include training requirements for construcƟon workers and a requirement that hazardous materials be accompanied by manufacturers’ Safety Data Sheets (SDSs). California OccupaƟonal Sa fety and Health AdministraƟon (Cal/OSHA) regulaƟons include requirements for protecƟve clothing, training, and limits on exposure to hazardous materials.

Compliance with these exisƟng regulaƟons would ensure that construcƟon workers are protected from exposure to hazardous materials that may be used on site.

Because the proposed pr
oject would result in soil disturbance greater than 1 acre, management of hazardous materials during construcƟon acƟviƟes would be subject to the requirements of the Stormwater ConstrucƟon General Permit, which requires preparaƟon and implementaƟon of an SWPPP that includes hazardous materials storage requirements. For exa mple, construcƟon site operators must store chemicals in waterƟght containers (with appropriate secondary containment to prevent any spillage or leakage) or in a storage shed that is completely enclosed.

In 1990 and 1994, the federal Hazardous Material TransportaƟon Act was amended to improve the protecƟon of life, property , and the environment from the inherent risks of transporƟng hazardous material in all major modes of commerce. The Department of TransportaƟon (DOT) developed hazardous materials regulaƟons that govern the classificaƟon, packaging, communicaƟon, transportaƟon, and handling of hazardous materials as well as empl oyee training and incident reporƟng. The transportaƟon of hazardous materials is subject to both federal Resource ConservaƟon and Recovery Act (RCRA) and DOT regulaƟons. The California Highway Patrol, California Department of TransportaƟon (Caltrans), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) are responsible for enforcing fede ral and State regulaƟons pertaining to the transportaƟon of hazardous materials.

The proposed project would comply with exisƟng government regulaƟons (federal, State, regional, and local) regarding the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to the pote nƟal release of hazardous materials commonly associated with construcƟon acƟviƟes into the environment. 4‐45
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an exisƟng or proposed school? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Schools nearest the project site include North Elementary School (2875 Holly Drive), which borders the project site to the east; Millennium Charter School (51 East Beverly Place), which is approximately 0.6 mile southeast of the project site; and Monte Vista Middle School (751 West Lowell Av
enue), which is approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the project site. The City would be required to comply with all applicable local, State, and federal regulaƟons and standards related to hazardous emissions and materials. As noted above, compliance with all applicable regulaƟons would reduce any significant hazards to the public or the en vironment related to hazardous materials, and the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact. d. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code SecƟon 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact) The project site does not include any acƟve storage sites listed on the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Leakin g Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) database or the SWRCB’s site cleanup program database,38 which are two of the component databases that comprise the Cal/EPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List) of known hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code SecƟon 65962.5. AcƟve sites are not listed for the project on other components of the Cortese List, including the DTSC hazardous waste and subst ance list.39 Therefore, no impacts associated with locaƟng a project on a site included on a list of hazardous materials is expected to occur .

The project site and a 0.5‐mile radius around the project site were reviewed via the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database,40 the DTSC EnviroStor database,41 and the Cortese List42 for the purposes of idenƟfying recognized environmental condiƟons or historical recognized environmental condiƟons. A total of 13 properƟes with recognized environmental condiƟons or historical recognized environmental condiƟons were idenƟfied within 1 mile of the project site, as detailed in Table 4.9.A.
38   State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. GeoTracker . Website:
hƩps://geotracker .waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=301+West+Grant+Line+Road (accessed May 15, 2023).
39   State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023a. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). Website:
hƩps://www.envirostor .dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporƩype=CORTESE&site_type=CSIT ES,FUDS&status=ACT ,BKLG,COM&reporƫtle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CO RTESE%29 (accessed May 15, 2023).
40   State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. op. cit. 41   State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023b. EnviroStar Database. Website:
hƩps://www.envirostor .dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=301+WEst+Grant+Line+Road%2C+Tracy%2C +CA (accessed January 24, 2023).
42   State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023a. op. cit.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐46 Table 4.9.A: Hazardous Materials Database Search
Property  Historical Recognized
Environmental CondiƟon
LocaƟon RelaƟve to the
Project Site  Status of the Property
7‐11 at 455 West Grant Line
Road
LUST – ContaminaƟon of
groundwater used for
drinking water supply.

Approximately 910 feet
southwest
Completed – Case closed as
of 9/23/99.

California Highway Patrol at
385 West Grant Line Road
LUST – ContaminaƟon of
groundwater used for
drinking water supply.

Approximately 700 feet
southwest
Completed – Case closed as
of 1/30/2006.

Chevron #9‐8632 at 575
West Grant Line Road
LUST – ContaminaƟon of
groundwater used for
drinking water supply
Approximately 1,350 feet
southwest
Completed – Case closed as
of 3/19/2019.

Food & Liquor located at 15
East Grant Line Road
LUST – ContaminaƟon of
groundwater used for
drinking water supply
Approximately 1,270 feet
southeast
Completed – Case closed as
of 1/27/2014.

Former BP 11194 located at
2375 North Tracy Boulevard
LUST – ContaminaƟon of
groundwater used for
drinking water supply
Approximately 1,270 feet
southwest
Completed – Case closed as
of 3/20/2013.

Jordan, WT at 298 West
Grant Line Road
LUST – ContaminaƟon of
groundwater used for
drinking water supply
Approximately 560 feet
south
Completed – Case closed as
of 1/6/2000.

Palladin Mileage Center at
2421 Holly Drive
LUST – ContaminaƟon of
groundwater used for
drinking water supply
Approximately 1,275 feet
southeast
Completed – Case closed as
of 8/27/2002.

Quality Meats at 301 West
Grant Line Road
LUST – ContaminaƟon of soil  Approximately 500 feet
south
Completed – Case closed as
of 9/26/1991.

Steve’s Rentals at 275 East
Grant Line Road
LUST – ContaminaƟon of soil  Approximately 2,600 feet
southeast
Completed – Case closed as
of 11/19/1997.

Tosco c/o ConocoPhillips at
2375 Tracy Boulevard
LUST – ContaminaƟon of
groundwater used for
drinking water supply
Approximately 2,600 feet
southeast
Completed – Case closed as
of 3/20/2013.

Unocal at 574 West Grant
Line Road
LUST – ContaminaƟon of
groundwater used for
drinking water supply
Approximately 1,423 feet
southwest.

Completed – Case closed as
of 12/22/2011.

Wheel Country at 474 West
Grant Line Road
LUST – ContaminaƟon of soil  Approximately 1,000 feet
southwest
Completed – Case closed as
of 7/8/1997.

Source 1: State Water Resources Control Board, 2023. op. cit.

Source 2: California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2023a. op. cit.

Source 3: California Department of Toxic Substances, 2023b. op. cit.

LUST = Leaking Underground Storage Tank
REC = Recognized Environmental CondiƟon
As shown in Table 4.9.A, the status of listed sites within 1 mile of the project site is closed. A closed site indicates that regulatory requirements for response acƟons (e.g., site assessment and remediaƟon) have either been completed or were not necessary; therefore, potenƟal migraƟon of residual contaminants in gr oundwater beneath the project site does not likely pose a risk to human health and the environment. This impact would be less than significant. 4‐47
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) e. Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project site is not located within an Airport Land Use Plan, or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. The Tracy Municipal Airport, located approximately 4.5 miles to the south, is the closest airport to the project site. The airport overflight and appr oach zones do not cross the project site, nor are there any airport‐related land use or height restricƟons that apply to the project site.

The proposed project would include development of a new recreaƟon center and renovaƟon of the exisƟng public park. The proposed project wo uld not increase residenƟal density, would not be an incompaƟble land use, would not increase the height such that it would create a hazard or obstrucƟon, and would not result in the addiƟon of a characterisƟc that would create a hazard to air navigaƟon. Ther
efore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to airport safety hazards.
f. Would the project impair implementaƟ on of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuaƟon plan? (Less Than Significant Impact) The San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services (OES) coordinates county‐wide emergency response efforts, including the preparaƟon and implementaƟon of the Alam eda County Emergency OperaƟons Plan (EOP)43 and the San Joaquin County Local Hazard MiƟgaƟon Plan.44 The City of Tracy also has an adopted Local Hazard MiƟgaƟon Plan. None of these plans idenƟfy specific evacuaƟon routes within the City or the County.

The proposed project would be consistent with the policies outlined in the City of Tracy General Plan Safety Element. The proposed project would not alt er or block adjacent roadways, and implementaƟon of the proposed project would not be expected to impair the funcƟon of nearby emergency evacuaƟon routes. In addiƟon, operaƟon of the proposed project would not cause permanent alteraƟons to vehicle circulaƟon routes and paƩerns or impede  public access or travel upon public rights‐of‐way. Prior to approval of final maps and improvement plans for any development project within Tracy, plan review and approval by the South San Joaquin Fire Authority is required. Internal roadways and ingress/egress points would be required to meet Sta te and local standards regarding turning radius, road width, and emergency vehicle access. Therefore, potenƟal impacts to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuaƟon plan would be less than significant.
43   County of San Joaquin. 2022. County of San Joaquin Emergency OperaƟons Plan. February 17. Website:
hƩps://www.sjgov.org/docs/default‐source/office‐of‐emergency‐services‐documents/emergency‐ plans/2022‐sjc‐emergency‐operaƟons‐plan.pdf?sfvrsn=6fdd3c17_3 (accessed May 2023). 44   County of San Joaquin County. 2023. San Joaquin County Local Hazard MiƟgaƟon Plan. April. Website:
hƩps://www.sjgov.org/docs/default‐source/covid‐19/2023‐lhmp‐final‐ .pdf?Status=Master&sfvrsn=62a3c44d_3 (accessed May 2023).

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐48 g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a signi ficant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Less Than Significant Impact) According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire ProtecƟon (CAL FIRE), the project site is within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), meaning the local government is financially responsible for wildland fire protecƟon, but the project site is not considered to be within a Very High Fir e Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).45
ConstrucƟon of the proposed project would involve the use of some flammable materials such as gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic oils, paints, solvents, or other wastes. During construcƟon, there would be increased human acƟvity and igniƟon sources, including equipment that could create spark, be a source of heat, or leak flammable materi als on the project site. However, all construcƟon equipment is required to have fire suppression equipment (such as a fire exƟnguisher) on board or at the work site, secondary containment would be required for fuel‐powered equipment, and a spill kit would be required to be kep t on site during construcƟon for use in case of any leaks or spills of flammable materials. These exisƟng requirements would reduce the potenƟal exacerbaƟon of wildfire risks related to construcƟon acƟviƟes.

The operaƟon of the proposed project would be similar to exisƟ ng condiƟons on the site. The proposed project would be subject to the design standards and guidelines as outlined in the City of Tracy Municipal Code and would undergo development review to ensure that proposed structures conform with all applicable regulaƟons.

The proposed project would also be subject to requ irements in SecƟon 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, the CBC, and the California State Fire Code, which include regulaƟons concerning the following: building standards for fire protecƟon; fire protecƟon and noƟficaƟon systems such as exƟnguishers and smoke alarms; sa fety for firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operaƟons; minimum standards for hazardous vegetaƟon and fuel management, defensible space, and building construcƟon; and minimum standards for emergency access and water supply for fire response.

Compliance with these exisƟng regulatory requ irements would ensure that the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentraƟons from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Impacts would be less than significant.
45   California Department of Forestry and Fire ProtecƟon (CAL FIRE). 2023. Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer .  Website hƩps://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed May 2023). 4‐49
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Pote
nƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substanƟally degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b. SubstanƟally decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substanƟally with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin?
c. SubstanƟally alter the exisƟng drainage paƩern of the site or area, including through the alteraƟon of the course of a stream or river or through the addiƟon of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substanƟal erosion or siltaƟon on‐ or off‐site; ii. SubstanƟally increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on‐ or
offsite;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of exisƟng or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substanƟal addiƟonal sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundaƟon?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementaƟon of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substanƟally degrade surface or groundwater quality? (Less Than Significant Impact) The SWRCB and nine RWQCBs regulate water quality of surface water and groundwater bodies throughout California. In San Joaquin County, including the project site, the Central Valley RWQCB is responsible for implementaƟon of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan establishes ben
eficial water uses and water quality objecƟves for waterways and water bodies within the region. SecƟon 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that states idenƟfy water bodies (including bays, rivers, streams, creeks, and coastal areas) that do not meet water quality standards as well as the pollut ants that are causing the impairment. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) describe the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive while sƟll meeƟng established water quality standards. A TMDL establishes limits for pollutant discharges into impaired water bodies. Stormwater from the project site ulƟmat ely discharges to Old River .46 SecƟons 303(d) and 305(b) of the SWRCB Surface Water Quality Assessment 2020‐2022 Integrated 46   City of Tracy. 2005. City of Tracy General Plan DraŌ Environmental Impact Report. October 4.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐50 Report for Clean Water Act lists Old River as impaired for indicator bacteria, manganese, dissolved oxygen, specific conducƟvity, chlorpyrifos, and total dissolved solids.47 Runoff water quality is regulated by the NaƟonal Pollutant Discharge EliminaƟon System (NPDES) Program (established through the federal CWA). The NPDES Program objecƟve is to control and reduce pollutant discharges to surface water bodies. Compliance with NPDES permits is mandated by State and federal statutes and regulaƟons. Locally, the NPDES Pro gram is administered by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board). According to the water quality control plans of the Water Board, any construcƟon acƟviƟes, including grading, that would result in the disturbance of 1 acre or more would require compliance with the SWRCB’ s ConstrucƟon General Permit,48 which requires preparaƟon of an SWPPP and implementaƟon of ConstrucƟon BMPs during construcƟon acƟviƟes. ConstrucƟon BMPs would include, but not be limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs, which are designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site, and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharg e of construcƟon debris and waste into receiving waters. The project site is approximately 13.9 acres and, as such, would be required to comply with the ConstrucƟon General Permit.

The proposed project would be subject to the Water Board Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sew
er System (MS4) Permit (Phase II MS4 Permit), implemented in February 2013 by Order 2013‐ 0001‐DWQ.49 Provision E.12 of the Phase II MS4 Permit requires all projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface (Regulated Projects) to implement measures for site design, source control, runoff reducƟon, stormwater treatment, and baseline hydromodificaƟon management. Consistent with Provision E.12 and the MulƟ‐Agency Post‐ ConstrucƟo
n Stormwater Standards Manual,50 the preparaƟon and submiƩal of a Project Stormwater Plan would be required for the project site. The purpose of a Project Stormwater Plan is to detail the design elements and implementaƟon measures necessary to meet the post‐ construcƟon stormwater control requirements of the Phase II MS4. In parƟcular, the Project St
ormwater Plan must include Low Impact Development (LID) design measures, which reduce water quality impacts by preserving and recreaƟng natural landscape features, minimizing imperviousness, and using stormwater as a resource rather than a waste product.

ConstrucƟon. The proposed project includes the renovaƟon of an exisƟng City park and developm
ent of a new recreaƟon center with associated landscaping and parking improvements.

ConstrucƟon of the proposed project would result in the disturbance of approximately 13 acres of 47   State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. 2020‐2022 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act SecƟon 303(d) List and 305(b) Report). Website:
hƩps://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2020_2022_integrat ed_report.html (accessed May 6, 2023).
48   State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. 2022.op. cit. 49   State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2019. Small MS4 General Permit WQ Order 2013‐0001‐ DWQ as amended by Orders WQ 2015‐0133‐EXEC, WQ 2016‐0069‐EXEC, WQ 2018‐0001‐EXEC, and WQ 2018‐0007‐EXEC. January 1. Website: hƩps://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ stormwater/docs/remediated_phase2ms4permit_v2.pdf (accessed May 6, 2023). 50   Larry Walker Associates. 2015. MulƟ‐Agency Post‐ConstrucƟon Stormwater Standards Manual. June.

Website: hƩps://www.cityoŌracy.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3158/637522653643300000 (accessed May 6, 2023).
4‐51
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) land. Pollutants of concern during construcƟon include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. Each of these pollutants on its own or in combinaƟon with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. During construcƟon acƟviƟes, excavated soil would be expo sed, and there would be an increased potenƟal for soil erosion and sedimentaƟon compared to exisƟng condiƟons. In addiƟon, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete‐related waste may be spilled or leaked, and they have the potenƟal to be transported via sto rmwater runoff into receiving waters.

Because construcƟon of the proposed project would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, the project is subject to the requirements of the ConstrucƟon General Permit, which requires preparaƟon of an SWPPP and implementaƟon of construcƟon BMPs during co nstrucƟon acƟviƟes. ConstrucƟon BMPs would include but are not limited to Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs, which are designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site, and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construcƟon debris and waste into receiving waters . BMP implementaƟon shall be consistent with the BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality AssociaƟon (CASQA) Stormwater Best Management Handbook:

ConstrucƟon. The SWPPP would also include a construcƟon site monitoring program that idenƟfies requirements for dry weather visual observaƟons of pollutants at all discharg e locaƟons and, as appropriate (depending on the Risk Level), sampling of the site effluent and receiving waters. A Qualified SWPPP PracƟƟoner will be responsible for implemenƟng the BMPs at the site and performing all required monitoring and inspecƟon/maintenance/repair acƟviƟes.

AddiƟonally, the prep
araƟon and implementaƟon of erosion and sediment control plans would be required per Chapter 11.34 of the City of Tracy Municipal Code, which would include measures to prevent increased discharge of sediment at all stages of grading and development from iniƟal disturbance of the ground to project com pleƟon and detailed cross‐referencing to each element of the SWPPP , including the planned BMPs and descripƟons of the required monitoring programs.

Erosion and sediment control plans shall include an effecƟve revegetaƟon program to stabilize all disturbed areas that will not be otherwise protecte d.

ConstrucƟon of the proposed project would require excavaƟon for uƟlity lines, storm drains, shade structures, playground equipment fooƟngs, and bioretenƟon basins. Therefore, dewatering of groundwater may be required during construcƟon acƟviƟes involving excavaƟon. Release of dewatered groundwater to surface waters can intr oduce total dissolved solids and other consƟtuents to surface waters and could cause degradaƟon of the receiving water quality. In the event that groundwater is encountered during construcƟon and groundwater dewatering is necessary, any groundwater dewatering during excavaƟon would be conducted in accordance with the requi
rements of the ConstrucƟon General Permit, which allows the discharge of dewatering effluent if the source of the water is uncontaminated groundwater and is properly filtered or treated using appropriate technology.

Adherence with the ConstrucƟon General Permit (including implementaƟon of the required SWPPP , ConstrucƟon BMPs, and dewate ring requirements) as well as compliance with the City of Tracy Municipal Code, which includes preparaƟon of erosion and sediment control plans, would ensure E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐52 construcƟon impacts related to surface water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, and surface water quality would be less than significant.

OperaƟon. Pollutants of concern from long‐term operaƟons include pathogens (bacteria/viruses), metals, nutrients, motor vehicle lubricants, toxic organic compounds, pesƟcides/herbicides, sediments/total suspended solids, trash and debris, and oil and gre ase. The City of Tracy is under the purview of the Phase II MS4 Permit. Therefore, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of Provision E.12 of the Phase II MS4 Permit because the project would develop more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. In compliance  with Provision E.12 of the Phase II MS4 Permit, the City would be required to prepare and implement a Stormwater Plan. The Stormwater Plan would act as the overall program document designed to provide measures to miƟgate potenƟal water quality impacts associated with the operaƟon of the proposed projec t. The Project Stormwater Plan will be prepared in accordance with the requirements and guidelines set forth in the MulƟ‐Agency Post‐ConstrucƟon Stormwater Standards Manual.51 The proposed project would include bioretenƟon basins and modular wetlands that would be used for stormwater control, infiltraƟon, and treatment to reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater prior to release into the storm drain system. Therefore, compliance with the requirements of the Phase II MS4 Permit and City of Tracy Municipal Code wou ld ensure that operaƟonal impacts to water quality would be less than significant.

Overall, because the proposed project would be required to comply with exisƟng regulaƟons, including the ConstrucƟon General Permit, Phase II MS4 Permit, and City of Tracy Municipal Code requi
rements, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substanƟally degrade surface or groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. Would the project substan Ɵally decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substanƟally with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The City of Tracy overlies the Tracy Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwa ter Basin. The Tracy Subbasin covers an area of approximately 373 square miles.

Temporar y dewatering from isolated areas of deeper excavaƟon may be necessary during construcƟon. However, such dewatering would be localized and temporary and would not result in the lowering of surrounding groundwater levels.Water supply to the proposed project wou ld be provided by the City of Tracy water system, which is supplied from both surface and groundwater sources. 52 Although a porƟon of the City’s water supply comes from groundwater, approximately 6 percent of the City’s water supply was from local groundwater supply wells during 2020.53 Because 51   Larry Walker Associates. 2015. MulƟ‐Agency Post‐ConstrucƟon Stormwater Standards Manual. June.

Website: hƩps://www.cityoŌracy.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3158/637522653643300000 (accessed May 6, 2023).
52   City of Tracy. 2021. City of Tracy Urban Water Management Plan 2020. June. 53   Ibid.
4‐53
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) such a limited porƟon of the City’s municipal water supply comes from groundwater, water use during operaƟon of the proposed project would not affect groundwater .

Development of the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces on the project site, which could reduce groundwater recharge compared to exisƟng condiƟons. How ever, in compliance with the Phase II MS4 Permit and City of Tracy Municipal Code, the proposed project would include bioretenƟon basins and modular wetlands that would be used for stormwater control, infiltraƟon, and treatment. Due to the incorporaƟon of bioretenƟon basins and modular wetlands and the impl
ementaƟon of LID techniques as required by the Phase II MS4 Permit and City of Tracy Municipal Code, the proposed project would not result in a significant decrease in groundwater recharge that would result in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local  groundwater table level. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with groundwater recharge.

For the reasons listed above, impacts related to the decrease of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant. c. Substan Ɵally alter the exisƟng drainage paƩern of the site or area, including through the alteraƟon of the course of a stream or river or through the addiƟon of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substan Ɵal erosion or siltaƟon on‐ or off‐sit e? (Less Than Significant Impact) During construcƟon acƟviƟes, more than 1 acre of soil would be disturbed. Soil would be exposed and drainage paƩerns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construcƟon acƟviƟes, and there would be an increased potenƟal for soil er osion and siltaƟon compared to exisƟng condiƟons. AddiƟonally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltaƟon could occur at an accelerated rate. Compliance with the ConstrucƟon General Permit requires the preparaƟon of an SWPPP to idenƟfy construcƟon BMPs to be imp lemented as part of the proposed project to reduce impacts on water quality during construcƟon, including those impacts associated with soil erosion and siltaƟon.

AddiƟonally, the preparaƟon and implementaƟon of erosion and sediment control plans would be required per Chapter 11.34 of the City of Tracy Muni cipal Code, which would include measures to prevent increased discharge of sediment at all stages of grading and development from iniƟal disturbance of the ground to project compleƟon. With compliance with the requirements in the ConstrucƟon General Permit, City of Tracy Municipal Code, and implementaƟon of co nstrucƟon BMPs, construcƟon impacts related to on‐ or off‐site erosion or siltaƟon would be less than significant.

AŌer the compleƟon of project construcƟon, operaƟon of the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces on the project site that wou ld result in a net increase in stormwater runoff that can lead to downstream erosion in receiving waters. However, as discussed above, the bioretenƟon basins and modular wetlands included in the project’s design in compliance with the Phase II MS4 Permit would be used for stormwater control, infiltraƟon, and treatme nt. Due to the incorporaƟon of bioretenƟon basins and modular wetlands and the implementaƟon of LID techniques as required by the Phase II MS4 Permit and City of Tracy Municipal Code, operaƟonal impacts related to on‐ or off‐site erosion or siltaƟon would be less than significant .

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐54 ii. Substan Ɵally increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on‐ or offsite? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Development of the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces on the project site that could have the potenƟal to increase the volume and rate of stormwater runoff discharged from the project site. However, as previously discussed, the bioret enƟon basins and modular wetlands included in the project’s design in compliance with the Phase II MS4 Permit would be used for stormwater control, infiltraƟon, and treatment. The proposed drainage faciliƟes and BMPs needed to accommodate stormwater runoff would be appropriately sized so that on‐sit e flooding would not occur . Therefore, due to the implementaƟon of LID techniques as required by the Phase II MS4 Permit and City of Tracy Municipal Code, the proposed project would not substanƟally increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on sit e or off site. Impacts would be less than significant.
iii. Create or contribute runo ff water which would exceed the capacity of exisƟng or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substanƟal addiƟonal sources of polluted runoff? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The proposed storm drainage infrastructure would discharge into an exisƟng underground storm drain at the northeastern edge of the project site. Stormwater treatment is proposed using a co
mbinaƟon of bioretenƟon basins and modular wetlands. The number of drainage management areas would be determined as part of the final design. The bioretenƟon basins would be vegetated with a layer of special soil and a layer of permeable rock. Overflow would be dischar ged from the stormwater treatment areas to the on‐site storm drain system, which would connect to an exisƟng 12‐inch‐diameter storm drain pipe at the northeast corner of the site.

The proposed project would be required to comply with the Phase II MS4 Permit and City of Tracy Municipal Code
and would include the incorporaƟon of LID design features. The proposed drainage faciliƟes and BMPs needed to accommodate stormwater runoff would be appropriately sized such that drainage facility capacity would not be exceeded during a design storm. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of planned or ex isƟng stormwater drainage systems, and impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed in SecƟon 4.10.a, pollutants of concern during construcƟon include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals, and each of these pollutants on its own or in combinaƟ on with other pollutants can have a detrimental effect on water quality. Drainage paƩerns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construcƟon acƟviƟes, and construcƟon‐related pollutants could be spilled, leaked, or transported via storm runoff into adjacent drainages and downs tream receiving waters. However, as previously discussed, the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements set forth by the ConstrucƟon General Permit and SWPPP , which would specify BMPs to be implemented to control the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff as a result of construcƟon acƟviƟes. AddiƟonally, the pre
paraƟon and implementaƟon of erosion and sediment control plans would be required per Chapter 11.34 of the City of Tracy Municipal Code, which would include measures to prevent increased discharge of sediment at all stages of grading and development from iniƟal disturbance of the ground to pr
oject compleƟon. With compliance with the requirements in the ConstrucƟon 4‐55
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) General Permit, City of Tracy Municipal Code, and implementaƟon of construcƟon BMPs, construcƟon impacts related to on‐ or off‐site erosion or siltaƟon would be less than significant.

Expected pollutants of concern from long‐term operaƟons include pathogens (bacteria/viruses), metals, nutrients, motor vehicle lubricants, coolants, disc brake dust , toxic organic compounds, pesƟcides/herbicides, sediments/total suspended solids, trash and debris, and oil and grease. As previously discussed, compliance with the Phase II MS4 Permit and City of Tracy Municipal Code and the implementaƟon of LID techniques would ensure that the proposed project would not discharge substanƟal sources of pollut ed runoff from the project site. OperaƟon‐related impacts would be less than significant.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? (No Impact)
The project site is not located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated 100‐year or 500‐year floodplain.54 According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06077C0595F , the project site is located within Zone X, which is defined as an area of minimal flood hazard.55 Because the proposed project would not place improvements and structures directly within a 100‐year floodplain, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and there would be no impact.
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundaƟon? (No Impact)
The project site is not located within a FEMA‐designated 100‐year or 500‐year floodplain.56 According to FEMA FIRM No. 06001C0278G, the project site is located within Zone X, which is defined as an area of minimal flood hazard.57 The project site is not located in an area mapped by the California Emergency Management Agency as being potenƟally inundated by a tsunami.58 Seiches are waves that are created in an enclosed body of water such as a bay, lake, or harbor and go up and down or oscillate and do not progress forward like standard ocean waves. The nearest enclosed water bodies are the CliŌon Court Forebay (approximately 8.87 miles northwest of the project site
) and Oakwood Lake (approximately 6.5 miles east of the project site). Due to the distance between Oakwood Lake  and the project site, the project site would not be inundated in the event of a seiche. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the release of pollutants in the event of in
undaƟon due to flood hazard, tsunamis, or seiches.

54   Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06001C0278G, effecƟve October 16. Website: hƩps://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery= 301%20WEst%20Grant%20Lie%20Road%2C%20Tracy%2C%20Ca#searchresultsanchor (accessed May 6, 2023).
55   Ibid.
56   Ibid.
57   Ibid.
58   California Department of ConservaƟon (DOC). 2023. California Tsunami Maps. Website:
hƩps://www.conservaƟon.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps (accessed May 6, 2023).

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐56 e. Would the project con flict with or obstruct implementaƟon of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Less Than Significant Impact) In San Joaquin County, including the project site, the Water Board is responsible for implementaƟon of the Basin Plan, which establishes beneficial water uses for waterways and water bodies within the region. As previously discussed, the proposed project would comply with exisƟng  NPDES permit requirements, including the ConstrucƟon General Permit and Phase II MS4 Permit, and would implement construcƟon and operaƟonal BMPs to reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff.

Compliance with these regulatory requirements would ensure that the proposed project would not degrade or alter water quality , thereby causing the receiving waters to exceed the water quality objecƟves or impair the beneficial use of receiving waters. As such, the proposed project would not result in water quality impacts that would conflict with the Basin Plan. ConstrucƟon and operaƟonal impacts related to a conflict with th e Basin Plan would be less than significant.

The project site is located within the Tracy Subbasin, a mapped Division of Water Rights (DWR) groundwater basin boundary. The Tracy Subbasin is designated as a medium priority basin under DWR’s 2019 Phase 2 Basin PrioriƟzaƟon. As a DWR‐designa ted medium priority basin, the Tracy Subbasin is subject to the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

The City of Tracy, Byron‐Bethany IrrigaƟon District, Banta‐Carbona IrrigaƟon District, City of Lathrop, San Joaquin County, and Stewart Tract are the six Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) formed in the Tracy Subbasin and are working cooperaƟvely to develop a single Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Nevertheless, the proposed project wo uld not interfere with groundwater recharge in the vicinity of the project site as discussed in SecƟon 4.10.b. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementaƟon of a sustainable groundwater management plan, and this impact would be less than significant. 4‐57
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Pote
nƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulaƟon adopted for the purpose of avoiding or miƟgaƟng an environmental effect? a. Would the project physically divide an established community? (Less Than Significant Impact) The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construcƟon of a feature (e.g., an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (e.g., a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an exisƟng community, or between a community and outlying area
s. For instance, the construcƟon of an interstate highway through an exisƟng community may constrain travel from one side of the community to another; similarly, such construcƟon may also impair travel to areas outside of the community.

The project site is an exisƟng City park that is loc ated in an urban area and surrounded by commercial, residenƟal, and public uses. The proposed project would result in the development of a new recreaƟon center, the renovaƟon of the exisƟng El Pescadero Park, and construcƟon of associated parking and landscaping impr ovements. Access to the project site would be via the exisƟng signalized intersecƟon at West Grant Line Road and Parker Avenue and a new connecƟon off Kavanagh Avenue. The proposed project would not result in the realignment, widening, or closure of any exisƟng roads. Therefore, the proposed project would not re sult in the physical division of an established community or adversely affect the conƟnuity of land uses in the vicinity, and this impact would be less than significant.
b. Would the project cause a signi ficant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulaƟon adopted for the purpose of avoiding or miƟgaƟng an environmental effect? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project site is designated as  Park on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map59 and is within the LDR zoning district on the City’s Zoning Map.60 PermiƩed uses established for the Park designaƟon include: acƟve playing fields, parks, and recreaƟon faciliƟes; urban parks and plazas; bicycle and walking trails; fountains; landscaped areas and corridors; natural open space and wildlife areas; and 59   City of Tracy. 2011. City of Tracy General Plan Land Use Map. February 1. 60   City of Tracy. n.d. City of Tracy GIS Viewer . Website: hƩps://www.cityoŌracy.org/our‐city/about‐us/city‐ maps/gis‐web‐mapping‐applicaƟon (accessed December 20, 2022).

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐58 water recharge and detenƟon faciliƟes. PermiƩed uses in the LDR zoning district include single‐ family dwellings, accessory dwelling units, crop and tree farming, public parks, and schools.61 Per CEQA Guidelines, policy conflicts do not, in and of themselves, consƟtute significant environ‐ mental impacts. Policy conflicts are considered to be environmental impacts only when they would result in direct physical impacts or where those conflicts relate to avoiding or miƟgaƟng environmental impacts. As such, associated phy sical environmental impacts are discussed in this IniƟal Study under specific topical secƟons.

The project site is located in an urban area in the City of Tracy, within San Joaquin County. It is surrounded by single‐ and mulƟ‐family residenƟal uses, commercial uses and public faciliƟes. The proposed pr
oject would renovate and improve an exisƟng City park to include a new recreaƟonal center. The proposed project would remain consistent with surrounding land uses. Therefore, the project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or reg
ulaƟon adopted for the purpose of avoiding or miƟgaƟng an environmental effect; impacts would be less than significant.
61   City of Tracy. 2023. City of Tracy Municipal Code, Chapter 10.08 Zoning RegulaƟons. Website:
hƩps://library.municode.com/ca/tracy/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT10PLZO_CH10.08ZORE (accessed March 22, 2023).
4‐59
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

PotenƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (No Impact) Minerals are any naturally occurring chemical element or compound, or groups of elements and compounds, formed from inorganic processes and organic substances including, but not limited to, coal, peat, and oil‐bearing rock but excluding geothermal resources, natural gas, and petroleum.

Rock, sand, gravel, and earth are also considered miner als by the Department of ConservaƟon when extracted by surface mining operaƟons. The project site is currently developed with an exisƟng City park. It is not located in a designated mineral resource area. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral re source that would be of value to the region and residents of the state. No impact would occur .
b. Would the project result in th e loss of availability of a locally‐important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (No Impact) Please refer to SecƟon 4.12.a above. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any known locally important mineral resource recovery site. The refore, no impact related to the availability of mineral resources to a recovery site would occur .

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐60

4.13 NOISE

PotenƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a. GeneraƟon of a substanƟal temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b. GeneraƟon of excessive groundborne vibraƟon or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise lev els?

Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communicaƟon, work, rest, recreaƟon, or sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a parƟcular locaƟon. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measuremen t that indicates the relaƟve intensity of a sound.

Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10‐fold increase in acousƟc energy, while 20 dB is 100 Ɵmes more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 Ɵmes more int
ense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness; and similarly, each 10 dB decrease in sound level is perceived as half as loud. Sound intensity is normally measured through the A‐weighted sound level (dBA), and this scale gives greater weight to the fr
equencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensiƟve. The A‐weighted sound level is the basis for 24‐hour sound measurements which beƩer represent how humans are more sensiƟve to sound at night.

As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the far ther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the sound level to aƩenuate or be reduced, resulƟng in a 6 dB reducƟon in the noise level for each doubling of distance from a single point sour ce of noise to the noise sensiƟve receptor of concern.

There are many ways to rate noise for various Ɵme periods, but an appropriate raƟng of ambient noise affecƟng humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. Equivalent conƟnuous sound level
(Leq) is the total sound energy of Ɵme varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant raƟng scales for human communiƟes in the State of California are the Leq, the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and the day‐night average level (Ldn) based on A‐weighted decibels (dBA). CNEL is the Ɵme varying noise over a 24‐hour period, with a 5 dBA weighƟng factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxaƟon hours) and 10 dBA weighƟng factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale, but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening relaxaƟon hours. CNEL and Ldn are within one dBA of each other and are normally 4‐61
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) exchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to the noise events occurring during the more sensiƟve hours.

A project would result in a significant noise effect if it would substanƟally increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of applicable regul
atory agencies, including, as appropriate, the City of Tracy.

Certain land uses are considered more sensiƟve to noise than others. Examples of these include residenƟal areas, educaƟonal faciliƟes, hospitals, childcare faciliƟes, and senior housing. The project site is generally surrounded by residenƟal uses. The closest sensiƟve re ceptors are the residences located west and southeast, approximately 10 feet from the project site boundary.

ExisƟng noise sources at the project site are primarily associated with traffic on surrounding roadways, including Grant Line Road and West Kavanagh Avenue.

The City of Tracy General Plan addresses noise in the Noise Element.  The Noise Element contains goals and policies for noise control and abatement in the City. The goals and policies contained in the Noise Element address noise in relation to land use planning, the noise environment, transportation noise, construction and industrial noise, population and housing noise, and public health and safety. General noise goals for Tracy
aim to attain a healthier and quieter environment
for all citizens while maintaining a reasonable level of economic progress and development.

The City has established land use compatibility guidelines for determining acceptable noise levels for specified land uses as shown in Table 4.13.A. The land use compatibility guid elines are intended to be an advisory resource when considering changes in land use and policies, such as zoning modifications. The Noise Element also limits noise generated by construction. Policy P4. under objective N‐1.2, Control sources of excessive noise, states that all construction in the vicinity of noise sensitive land uses,
such as residences, hospitals, or convalescent homes, shall be limited to daylight hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. In addition, the following construction noise control measures shall be included as requirements at construction sites to minimize construction noise impacts:
 Equip all internal combusƟon engi ne‐driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condiƟon and appropriate for the equipment.  Locate staƟonary noise‐generaƟng equipment as far as possible from sensiƟve receptors when sensiƟve receptors adjoin or are near a construcƟon area.  UƟlize “
quiet” air compressors and other staƟonary noise sources where technology exists.

The City of Tracy addresses noise impacts in Article 9: Noise Control, of the Municipal Code. Article 9: Noise Control, establishes noise limits for the generation of sound within the City. The maximum noise levels vary based on the receivin g land use type and the cumulative duration of noise. For residential districts, 55 dBA Leq is the sound level limit.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐62 Table 4.13.A: Community Noise Exposure Ldn

4‐63
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
P:\LPX
2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) To assess exisƟng noise levels, LSA conducted noise monitoring to establish the exisƟng ambient noise environment at the project site. Four short‐term (15‐minute) and one long‐term (24‐hour) noise measurements were conducted at the project site from February 15, 2023 to February 16, 2023. Noise measurement data collected durin g the noise monitoring are summarized in Table

4.13.B. As shown in Table 4.13.B, the short‐term noise measurements indicate that ambient noise in the project site vicinity ranges from approximately 51.6 dBA to 64.0 dBA Leq. The long‐term measurement resulted in a daily noise level of 65.5 dBA Ldn. Vehicle traffic on Grant Line Road and West Kavanagh Avenue was reported as the primary noise source. Noise measurement sheets are provided in Appendix B. Figure 4.13‐1 shows the long‐term noise monitoring locaƟons.

Table 4.13.B: Short‐Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, dBA LocaƟon
Number  LocaƟon DescripƟon  Start Time  Leq/Ldna Lmax b  Lmin c  Primary Noise Sources ST‐1
Northwest area of park, approximately
30 Ō from W Kavanagh Avenue
centerline.
2:14 p.m.  60.0  72.3  49.1  Traffic on Kavanagh Ave
ST‐2
Northeast area of park, approximately
30 Ō from W Kavanagh Avenue
centerline.
2:31 p.m.  64.0  82.8  47.9  Traffic on Kavanagh Ave
ST‐3
Southeast area of park, approximately
50 Ō north of residence property line.  2:52 p.m.  51.6  59.6  47.7  Background traffic noise from Grant Line Rd
ST‐4
South side of project near entrance,
approximately 150 Ō from Grant Line
Road centerline.   3:10 p.m.  59.4  74.3  46.0  Traffic on Grant Line Rd LT‐1
West side of project on a fence west of
parking lot, by the gate entrance for
Tracy interfaith Ministries.
2:00 p.m.  57.4/

65.5  68.4  49.5  Background traffic and
parking lot acƟviƟes
Source: LSA (2023).
a   Leq represents the average of the sound energy occurring over the measurement Ɵme period for the short‐term noise measurements.

Ldn is the day‐night average level, represents the 24‐hour A‐weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained aŌer the addiƟon of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. b   Lmax is the highest sound level measured during the measurement Ɵme period. c   Lmin is the lowest sound level measured during the measurement Ɵme period.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐64 Because the City does not have construcƟon noise level limits, construcƟon noise was assessed using criteria from the Transit Noise and VibraƟon Impact Assessment Manual.62 Table 4.13.C shows the FTA’s Detailed Analysist ConstrucƟon Noise Criteria based on the composite noise levels per construcƟon phase.

Table 4.13.C: Detailed Assessment ConstrucƟon Noise Criteria Land Use  DayƟme 1‐hour Leq (dBA)
ResidenƟal  80
Commercial   85
Industrial  90
Source: Transit Noise and VibraƟon Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). dBA = A‐weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent conƟnuous sound level

VibraƟon standards included in the FTA Manual are used in this analysis for ground‐borne vibraƟon impacts on human annoyance. The criteria for environmental impact from ground‐borne vibraƟon and noise are based on the maximum levels for a single event. Table 4.13.D provides the criteria for assessing the potenƟ al for interference or annoyance from vibraƟon levels in a building.

Table 4.13.D: InterpretaƟon of VibraƟon Criteria for Detailed Analysis Land Use  Max Lv
(VdB)1  DescripƟon of Use
Workshop  90  VibraƟon that is disƟnctly felt. Appropriate for workshops and similar areas not as sensiƟve to vibraƟon.

Office  84  VibraƟon that can be felt. Appropriate for offices and similar areas not as sensiƟve to vibraƟon.

ResidenƟal Day  78  VibraƟon that is barely felt. Adequate for computer equipment and low‐power opƟcal microscopes (up to 20×).

ResidenƟal Night and
OperaƟng Rooms  72
VibraƟon is not felt, but ground‐borne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms. Suitable for medium‐power microscopes (100×) and other equipment of low sensiƟvity.

Source: Transit Noise and VibraƟon Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). 1   As measured in 1/3‐Octave bands of frequency over the frequency range 8 to 80 Hertz.

FTA = Federal Transit AdministraƟon  LV = velocity in decibels VdB = vibraƟon velocity decibels  Max = maximum

Table 4.13.E lists the potenƟal vibraƟon building damage criteria associated with construcƟon acƟviƟes, as suggested in the FTA Manual. FTA guidelines show that a vibraƟon level of up to 0.5 in/sec in PPV is considered safe for buildings consisƟng of reinforced concrete, steel, or Ɵmber (no plast
er), and would not result in any construcƟon vibraƟon damage. For non‐engineered Ɵmber and masonry buildings, the construcƟon building vibraƟon damage criterion is 0.2 in/sec in PPV .

62   Federal Transit AdministraƟon (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and VibraƟon Impact Assessment Manual.

September .
4‐65
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) Table 4.13.E: ConstrucƟon VibraƟon Damage Criteria
Building Category  PPV (in/sec)
Reinforced concrete, steel, or Ɵmber (no plaster)  0.50 Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster)  0.30
Non‐engineered Ɵmber and masonry buildings  0.20
Buildings extremely suscepƟble to vibraƟon damage  0.12 Source: Transit Noise and VibraƟon Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018).

FTA = Federal Transit AdministraƟon
in/sec = inch/inches per second
PPV = peak parƟcle velocity

a. Would the project result in genera Ɵon of a substanƟal temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less Than Significant with MiƟgaƟon Incorporated)
ConstrucƟon‐Period Impacts. ConstrucƟon of the proposed project could include construcƟon acƟviƟes that would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity.

Maximum construcƟon noise levels would be short‐term, gener ally intermiƩent depending on the construcƟon phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the acƟve construcƟon zone.

The duraƟon of noise impacts generally would be from one day to several days depending on the phase of construcƟon. Consistent with CalEEMod assumpƟons, project con strucƟon would occur for approximately 24 months. The level and types of noise impacts that would occur during construcƟon are described below.

Short‐term noise impacts would occur during paving and site preparaƟon acƟviƟes. Table 4.13. lists maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments for typic al construcƟon equipment, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor.

ConstrucƟon‐related short‐term noise levels would be higher than exisƟng ambient noise levels currently in the project area but would no longer occur once construcƟon of the project is com
pleted.

Two types of short‐term noise impacts could occur during construcƟon of the proposed project. The first type involves construcƟon crew commutes and the transport of construcƟon equipment and materials to the site for the proposed project, which would incrementally increase noise levels on road
s leading to the site. As shown in Table 4.13., there would be a relaƟvely high single‐event noise exposure potenƟal at a maximum level of 85 dBA Lmax with trucks passing from 50 feet.

The second type of short‐term noise impact is related to noise generated during site preparaƟon, excavaƟon, grading, and construcƟon on the project site. ConstrucƟon is performed in discrete steps, or phases, each with its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise  characterisƟcs.

These various sequenƟal phases would change the character of the noise generated on site.

Therefore, the noise levels vary as construcƟon progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construcƟon equipment, similariƟes in the dominant noise sources and paƩerns of operaƟon allow co
nstrucƟon‐related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐66 Average maximum noise levels range up to 90 dBA Lmax at 50 feet during the noisiest construcƟon phases. The site preparaƟon and grading phases, including excavaƟon of the site, tend to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving machinery is the noisiest construcƟon equipment.

Earthmoving equipment includes excavaƟng machinery such as backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, and front loader
s. Earthmoving and compacƟng equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders.

Typical operaƟng cycles for these types of construcƟon equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full‐ power operaƟon followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power seƫngs.

As idenƟfied above, the project site is gener ally surrounded by residenƟal uses. The closest sensiƟve receptors include the residences located southeast of the project site approximately 120 feet from the center of project site. The 120‐foot distance would decrease the noise level by approximately 8 dBA compared to the noise level measured at 50 fee t (88 dBA Leq) from the construcƟon acƟvity.

Table 4.13.F: Typical ConstrucƟon Equipment Noise Levels Equipment DescripƟon  AcousƟcal Usage Factor (%)  Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) at 50 Feet1 Backhoes  40  80
Compactor (ground)  20  80
Compressor  40  80
Cranes  16  85
Dozers  40  85
Dump Trucks  40  84
Excavators  40  85
Flat Bed Trucks  40  84
ForkliŌ  20  85
Front‐end Loaders  40  80
Graders  40  85
Impact Pile Drivers  20  95
Jackhammers  20  85
Pick‐up Truck  40  55
PneumaƟc Tools  50  85
Pumps  50  77
Rock Drills  20  85
Rollers  20  85
Scrapers  40  85
Tractors  40  84
Welder  40  73
Source: Roadway ConstrucƟon Noise Model (FHWA 2006).

Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number . 1  Maximum noise levels were developed based on Spec 721.560 from the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) program to be consistent with the City of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project.

Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level

Therefore, the closest off‐site receptors may be subject to short‐term construcƟon noise levels of 80 dBA Leq when construcƟon is occurring at the center of project site. These predicted noise levels would only occur when all construcƟon equipment is operaƟng simultaneously; and therefore, the noise levels are assumed to be rather conservaƟve in nature. While construcƟon‐related short‐term 4‐67
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) noise levels have the potenƟal to be higher than exisƟng ambient noise levels in the project area under exisƟng condiƟons, the noise impacts would no longer occur once project construcƟon is completed.

Compliance with the allowed construcƟon hours in the City’s Noise Ordinance would ensure that cons
trucƟon noise does not disturb residents during typical sleeping hours or during hours when ambient noise levels are likely to be lower (i.e., at night). In addiƟon, the proposed project would implement several best pracƟces for reducing construcƟon noise, including, but not limited to, maximizing the distance bet ween noise sources and sensiƟve receptors during construcƟon acƟviƟes, equipping construcƟon equipment with properly operaƟng and maintained noise mufflers, and establishing a noise disturbance coordinator for the proposed project. These best pracƟces are included in MiƟgaƟon Measure NOI‐1, provided below. AddiƟ onally, with the incorporaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure NOI‐1, all feasible and reasonable measures to reduce construcƟon noise would be implemented, and a less than significant impact would occur .

Mitigation Measure NOI‐1:  Construction  Noise  and  Vibration.  Prior  to  issuance  of  grading permits, the City Engineer of the City of Tracy shall verify that gradi ng and construction plans include the following requirements:
 Ensure  that  the  greatest  distance  between  noise  sources  and sensitive  receptors  during  construction  activities  has  been achieved.
 Construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly  operating  and  maintained  noise  mufflers  consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
 Construction  staging  areas
shall  be  located  away  from  off‐site
sensitive uses during the later phases of project development.  The  construction  contractor  shall  place  all  stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from  sensitive  receptors  nearest  the  project  site  whenever feasible.
 The construc
tion contractor shall use on‐site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel generators where feasible.  A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet, shall also be posted at the construction site. All notices and the signs shall indicate the dates and  duration  of  construction  ac tivities,  as  well  as  provide  a telephone number for the “noise disturbance coordinator.”  The Construction Manager shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The Construction Manager shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g.,

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐68 starting  too  early,  bad  muffler,  etc.)  and  shall  be  required  to implement reasonable measures to reduce noise levels. All signs posted at the construction site shall  list the telephone  number for the Construction Manager.

ImplementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure NOI‐1 would reduce the level of the potenƟal im pact by requiring that the project contractor implement best pracƟces for reducing construcƟon noise, including, but not limited to, maximizing the distance between noise sources and sensiƟve receptors during construcƟon acƟviƟes, equipping construcƟon equipment with properly operaƟng and maintained noise mufflers, and est ablishing a noise disturbance coordinator for the proposed project. Therefore, with implementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure NOI‐1, this impact would be less than significant with miƟgaƟon incorporated.

OperaƟonal Noise Impacts. The project would generate long‐term noise impacts from both traffic and staƟonary noise sources, as
discussed below.

Traffic Noise Impacts. Motor vehicles with their disƟncƟve noise characterisƟcs are the dominant noise source in the project vicinity. The amount of noise varies according to many factors, such as volume of traffic, vehicle mix (percentage of cars and trucks ), average traffic speed, and distance from the observer . ImplementaƟon of the proposed project would result in new daily trips on local roadways in the project site vicinity. A characterisƟc of sound is that a doubling of a noise source is required in order to result in a perc epƟble (3 dBA or greater) increase in the resulƟng noise level.

Trip generaƟon rates for the project were based on the trip generaƟon analysis, which indicates that the project would generate approximately 1,760 net new trips. The adjacent Grant Line Road carries approximately 17,602 average daily trip s. Project trips would represent a small increase in noise level, up to approximately 0.4 dBA CNEL based on the following equaƟon:

𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛 ሺ𝑑𝐵𝐴ሻൌ10 ∗ lo gଵ଴൬𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒
Future Volume ൰

Therefore, project daily trips would not result in a percepƟble noise increase along any roadway segment in the project vicinity; therefore, impacts associated with traffic noise would be less than significant.

StaƟonary Noise Impacts. The proposed project would renovate an exisƟng community park, which coul
d result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project area associated with outdoor play, parking lot noise, and mechanical equipment at the MulƟ‐GeneraƟonal RecreaƟon Center .

Outdoor FaciliƟes. ImplementaƟon of the proposed project could result in the shiŌing of noise levels in the vicinity of the pr
oject site associated with the following adjusted faciliƟes:
 MulƟ‐funcƟonal lawn
4‐69
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)  Playground and splash pad
 Dog Park
 Skate Park
 Basketball Court
The proposed uses are expected to be similar to those of the exisƟng community park. The proposed project does not contain uses which are expected to uƟlize amplified speech or music and would not host sporƟng
events. Any instances in which noise levels generated result in a disturbance, the City’s Municipal Code would be uƟlized to minimize the operaƟonal impacts which are classified as nuisance issues.

MulƟ‐GeneraƟonal RecreaƟon Center. It is expected that the proposed recreaƟon center would inst
all heaƟng, venƟlaƟon, and air condiƟoning (HVAC) equipment. It is expected that the equipment installed would comply with the City’s noise standards of 55 dBA Leq. The specific design of onsite mechanical equipment associated with the proposed structure has not yet been determined.

However, mechanical equipment systems would typically be shielded from direct public exposure and usually housed on rooŌops, within equipment rooms, or within exterior enclosures. The use of building mechanical systems is typically intermiƩen t, would likely be limited to the dayƟme hours of operaƟon, and would be largely masked by ambient traffic noise levels.

In addiƟon to building mechanical equipment, the proposed recreaƟon center would include various noise‐generaƟng interior recreaƟonal uses, including gymnasiums, exercise rooms, and mulƟ‐ purpose rooms. In ge
neral, noise generated by interior recreaƟonal acƟviƟes would typically not be detectable within approximately 50 feet of the exterior of the structure. Predicted noise levels at the nearest noise‐sensiƟve land uses would be largely masked by ambient traffic noise levels and wo uld not be anƟcipated result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels that would exceed the City’s noise standard of 55 dBA Leq.
b. Would the project result in genera Ɵon of excessive groundborne vibraƟon or groundborne noise levels?
VibraƟon refers to groundborne noise and percepƟble moƟon. Groundborne vibraƟon is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors. VibraƟon energy propagates from a source, through intervening soil and rock layers, to the foundaƟons of nearby buildi
ngs. The vibraƟon then propagates from the foundaƟon throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibraƟon may be perceived by the occupants as the moƟon of building surfaces, raƩling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or as a low‐frequency rumbling noise. The rumbling noise is caus
ed by the vibraƟng walls, floors, and ceilings radiaƟng sound waves.

Annoyance from vibraƟon oŌen occurs when the vibraƟon exceeds the threshold of percepƟon by 10 dB or less. This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐70 Typical sources of groundborne vibraƟon are construcƟon acƟviƟes (e.g., pavement breaking and operaƟng heavy‐duty earthmoving equipment), rail acƟvity, and occasional traffic on rough roads. In general, groundborne vibraƟon from standard construcƟon pracƟces is only a potenƟal issue when within 25 feet of sensiƟ
ve uses. Groundborne vibraƟon levels from construcƟon acƟviƟes very rarely reach levels that can damage structures; however, these levels are percepƟble near the acƟve construcƟon site. With the excepƟon of older buildings built prior to the 1950s or buildings of hist
oric significance, potenƟal structural damage from heavy construcƟon acƟviƟes rarely occurs.

When roadways are smooth, vibraƟon from traffic (even heavy trucks) is rarely percepƟble.

The roadways surrounding the project area, including Grant Line Road and West Kavanagh Avenue, are paved, smooth, and unlikely to ca use significant groundborne vibraƟon. In addiƟon, the rubber Ɵres and suspension systems of buses and other on‐road vehicles make it unusual for on‐road vehicles to cause groundborne noise or vibraƟon problems. It is, therefore, assumed that no such vehicular vibraƟon impacts wo uld occur, and no vibraƟon impact analysis of on‐road vehicles is necessary.

The following vibraƟon impact analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using vibraƟon levels in VdB and assesses the potenƟal for structural damages using vibraƟon levels in PPV (in/sec) because vibraƟon le vels calculated in RMS are best for characterizing human response to building vibraƟon, while vibraƟon level in PPV is best used to characterize potenƟal for damage.

ConstrucƟon VibraƟon. ConstrucƟon of the proposed project could result in the generaƟon of groundborne vibraƟon. This construcƟ on vibraƟon impact analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using vibraƟon levels in VdB and will assess the potenƟal for building damages using vibraƟon levels in PPV (in/sec) because vibraƟon levels calculated in RMS are best for characterizing human response to building vibraƟon, w hile vibraƟon level in PPV is best used to characterize potenƟal for damage. The FTA Transit Noise and VibraƟon Impact Assessment guidelines indicate that a vibraƟon level up to 0.5 in/sec in PPV is considered safe for buildings consisƟng of reinforced concrete, steel, or Ɵmber (no plast er), and would not result in any construcƟon vibraƟon damage.

For a non‐engineered Ɵmber and masonry building, the construcƟon vibraƟon damage criterion is

0.2 in/sec in PPV .

Table 4. shows the PPV and VdB values at 25 feet from a construcƟon vibraƟon source. As show n in Table 4., bulldozers and other heavy‐tracked construcƟon equipment (except for pile drivers and vibratory rollers) generate approximately 87 VdB of groundborne vibraƟon when measured at 25 feet, based on the Transit Noise and VibraƟon Impact Assessment. At this level, groundborne vibraƟon would res ult in potenƟal annoyance to residents and workers, but would not cause any damage to the buildings. ConstrucƟon vibraƟon, similar to vibraƟon from other sources, would not have any significant effects on outdoor acƟviƟes (e.g., those outside of residences and commercial/office buildings in the project vicinity). Outd oor site preparaƟon for the proposed project is expected to include the use of bulldozers and loaded trucks. The greatest levels of vibraƟon are anƟcipated to occur during the site preparaƟon phase. All other phases are expected to result in lower vibraƟ on levels.
4‐71
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) Table 4.13.G: VibraƟon Source Amplitudes for ConstrucƟon Equipment Equipment
Reference PPV/LV at 25 feet
PPV (in/sec)  LV (VdB)a
Pile Driver (Impact), Typical  0.644  104
Pile Driver (Sonic), Typical  0.170  93
Vibratory Roller  0.210  94
Hoe Ram  0.089  87
Large Bulldozer  0.089  87
Caisson Drilling  0.089  87
Loaded Trucks  0.076  86
Jackhammer  0.035  79
Small Bulldozer  0.003  58
Sources: Transit Noise and VibraƟon Impact Assessment (FTA 2018). a  RMS vibraƟon velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 µin/sec. µin/sec = micro‐inches per second
FTA = Federal Transit AdministraƟon
in/sec = inches per second
LV = velocity in decibels
PPV = peak parƟcle velocity
RMS = root‐mean‐square
VdB = vibraƟon velocity decibels

The distance to the nearest buildings for vibraƟon impact analysis is measured between the nearest off‐site buildings and the project boundary (assuming the construcƟon equipment would be used at or near the project boundary) because vibraƟon impacts occur normally within the buildings. The formula for vibraƟon transmission is provided belo w.

LvdB (D)  =   LvdB (25 Ō) – 30 Log (D/25)
PPVequip  =  PPVref x (25/D)1.5
As shown in Table 4.13.D, above, the threshold at which vibraƟon levels would result in annoyance would be 78 VdB for dayƟme residenƟal uses. As shown in Table 4.13.E, the FTA guidelines indicate that for a non‐engineered Ɵmber and masonry building, the construcƟon vibraƟon damage criterion is 0.2 in/s
ec in PPV . The reference distance for potenƟal vibraƟon annoyance impacts at nearest receptors is associated with the average condiƟon, idenƟfied by the distance from the center of construcƟon acƟviƟes to surrounding uses, while the reference distance for potenƟal construcƟon vibr
aƟon damage impacts at nearest receptor is associated with the peak condiƟon, idenƟfied by the distance from the perimeter of construcƟon acƟviƟes to surrounding structures.

For potenƟal construcƟon vibraƟon annoyance, vibraƟon levels are expected to approach 67 VdB at the closest res
idenƟal uses located approximately 120 feet southeast of the center of construcƟon acƟviƟes, which is below the 78 VdB threshold for annoyance.

For potenƟal construcƟon vibraƟon damage, the closest surrounding buildings to the project site include the exisƟng residenƟal uses located appro ximately 10 feet southeast of the project site boundary. At 10 feet, the structure would experience vibraƟon levels of up to 0.352 PPV in/sec. This vibraƟon level at the nearest building from construcƟon equipment would exceed the 0.2 PPV in/sec damage threshold considered safe for non‐engi neered  Ɵmber and masonry buildings, which would result in a potenƟally significant impact. VibraƟon levels at all other buildings would be lower . With

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐72 implementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure NOI‐2, impacts associated with construcƟon vibraƟon would be less than significant.

MiƟgaƟon Measure NOI‐2  ConstrucƟon VibraƟon Damage. Due to the close proximity to surrounding structures, the City Engineer of the City of Tracy shall veri
fy prior to issuance of demoliƟon or grading permits, that the approved plans require that the construcƟon contractor shall implement the following miƟgaƟon measures during project construcƟon acƟviƟes to ensure that damage does not occur at surrounding structures:
 A 15‐foot buffer between exisƟng structures and the Project site area shall be clearly delineated with stakes, fencing or other conspicuous boundary markings, to outline the area in which the use of heavy equipment shall be avoided.
 The use of heavy construcƟon shall be avoided within 15 feet of exisƟng surrounding structures.
 However, if the use of heavy equipment is required within 15 feet of surrounding structures, the following measures should be employed:
○ IdenƟfy structures that are located within 15 feet of heavy construcƟon acƟviƟes and that have the potenƟal to be
affected by ground‐borne vibraƟon. This task shall be
conducted by a qualified structural engineer as approved by the City’s Director of Community Development, or designee. ○ Develop a vibraƟon monitoring and construcƟon
conƟngency plan for approval by the Director of Community Development, or designee, to idenƟfy structures where
monitoring would be conducted; set up a vibraƟon
monitoring schedule; define structure‐specific vibraƟon
limits; and address the need to conduct photo, elevaƟon, and cr
ack surveys to document before and aŌer
construcƟon condiƟons. ConstrucƟon conƟngencies would
be idenƟfied for when vibraƟon levels approached the
limits.
○ At a minimum, monitor vibraƟon during iniƟal demoliƟon acƟviƟes. Monitoring results may indicate the need for
more or less intensive measurements.
○ When vibraƟon levels approach limits, suspend construcƟon and implement conƟngencies as idenƟfied in the approved
4‐73
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) vibraƟon monitoring and construcƟon conƟngency plan to
either lower vibraƟon levels or secure the affected
structures.

ImplementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure NOI‐2 would reduce the level of the potenƟal impact through the development and implementaƟon of a vibraƟon monitoring and construcƟon co nƟngency plan; monitoring of vibraƟon during site preparaƟon acƟviƟes; and suspension of construcƟon and implementaƟon of conƟngencies, if needed. This process would ensure that damage does not occur at surrounding structures should heavy equipment be necessary within 15 feet of surrounding stru
ctures. Therefore, with implementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure NOI‐2, this impact would be less than significant with miƟgaƟon incorporated.
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact)
The project area is not located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The closes t airport to the project site is Tracy Municipal Airport, which is located approximately 4.6 miles south of the project site. Based on Figure 9‐2 of the City’s General Plan, the site does not lie within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour or within the 2028 noise expo sure contour‐marginal effect. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels due to the proximity of a public airport and there would be no impact.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐74

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

PotenƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substanƟal unplanned populaƟon growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b. Displace substanƟal numbers of exisƟng people or housing, necessitaƟng the construcƟon of replacement housing
elsewhere?

a. Would the project induce substan Ɵal unplanned populaƟon growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed project would develop a new recreaƟon center and improve El Pescadero Park for use by exisƟng residents of Tracy. No new housing, commercial, or industrial space would be developed as part of the proposed project. The proposed project would not res ult in the conversion of adjacent land uses or provide access to previously inaccessible areas. It would not provide addiƟonal major infrastructure or increase the capacity of the exisƟng water system. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce substanƟal populaƟon growth.

The proposed project wo uld be undertaken to provide the residents of Tracy with a new recreaƟon center and improved park faciliƟes and parking. The proposed project does not include residenƟal units and would not directly induce populaƟon growth on the project site. The proposed recreaƟon center would provide employment for up to 25 [full‐Ɵme employees. A fracƟon of these employees may move to the area solely for reasons of employment, although employees would likely commute from various locaƟons in Tracy. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce substanƟal populaƟon growth on the site or in the surr ounding area through the increase in employment on the site. This impact would be less than significant. b. Would the project displace substan Ɵal numbers of exisƟng people or housing, necessitaƟng the construcƟon of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) The project site is currently developed with park uses and public faciliƟes, which do not include any res
idenƟal units. ImplementaƟon of the proposed project would not result in the displacement of exisƟng housing. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to the displacement of homes.

4‐75
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

PotenƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in substanƟal adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental faciliƟes, need for new or physically altered governmental faciliƟes, the construcƟon of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service raƟos, response Ɵmes or other performance
objecƟves fo
r any of the public services:

i. Fire protecƟon?
ii. Police protecƟon?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public faciliƟes?

a. Would the project result in substan Ɵal adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental faciliƟes, need for new or physically altered governmental faciliƟes, the construcƟon of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service raƟos, response Ɵmes or other performance objecƟves for any of the public services:
i. Fire protec Ɵon? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The South San Joaquin County Fire Authority (SSJCFA) provides fire protecƟon and life and safety services to Tracy from seven fire staƟons and one Fire AdministraƟon building within a 170 square mile jurisdicƟonal area. Four staƟons are located within the incorporated boundaries of Tracy while three addiƟonal fire staƟons are located within the boundaries of the Tracy Rural Fire ProtecƟon District. The SSJCFA is currently staffed with 102 employees and 5 civilian part‐Ɵme staff. There were 876 total reported incidents in the month of November 2022. Incidents requiring emergency medical services comprised 65 percent of all calls for service.63 The closest fire staƟon to the project site is Fire StaƟon 92 (1035 East Grant Line Road), which is located approximately 1 mile east of the project site.

The proposed project would construct a new recreaƟon center that would provide programming to beƩer serve the community, and thus could res ult in an increase in use and related dayƟme populaƟon of the project site, thereby incrementally increasing the demand for emergency fire service and emergency medical services compared to exisƟng condiƟons. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable codes for fire sa fety and emergency access.

63   South San Joaquin Fire Authority. 2022. Monthly Fire Chief Update. November . Website:
hƩps://www.sjcfire.org/home/showpublisheddocument/687/638059384614270000 (accessed January 24, 2023).

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐76 In addiƟon, the SSJCFA would also review the project site plans to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided prior to issuance of building permits.

The SSJCFA would conƟnue providing services to the project site and would not require addiƟonal firefighters to serve the proposed project. The c onstrucƟon of a new or expanded fire staƟon would not be required because the proposed project would include the development of a recreaƟon use within an exisƟng park site and would not result in a permanent populaƟon increase within Tracy, as noted in SecƟon 4.14, abov e. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the physical environment due to the increase in demand for fire protecƟon and life safety services, and the potenƟal increase in demand for services is not expected to adversely affect exisƟng response Ɵmes to th
e site or within Tracy. Therefore, construcƟon and operaƟon of the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact on fire protecƟon and safety services and faciliƟes. ii. Police protec Ɵon? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The Tracy Police Department (TPD) provides police protecƟ on services within the City. The TPD headquarters is located at 1000 Civic Center Drive, which is approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the project site. With a current populaƟon of 95,387,64 the TPD employs 136 total law enforcement officers and 89 sworn‐in officers.65 ExisƟng staffing levels for the TPD are approximately 0.89 sworn‐ in officers per 1,000 residents. The proposed project would not substanƟally result in a direct or indirect increase in populaƟon within Tracy. The proposed project would result in an increase in the dayƟme populaƟon of the project site an d incrementally increase demand for emergency police services to the project site compared to exisƟng condiƟons. However, the TPD would conƟnue to provide services to the project site and would not require addiƟonal officers to serve the project site.

The construcƟon of new or expanded police  faciliƟes would not be required. In addiƟon, it is anƟcipated that increased acƟvity and use of the park site, resulƟng from development of the new recreaƟon center would act as a deterrent to current illegally acƟvity at the park (e.g., homeless enc
ampments). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substanƟal adverse impact associated with the provision of addiƟonal police faciliƟes or services, and impacts to police services represent a less‐than‐significant impact.
iii. Schools? (No Impact)
The Tracy Unified School District (TUSD) comprises thr ee comprehensive high schools, two alternaƟve educaƟon high schools, one community school, two middle schools, four K‐8 schools, and seven K‐5 elementary schools. The TUSD currently serves approximately 16,000 students.66 The proposed project does not include the construcƟon of any new residenƟal uses. As described in SecƟon 4.14, PopulaƟon and Housing, the proposed project would not substanƟally induce housing

64   United States Census Bureau. 2022. U.S. Census QuickFacts, City of Tracy PopulaƟon EsƟmates. July 1.

Website: hƩps://www.census.gov/quickfacts/tracycitycalifornia (accessed January 24, 2022). 65   Federal Bureau of InvesƟgaƟon (FBI). 2018. California Full‐Time Law Enforcement Employees by City.

Website: hƩps://ucr .ĩi.gov/crime‐in‐the‐u.s/2018/crime‐in‐the‐u.s.‐2018/tables/table‐78/table‐78‐state‐ cuts/california.xls (accessed January 24, 2023).
66   Tracy Unified School District. n.d. Schools. Website: hƩps://www.tracy.k12.ca.us/schools (accessed January 24, 2023).
4‐77
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) or populaƟon growth, either directly or indirectly, within Tracy. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the number of school‐age children in the area. As such, the proposed project would not increase demand for schools, and no impact would occur . iv. Parks? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project site co
nsists of the exisƟng El Pescadero Park, which includes the Cora K‐9 Dog Park, the El Pescadero Skate Park, a playground, basketball courts, a restroom and drinking fountain, parking, and an open lawn area. As a part of the proposed project, improvements would be made to El Pesc
adero Park, including the relocaƟon and renovaƟon of the skate park, dog park, and basketball courts as well as construcƟon of a new recreaƟon center within the project site. During construcƟon, porƟons of El Pescadero Park would be inaccessible during construcƟon of the proposed pro
ject; therefore, slightly increasing demand for other nearby parks. However, this impact would be temporary in nature and would subside aŌer construcƟon of the proposed project is complete. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to the provision of park faciliƟes.
v
. Other public facili Ɵes? (No Impact)
As noted above, the proposed project does not include the construcƟon of any new residenƟal uses and would not substanƟally induce housing or populaƟon growth, either directly or indirectly, within Tracy. The mulƟ‐generaƟonal recreaƟon center is intended to supplement the exi sƟng Community Center and Senior Center with increased space for community recreaƟon and gathering opportuniƟes. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in increased demand for other public faciliƟes (e.g., libraries or community centers), and no impact would occur .

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐78

4.16 RECREATION

PotenƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of exisƟng neighborhood and regional parks or other recreaƟonal faciliƟes such that substanƟal physical deterioraƟon of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b. Does the project include recreaƟonal faciliƟes or require the construcƟon or expansion of recreaƟonal faciliƟes which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

a. Would the project increase the use of exis Ɵng neighborhood and regional parks or other recreaƟonal faciliƟes such that substanƟal physical deterioraƟon of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The proposed project would temporarily increase the use of other parks and recreaƟon faciliƟes during a porƟon of the construcƟon period because access to the exisƟng park would be limited during this Ɵme. These parks and recr eaƟon faciliƟes could include the RiƩer Family Ball Park, Kenner Park, Dr . Powers Park, Lincoln Park, and other dog parks in the area, including Mossdale Landing Community Park in Lathrop and Manteca Dog Park in Manteca. The increased use at surrounding parks and recreaƟonal faciliƟes would be tem porary in nature and would subside aŌer construcƟon of the proposed project is complete. AddiƟonally, the proposed mulƟ‐generaƟonal recreaƟon center may decrease use at other parks and recreaƟon faciliƟes once the project is complete because the proposed project would provide addiƟonal recr eaƟonal opportuniƟes for the community. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact on exisƟng parks or other recreaƟonal faciliƟes.
b. Does the project include recrea Ɵonal faciliƟes or require the construcƟon or expansion of recreaƟonal faciliƟes which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Less Than Significant with MiƟgaƟon Incorporated)
The proposed project would renovate and impr ove an exisƟng City park. Proposed improvements include development of a new recreaƟon center, the renovaƟon and relocaƟon of exisƟng recreaƟonal faciliƟes, and the construcƟon of associated landscape and parking improvements.

PotenƟal adverse effects on the environment related to the deve lopment of the proposed project have been evaluated in this IS/MND. ImplementaƟon of the miƟgaƟon measures described in this IS/MND would ensure that proposed improvements would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment. With implementaƟon of the miƟgaƟon measures described here in, environmental impacts associated with the construcƟon of proposed recreaƟonal faciliƟes would be less than significant with miƟgaƟon incorporated.

4‐79
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

4.17 TRANSPORTATION

PotenƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulaƟon system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian faciliƟes?

b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. SubstanƟally increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersecƟons) or incompaƟble uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d. Result in inadequate emergency access?

a. Would the project con flict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulaƟon system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian faciliƟes? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The City of Tracy General Plan established ObjecƟve CIR‐1.3, which determines that the City should adopt level of service (LOS) standards that provide a high level of mobility and accessibility for all modes, residents, and workers. Under this objecƟve, Policy P1 str ives to maintain LOS D or beƩer on all streets and intersecƟons with some excepƟons such as allowing LOS E on streets and intersecƟons within 0.25 mile of any freeway and within the Downtown and BowƟe areas. Based on an evaluaƟon of LOS at intersecƟ ons surrounding the project site, it was determined that the target LOS established by ObjecƟve CIR‐1.3 Policy P1 is maintained with implementaƟon of the proposed project.

Short‐Term ConstrucƟon Impacts. ConstrucƟon is anƟcipated to require approximately 12 months.

ConstrucƟon would require use of typical cons trucƟon equipment for preparaƟon of the site and construcƟon of the new recreaƟon center . ConstrucƟon would occur during daylight hours, from approximately 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily. ConstrucƟon staging would occur on the project site.

ConstrucƟon workers, equipment and deliveries wou ld access the site via Grant Line Road (at Parker Avenue) and Kavanagh Avenue. Given the size of the project site, it is anƟcipated that fewer than 100 construcƟon workers would be required on any given day, resulƟng in fewer than 100 peak hour trips, which is less than the traffic gen erated during operaƟon of the project. Therefore, the traffic effects during construcƟon would be equal to or less than the operaƟonal effects analyzed below.

OperaƟonal Impacts. The project would improve El Pescadero Park by reconstrucƟng two exisƟng park elem
ents (the dog park and skate park) in new locaƟons, construcƟng a new 52,244‐square‐ foot recreaƟon center, expanding the exisƟng parking lot from 58 spaces to approximately 190 spaces, and extending an internal roadway from the parking lot to Kavanagh Avenue. The only project element with pote nƟal new travel demand not present in the exisƟng condiƟon is the proposed recreaƟon center . Trip generaƟon rates provided in the InsƟtute of TransportaƟon

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐80 Engineers (ITE) Trip GeneraƟon Manual, Eleventh EdiƟon67 idenƟfy vehicle trips associated with various land uses based on surveys of similar sites around the country. Data for the trip generaƟng characterisƟcs of a recreaƟonal community center (similar to the proposed project) are available in this reference. As shown in Table 4.17.A, applicaƟon of the ITE trip ra tes for a recreaƟonal community center result in an esƟmate of 1,506 new daily trips to and from El Pescadero Park including 100 that would occur in the AM peak hour and 131 that would occur in the PM peak hour .

Table 4.17.A: Trip GeneraƟon Summary
Land Use (Land Use Code)  Size  Unit  ADT  AM Peak Hour  PM Peak Hour In  Out  Total  In  Out  Total
Trip Rates1
RecreaƟonal Community Center (495)     TSF  28.82  1.26  0.65  1.91  1.18  1.32  2.50 Trip GeneraƟon
MulƟ‐generaƟonal RecreaƟon Center  52.244  TSF  1,506  66  34  100  62  69  131 1   Trip rates referenced from the ITE Trip GeneraƟon Manual, 11th EdiƟon ADT = average daily trips
TSF = thousand square feet
ITE = InsƟtute of TransportaƟon Engineers

Roadway and intersecƟon turn volume data was collected in the vicinity of the project. These data were collected on a typical weekday, Thursday, March 16, 2023. Traffic volume data is provided in Appendix C. Table 4.17.B shows the daily traffic volume currently using area roadways.

The proposed project includes the ex tension of a roadway accessing parking areas to Kavanagh Avenue. Approximately 25 of the total 190 parking spaces would be located along this internal roadway. Approximately 25 parallel parking spaces are located along the south side of Kavanagh Avenue adjacent to the park. It is anƟcipated that some patrons would park in  these areas and approach the project site from Kavanagh Avenue. To further distribute the project traffic, exisƟng traffic data and assigned turning movements were evaluated based on exisƟng traffic paƩerns.

The resulƟng daily traffic volume on the surrounding road ways, without and with project traffic, is shown in Table 4.17.B. The traffic volumes are within the typical daily traffic volume for these classificaƟons of roadway.

Table 4.17.B: Roadway Traffic Volume
ExisƟng Daily
Traffic
Project Daily
Traffic
ExisƟng Plus
Project Daily
Traffic
Tracy Boulevard between Kavanagh Avenue and Grant Line Road  22,260  206  22,466 Kavanagh Avenue between Tracy Boulevard and Holly Drive  2,941  188  3,129 Holly Drive between Kavanagh Avenue and Grant Line Road  7,575  168  7,743 Grant Line Road between Tracy Boulevard and Holly Drive  17,602  678  18,280

67   InsƟtute of TransportaƟon Engineers (ITE). 2021. ITE Trip GeneraƟon, Eleventh EdiƟon. 4‐81
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

The project would create a new intersecƟon on Kavanagh Avenue created by the extension of an internal roadway from the parking area. This new intersecƟon is close to the exisƟng intersecƟon of Elsinore Drive/Kavanagh Avenue. Although it is offset by approximately 40 feet, vehicles approaching from the north or the south woul d likely wait for each other to pass before entering Kavanagh Avenue and this analysis treats the offset legs as one intersecƟon (IntersecƟon #7).

This LOS analysis was conducted using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)68 methodology within Synchro traffic analysis soŌware consistent with San Joaquin County standards. ExisƟng intersecƟon turn volume data was collected simultaneous with roadway traffic volume data. Project traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak hour were overlaid on the exisƟng traffic volumes to develop the exi
sƟng plus project condiƟon. IntersecƟon LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix B. Table

4.17.C summarizes the analysis results.

Table 4‐17.C: Vehicle Level of Service Summary
IntersecƟon
ExisƟng No Project  ExisƟng Plus Project  Change With
Project AM Peak Hour  PM Peak Hour  AM Peak Hour  PM Peak Hour Delay (sec)  LOS  Delay (sec)  LOS  Delay (sec)  LOS  Delay (sec)  LOS  AM  PM

1. Tracy Blvd/Kavanagh Ave  12.0  B  13.4  B  12.1  B  13.5  B  0.1  0.1

2. Tracy Blvd/Grant Line Rd  31.7  C  41.3  D  32.5  C  43.4  D  0.8  2.1

3. Buthmann Ave/Kavanagh
Ave1  8.4  A  8.1  A  8.5  A  8.1  A  0.1  0

4. Buthmann Ave/Grant Line
Rd1  18.0  C  16.5  C  18.5  C  17.1  C  0.5  0.6

5. Coventry Dr/Kavanagh Ave1  9.5  A  9.1  A  9.5  A  9.1  A  0  0

6. Dovenshire Dr/Kavanagh
Ave1  9.6  A  9.1  A  9.6  A  9.2  A  0  0.1

7. Elsinore Dr/Kavanagh Ave1  9.5  A  9.3  A  9.7  A  9.6  A  0.2  0.3

8. Parker Ave/Grant Line Rd  33.9  C  37.8  D  34.1  C  38.6  D  0.2  0.8

9. Holly Dr/Kavanagh Ave1  9.1  A  9.6  A  9.1  A  9.7  A  0  0.1

10. Holly Dr/Grant Line Rd  23.9  C  23.9  C  24.4  C  24.8  C  0.5  0.7 Source: Compiled by LSA (2023) using Synchro 11 modeling soŌware. 1   Unsignalized intersecƟon
LOS = level of service  sec = seconds

As Table 4.17.C shows, the analyzed intersecƟons operate at saƟsfactory LOS in the exisƟng condiƟon and are anƟcipated to conƟnue to operate at saƟsfactory LOS with the addiƟon of project traffic.

Because the surrounding intersecƟons would conƟnue to operate consistent with ObjecƟve CIR‐1.3, Policy P1 with th
e addiƟon of project traffic and the project does not interfere with transit, bicycle, or pedestrian faciliƟes, the project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to conflict with

68   TransportaƟon Research Board of the NaƟonal Academies. 2016. HCM Sixth EdiƟon Highway Capacity Manual.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐82 a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulaƟon system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian faciliƟes.
b. Would the project con flict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)? (Less Than Significant Impact)
CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b) seeks to evaluate a project’s potenƟal impact related to its vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The DraŌ Citywide Roadway and Tra nsportaƟon Master Plan69 includes guidelines for analysis of VMT. The guidelines are consistent with the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory On EvaluaƟng TransportaƟon Impacts in CEQA dated December 201870 (Technical Advisory).

The City’s draŌ guidelines provide screening criteria for types of projects that would be anƟcipated to have a less than significant impact on VMT and not require further evaluaƟon. These include small projects generaƟng fewer than 110 trips per day, projects near high quality transit, local serving r
etail, affordable housing, local essenƟal services, projects located in VMT efficient areas, and redevelopment projects with overall lower VMT.

Local EssenƟal Services, including government uses with in‐person services such as the proposed project, generate non‐discreƟonary trips. Expanding these types of uses can shorten the trips by puƫng opƟ
ons for these uses closer to residents, thus resulƟng in an overall reducƟon in VMT . For example, the Larch Clover Community Center and the Tracy Community Center are located more than a mile from the project site. Residents currently using these faciliƟes who ar e located closer to the exisƟng faciliƟes than the project site would conƟnue to use the exisƟng faciliƟes. Residents located closer to the project site than the exisƟng faciliƟes would visit the proposed project resulƟng in a shorter trip and fewer VMT.

The dr
aŌ guidelines suggest that a local essenƟal service, such as the proposed project, could be presumed to cause a less‐than‐significant impact if it is less than 50,000 square feet, unless the nature of the service is regionally focused as determined by the City. The proposed 52,244‐ square‐ foot recreaƟon center (as measured by the outside walls) would have an inside assignable area of 46,687 square feet, which is less than the size stated in the draŌ guidelines.

Furthermore, the proposed project would present an intervening use as described above and is anƟcipated to res ult in a redistribuƟon of trips, resulƟng in shorter trips. Therefore, in accordance with the Technical Advisory descripƟon of improved desƟnaƟon proximity, the project impacts related to CEQA Guidelines secƟon 15064.3, subdivision (b) would be less than significant.

69   City of Tracy. 2022. DRAFT Citywide Roadway and TransportaƟon Master Plan. August. 70   State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory On EvaluaƟng TransportaƟon Impacts in CEQA. April. Website: hƩps://opr .ca.gov/docs/20180416‐ 743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf (accessed May 15, 2023). 4‐83
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) c. Would the project substan Ɵally increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersecƟons) or incompaƟble uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Less Than Significant Impact)
As menƟoned previously, the proposed project would expand the parking area, maintain vehicle access at the main entrance at Parker Avenue, and extend a new access point from the parking area to Kavanagh Avenue. This new access point would be offset with the exi sƟng intersecƟon of Elsinore Drive with Kavanagh Avenue. Local bicycle/pedestrian access at Kavanagh Avenue roughly opposite Coventry Drive and Dovenshire Drive would be retained. The new access point at Kavanagh Avenue would be constructed consistent with City design standards with signing and striping consistent with the California Manu
al on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).71 As shown in Table 4.17.C, the project access intersecƟons are anƟcipated to operate at saƟsfactory LOS with the addiƟon of project traffic. Therefore, the project would not create a hazard due to a geometric design feature or dangerous intersecƟon. Travel modes to the proposed project, including pedes trian, bicycle, and automobile are compaƟble with the surrounding neighborhood and infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less‐than‐significant impact related to hazards associated with a design feature or incompaƟble uses.
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?  (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed project would provide access for em ergency vehicles from Kavanagh Avenue and Grant Line Road (at Parker Avenue). As shown in Table 4.17.B, the proposed project would add a modest amount of traffic to roadways that operate within the daily traffic volume anƟcipated for local roadways. Therefore, the project’s impact would be less than significa nt.

71   California State TransportaƟon Agency and Department of TransportaƟon. 2023. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2014 Revision 7. March.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐84

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

PotenƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substanƟal adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code SecƟon 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural val
ue to a California NaƟve American tribe, and that
is:

i. Listed or eligible for lisƟng in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code SecƟon
5020.1(k)? Or

ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discreƟon and supported by substanƟal evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code SecƟon 5024.1? In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code SecƟon 5024.1, the lead ag ency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California NaƟve
American tribe.

a. Would the project cause a substan Ɵal adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code SecƟon 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California NaƟve American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for lis Ɵng in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code SecƟon 5020.1(k)? Or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discre Ɵon and supported by substanƟal evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code SecƟon 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code SecƟon 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California NaƟve American tribe. (Less Than Significant with MiƟgaƟon Incorporated) Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which became law on January 1, 2015, provides for consultaƟon with California NaƟve American tribes duri ng the CEQA environmental review process, and equates significant impacts to “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts. PRC SecƟon 21074 states that “tribal cultural resources” are:
4‐85
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)  Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California NaƟve American tribe and are one of the following:
○ Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
○ Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of PRC SecƟon 5020.1.
○ A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discreƟon and supported by substanƟal evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC SecƟon 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC SecƟon 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the signi ficance of the resource to a California NaƟve American tribe.

A “historical resource” (PRC SecƟon 21084.1), a “unique archaeological resource” (PRC SecƟon 21083.2(g)), or a “nonunique archaeological resource” (PRC SecƟon 21083.2(h)) may also be a tribal cultural resource if it is included or determined to be eligible fo r inclusion in the California Register.

The consultaƟon provisions of the law require that a public agency consult with local NaƟve American tribes that have requested placement on that agency’s noƟficaƟon list for CEQA projects.

Within 14 days of determining that a project applicaƟ on is complete, or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency must noƟfy tribes of the opportunity to consult on the project, should a tribe have previously requested to be on the agency’s noƟficaƟon list. California NaƟve American tribes mus t be recognized by the NAHC as tradiƟonally and culturally affiliated with the project site and must have previously requested that the lead agency noƟfy them of projects.

Tribes have 30 days following noƟficaƟon of a project to request consultaƟon with the lead agency.

The purpose of co
nsultaƟon is to inform the lead agency in its idenƟficaƟon and determinaƟon of the significance of tribal cultural resources. If a project is determined to result in a significant impact on an idenƟfied tribal cultural resource, the consultaƟon process must occur and c onclude prior to adopƟon of a NegaƟve DeclaraƟon or MiƟgated NegaƟve DeclaraƟon, or cerƟficaƟon of an Environmental Impact Report (PRC SecƟons 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3).

Tribal Outreach and ConsultaƟon. The City sent leƩers describing the proposed project an d maps depicƟng the project site to NaƟve American tribes that the NAHC idenƟfied as tradiƟonally and culturally affiliated with the project area in February 2023. To date, no California NaƟve American tribes formally requested consultaƟon with the City of Tracy, consistent with the req uirements of PRC 21080.3.1.

Tribal Cultural Resources. As discussed in SecƟon 4.5, Cultural Resources, a records search was conducted at the Northwest InformaƟon Center of the California Historical Resources InformaƟon System, which idenƟfied no archaeological or historical resources within the boundary of the project site
.

The project site is currently developed with an exisƟng park. No known significant archaeological or tribal cultural resources are located within the project site. AddiƟonally, there are no tribal cultural

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐86 resources within the project site that have been determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC SecƟon 5024.1. The proposed project would not cause a substanƟal adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource defined  as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California NaƟve American Tribe, and that is listed or eligible for lisƟng in the California Regi ster or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC SecƟon 5020.1(k). With implementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure CULT‐1, as detailed in SecƟon 4.5, Cultural Resources, and compliance with SecƟon 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and SecƟon 5097.98 of the PRC, the po tenƟal construcƟon‐period discovery of previously unidenƟfied human remains, which may be of tribal origin, would be reduced to a less‐ than‐significant level.

4‐87
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

PotenƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocaƟon or construcƟon of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunicaƟons faciliƟes, the construcƟon or relocaƟon of which could cause significant environmental effects?

b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and mulƟple dry years?

c. Result in a determinaƟon by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addiƟon to the provider’s exisƟng commitments?

d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the aƩainment of solid waste reducƟon goals?

e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reducƟon statutes and regulaƟons related to solid waste?

a. Would the project require or result in the reloca Ɵon or construcƟon of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunicaƟons faciliƟes, the construcƟon or relocaƟon of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less Than Significant Impact)
A variety of local and regional purveyors in this area provide and maintain uƟlity and service system faciliƟes associated with electricity, water, stormwater, wastewater, solid waste, and communicaƟons. These exisƟng services and potenƟal impacts to these services are discussed below.

Wastewater. The City of Tracy maintains exisƟng sewer lines within the vicinity of the project site.

The proposed project includes the installaƟon of a new 8‐inch‐diameter wastewater line that would connect to the exisƟng 8‐inch‐diameter main line within West K avanagh Avenue. The new sanitary sewer line would be constructed in conformance with City standards, and its construcƟon would not cause significant environmental effects.

Water. The City provides water service to all of its residents and to approximately 400 residents of the Larch‐Clover County Servic es District.72 The City also provides water service to the unincorporated PaƩerson Business Park. The City obtains water from both surface water and groundwater sources. The City purchases imported surface water from two wholesale water suppliers: the United States Bureau of ReclamaƟon, which supplies the City with Central Valley Project (CVP) water via the Delta‐ Mendota Canal and the South San Joaquin IrrigaƟon District, which

72   City of Tracy. 2005. City of Tracy General Plan DraŌ Environmental Impact Report. October 4.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐88 supplies Stanislaus River water through the South County Water Supply Project (SCWSP).73 The City’s purchases of surface water are supplemented by local groundwater . Approximately 6 percent of the City’s water supply came from local groundwater supply wells during 2020.74 The City of Tracy’s exisƟng water system faciliƟes include a water treatment plant, pump staƟons, wells, water mains, and storage reservoirs.

As discussed in SecƟon 4.19.b, below, the proposed project would not substanƟally increase demand for water and would therefore not exceed the capacity of exisƟng water treatm ent faciliƟes. The proposed project would not require the construcƟon of new water treatment faciliƟes or the expansion of exisƟng faciliƟes other than those already planned. The proposed project would include the installaƟon of new water lines connecƟng to the exisƟng 6‐inch‐diameter  water service line that currently traverses the site from north to south. The proposed project would connect directly to exisƟng mains, which have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project.

Therefore, the impact of the proposed project on water infrastructure would be less than significant.

Stor
mwater. The proposed storm drainage infrastructure would discharge into an exisƟng underground storm drain at the northeastern edge of the project site. Stormwater treatment is proposed using a combinaƟon of bioretenƟon basins and modular wetlands. The number of drainage management areas would be determined as part of the final design.  The stormwater treatment area’s bioretenƟon basins would be vegetated with a layer of bioretenƟon special soil and a layer of permeable rock. Overflow would be discharged from the stormwater treatment areas to the on‐site storm drain system, which would connect to an exisƟng  12‐inch‐diameter storm drain pipe at the northeast corner of the site. As discussed in SecƟon 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, implementaƟon of hydromodificaƟon management measures in compliance with Provision E.12 of the Phase II MS4 Permit would ensure that post‐project runoff does not exceed esƟma ted pre‐ project rates and duraƟons. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construcƟon of any new or expanded stormwater infrastructure beyond that which is already analyzed as a part of the proposed project, and this impact would be less than significant.

Electricity. The project sit e is currently served by electrical, and telecommunicaƟons infrastructure.

The proposed project would connect directly to exisƟng infrastructure and therefore would not require any new or expanded faciliƟes.

Because the proposed project would connect to exisƟng uƟlity services within or adjacent to the project site, the rel ocaƟon or reconstrucƟon of new or expanded water, wastewater system, stormwater drainage, electric power, or telecommunicaƟons faciliƟes would not be required, and this impact would be less than significant.

73   City of Tracy. 2021. City of Tracy Urban Water Management Plan 2020. June. 74   Ibid.
4‐89
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) b. Would the project have su fficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and mulƟple dry years? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The City’s current supply sources include purchased water from the CVP and SCWSP , as well as groundwater from the local Tracy Subbasin. The City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) describes the exisƟng and planned sources of water available in the water system service ar ea in 5‐year increments for the next 20 years. Total potable water demand in 2020 was 19,527 acre‐feet (AF). During 2016 and 2020, the City’s total supplies ranged from 15,360 acre‐feet per year (AFY) to 19,527 AFY . On average, 95 percent of the supplies were from purchased water . The City esƟmates that approximately 33,868 AFY of potable water supply and 6,300 AFY of non‐potable water supply will be available in 2045 under normal condiƟons.75 The City is expected to have adequate water supplies during normal years to meet its projected demands through 2045 and has developed strategies and acƟons to address projected shorƞalls during dry and mulƟple dry years.

At buildout, the proposed project would have an average water demand of approximately 19,865 gallons per da
y (gpd) including 4,500 gpd for the proposed recreaƟon center, 14,927 gpd for proposed park irrigaƟon, 160 gpd for the proposed splash pad and an addiƟonal 278 gpd for park faciliƟes (e.g., restrooms and drinking fountains). This esƟmated water demand, which equates to 22 AFY repr
esents approximately 0.05 percent of the City’s anƟcipated water supply. The proposed project’s incremental increase in water demand would be included in the anƟcipated growth within the City. Therefore, exisƟng water enƟtlements are sufficient to serve the proposed project, and impacts related to water supply wo uld be less than significant. c. Would the project result in a determina Ɵon by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addiƟon to the provider’s exisƟng commitments? (Less Than Significant Impact) Wastewater service for the project site is provided by the City of Tracy. The City operates and maintains the wastewater collecƟon system, which consists of approximately 210 miles of sanitary sewer pipelines ranging fr om 4 inches to 48 inches in diameter, as well as three wastewater liŌ staƟons, and the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).76 The City has a municipal wastewater system handling both domesƟc and industrial wastewater . Wastewater flows toward the northern part of Tracy, where it is treated at the WWTP and then discharged into the Old River in the southern Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta.77
The WWTP , which is operated by the City, has a design capacity of 9.0 million gallons per day (mgd) and a corresponding NPDES permit that allows the City to discharge up to 9.0 mgd average dry weather flow of treated effluent to the Old River .78 The WWTP currently treats approximately

7.35 mgd of average dry weather influent flows. The influent is comprised of both municipal and industrial waste streams, with the primary industrial contributor being Leprino Foods. The treatment

75   Ibid.
76   Carollo Engineers, Inc. 2022. City of Tracy Wastewater Master Plan Update. September . 77   City of Tracy. 2005. City of Tracy General Plan DraŌ Environmental Impact Report. October 4. 78   Ibid.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐90 facility operates municipal, industrial, and solids treatment processes.79 According to the Wastewater Master Plan, the current WWTP capacity is not sufficient for the exisƟng flows, in parƟcular the ouƞall and secondary treatment system. However, both the ouƞall pipeline and secondary treatment system are currently undergoing expansion, which will increase the capacity to meet current influen t flows.80
The proposed project would include the redevelopment of the exisƟng park site and construcƟon of the proposed recreaƟon center . In total, the proposed project would add approximately 52,244 square feet of new building space to the project site. The proposed project would generate addiƟonal domesƟc wastewater, which woul d be treated by the WWTP . The increase in dayƟme populaƟon during operaƟon hours that would result from the proposed project would incrementally increase the amount of wastewater generated on the project site. AddiƟonal wastewater generated by the proposed project would be minimal when compared to the average daily flow fr om the city to the WWTP and would not exceed the capacity of the WWTP . Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐significant impact related to wastewater treatment requirements. d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the aƩainment of solid waste reducƟon goals? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Solid waste and recycling pickup and di sposal in the City is provided by Tracy Delta Solid Waste Management, Inc. (Tracy Disposal). Solid waste, recycling, and organics collected by Tracy Disposal are transported to the Tracy Material Recovery Facility (MRF) and Transfer StaƟon on South MacArthur Drive. The Tracy MRF and Transfer StaƟon has a maximum daily permi Ʃed throughput of 1,800 tons per day.81 Solid waste is then transported to the Foothill Sanitary Landfill, which is 48 miles northeast of Tracy. Foothill Sanitary Landfill has a maximum daily permiƩed throughput of 1,500 tons per day and a remaining capacity of 125 million cubic yards. Foothill Sanitary Landfill’s esƟmated closure date is currently Januar y 2082.82
On average, public/insƟtuƟonal uses generate 0.007 pound per square foot or garbage per day.83 Therefore, because the proposed project would result in the addiƟon of 52,244 square feet of building space, the proposed project would result in the generaƟon of 366 pounds of solid waste per day, or 0.18 ton. Therefore, the proposed project would reduce the maximum daily permiƩed throughput of the Tracy MRF and Tra nsfer StaƟon by 0.01 percent, and Foothill Sanitary Landfill by

79   Carollo Engineers, Inc. 2022. City of Tracy Wastewater Master Plan Update. September . 80   Ibid.
81   California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. Solid Waste InformaƟon System Facility Detail: Tracy Material Recovery & T. S . (39‐AA‐0024). Website:
hƩps://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteAcƟvity/Details/1450?siteID=3115 (accessed May 6, 2023).
82   California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. Facility/Site Summary Details: Foothill Sanitary Landfill (39‐AA‐0004). Website: hƩps://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/ SiteAcƟvity/Details/1424?siteID=3097 (accessed May 6, 2023). 83   California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. EsƟmated Solid Waste GeneraƟon Rates. Website: hƩps://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterizaƟon/general/rates (accessed May 6, 2023).
4‐91
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

0.012 percent. As noted above, Foothill Sanitary Landfill has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. As such, the proposed project would be not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standard, or in excess of the capacity of the local infrastructure, and impact associated with the disposiƟon of solid wast e would be less than significant. e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduc Ɵon statutes and regulaƟons related to solid waste? (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed project would comply with all federal, State, and local solid waste statutes and/or regulaƟons related to solid waste. Also refer to SecƟon 4.19.d. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐ than‐significant impact related to solid waste regulaƟons.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐92

4.20 WILDFIRE

PotenƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

a. SubstanƟally impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuaƟon plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentraƟons from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c. Require the installaƟon or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other uƟliƟes) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

a. Would the project substan Ɵally impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuaƟon plan? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project site and adjacent areas are not located in a VHFHSZ as mapped by CAL FIRE84 or located within any State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) for fire service. AddiƟonally, the project site is not located within an area idenƟfied by CAL FIRE as a community at risk for wildland fire. Due to the nature of the proposed project, no impairment or interference with emergency response or emerg
ency evacuaƟon plans would occur (as described in SecƟon 4.9.f). Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
b. Would the project, due to slope, preva iling winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentraƟons from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed project would consist of the development of a new recreaƟon center and redevelopment of a neighborhood park within an exisƟ ng residenƟal neighborhood. The proposed project is located in a relaƟvely flat urbanized area with some vegetaƟon along the park perimeter and scaƩered within the park; however, the project site is not a wildland nor is it close to any wildlands that may pose a fire risk. AddiƟ
onally, the proposed project would not involve the
construcƟon of residenƟal structures. The construcƟon of community structures such as the new

84   California Department of Forestry and Fire (CAL FIRE). 2022.  Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. November 21.  Website: hƩps://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community‐wildfire‐ preparedness‐and‐miƟgaƟon/wildfire‐preparedness/fire‐hazard‐severity‐zones/ (accessed May 2023). 4‐93
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) recreaƟon center would be for a limited duraƟon of Ɵme. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and this impact would be less than significant. c. Would the project require the installaƟon or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other uƟliƟes) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Refer to SecƟons 4.20.a and 4.20.b. The project site is located in a developed ar ea within an exisƟng neighborhood park. ConstrucƟon and operaƟon of the proposed project would not require the installaƟon or operaƟon/maintenance of infrastructure within undeveloped areas that may exacerbate wildfire risks. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. d. W o
uld the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Refer to SecƟons 4.20.a and 4.20.b. As described in Chapter 2.0, Project DescripƟon, the project site is relaƟvely flat and is not located within an SRA for fire service or VHFHSZ. The proposed project would not expose people or st ructures to significant risks associated with downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of increased fire hazards or post‐fire condiƟons. This impact would be less than significant.

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐94

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

PotenƟally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
MiƟgaƟon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potenƟal to substanƟally degrade the quality of the environment, substanƟally reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife populaƟon to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substanƟally reduce the numbe
r or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulaƟvely considerable? ("CumulaƟvely considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connecƟon with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future pr ojects.)

c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substanƟal adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

a. Does the project have the poten Ɵal to substanƟally degrade the quality of the environment, substanƟally reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife populaƟon to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substanƟally reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Less Than Significant with MiƟgaƟon Incorporated)
ImplementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure CULT‐1 would ensure that potenƟal impacts to cultural resources that could be uncovered during construcƟon acƟviƟes would be reduced to a less than significant level. Im
plementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measures BIO‐1 and BIO‐2 would ensure that potenƟal impacts to special‐status species (e.g., nesƟng birds and roosƟng bats) are reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, with the incorporaƟon of miƟgaƟon measures, dev elopment of the proposed project would not: (1) degrade the quality of the environment; (2) substanƟally reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; (3) cause a fish or wildlife species populaƟon to drop below self‐ sustaining levels; (4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal co mmunity; (5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or (6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history. With implementaƟon of the miƟgaƟon measures idenƟfied herein, this impact would be less than significant with miƟ gaƟon incorporated. 4‐95
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumula Ɵvely considerable? ("CumulaƟvely considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connecƟon with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (Less Than Significant with MiƟgaƟon Incorporated)
The proposed project’s impacts would be individually limited and not cumulaƟvely considerable. The potenƟally significant impacts that can be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level with implementaƟon of recommended miƟgaƟon measu res include the topics of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. For the topic of air quality, potenƟally significant impacts to air quality standards would be reduced to less‐than‐ significant levels with implementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure AIR‐1. For the to pic of biological resources, implementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measures BIO‐1 and BIO‐2 would ensure that impacts to special‐status species are reduced to less‐than‐significant levels. For the topic of cultural resources, potenƟally significant impacts to ar chaeological resources and paleontological resources would be reduced to less‐than‐significant levels with implementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure CULT‐1. For the topic of geology and soils, implementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure GEO‐1 would ensure that impacts associated with paleontological resources woul d be less than significant. For the topic of greenhouse gas emissions, implementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measure GHG‐1 would ensure that impacts related to electric vehicle charging are reduced to less than significant levels. For the topic of noise, implementaƟon of MiƟgaƟon Measures NOI‐ 1 and NOI‐2 would ensure that potenƟally significant impacts associated with construcƟon noise and vibraƟon are reduced to less‐than‐significant levels.

For the topics of aestheƟcs, agricultural and forestry resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, minera l resources, populaƟon and housing, public services, recreaƟon, transportaƟon, tribal cultural resources, and uƟliƟes and service systems, the project would have no impacts or less‐than‐significant impacts; therefore, the project would not substanƟally contribute to any potenƟal cumulaƟve impacts for these topics. All en vironmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to less‐than‐ significant levels through the implementaƟon of the miƟgaƟon measures recommended in this document.

ImplementaƟon of these measures would ensure that the impacts of the project wou ld be below established thresholds of significance and that these impacts would not combine with the impacts of other cumulaƟve projects to result in a cumulaƟvely considerable impact on the environment as a result of project development. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with miƟgaƟon incorpor
ated.
c. Does the project have environmental eff ects which will cause substanƟal adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (No Impact) The proposed project would not result in any environmental effects that would cause substanƟal direct or indirect adverse effects to human beings. No impact would occur .

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 4‐96 This page intenƟonally leŌ blank
5‐1
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

5.1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Theresa Wallace, AICP , Principal in Charge
Shanna Guiler, AICP , Associate/Project Manager
Lynnea Palecki, Assistant Environmental Planner
Amy Fischer, Principal/Air Quality and Noise Specialist Cara Cunningham, Associate/Air Quality and Noise Specialist Ross Dobberteen, Principal/Biologist
Michelle Nicholes, Biologist
Kerrie Collison, Associate/Senior Cultural Resources Manager Kendra Kolar, Cultural Resources Manager
JT Stephens, Principal Noise Specialist
Moe Ab
ushanab, Noise Specialist
Arthur Black, Principal/TransportaƟon
Beverly Inloes, Associate/Senior Technical Editor

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 5‐2 This page intenƟonally leŌ blank
6‐1
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23)

6.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 1998. Checklist of North American Birds. 7th EdiƟon.

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. PaƩerson, T. J. Rosaƫ, and D.H. Wilken, eds. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second EdiƟon. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Bay Area Air Quality Management Dis trict (BAAQMD). 2022. JusƟficaƟon Report: CEQA Thresholds for EvaluaƟng the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April.

Bradley, R.D., L.K. Ammerman, R.J. Baker, L.C. Bradley, J.A. Cook, R.C. Dowler, D.J. Schmidly, F.B .

Stangl, Jr ., R.A. Van Den Bussche, and B. Würsig. 2014. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, 2014. Occasional Papers, Museum  of Texas Tech University No. 237.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

November .

California Department of ConservaƟon (DOC). 2023. California Tsunami Maps. Website:
hƩps://www.conservaƟon.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps (accessed May 6, 2023).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023. California Natural Diversity Database, commercial version. February.

California Department of Fore stry and Fire ProtecƟon (CAL FIRE). 2023. Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer .  Website hƩps://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed May 2023).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. Solid Waste InformaƟon System Facility Detail: Tracy Material Recovery & T. S . (39‐AA‐0024). Website:
hƩps://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteAcƟvity/Details/1450?siteID=3115 (accessed May 6, 2023).

Calif
ornia Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. Facility/Site Summary Details: Foothill Sanitary Landfill (39‐AA‐0004). Website:
hƩps://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteAcƟvity/Details/1424?siteID=3097 (accessed May 6, 2023).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. EsƟmated Solid Waste GeneraƟon Rates. Website:
hƩps://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterizaƟon/general/rates (accessed May 6, 2023).

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 6‐2 California Department of TransportaƟon (Caltrans). 2018. California State Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website:
hƩps://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8 057116f1aacaa (accessed May 2023).

California Energy Commission, 2021. 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission. Docket # 21‐IEPR‐01. (accessed May 2023)
California Energy Commission, 2022. 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. California Ene rgy Commission. Docket # 22‐IEPR‐01
California Geological Survey. n.d. California Earthquake Hazards Zone ApplicaƟon. Website:
hƩps://maps.conservaƟon.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed January 19, 2023).

California NaƟve Plant Society (CNPS). 2023. Rare Plant Program, Rare Plant Inventory (online ediƟon, v9.5). Website: hƩps://www.rareplants.cnps.org (accessed February 20, 2023).

California Stat
e TransportaƟon Agency and Department of TransportaƟon. 2023. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2014 Revision 7. March Carollo Engineers, Inc. 2022. City of Tracy Wastewater Master Plan Update. September .

City of Tracy. 2005. City of Tracy General Plan DraŌ Environmental Impact Report. Website:
hƩps://www.cityoŌracy.org/our‐city/departments/planning/general‐plan‐zoning‐ordinance (accessed January 2023).

City of Tracy. 2011. City of Trac y General Plan. February 1.

City of Tracy. 2011. City of Tracy General Plan, Land Use Map. February 1.

City of Tracy. 2013. Final Report Citywide Public FaciliƟes Master Plan City of Tracy, California.

January 15.

City of Tracy. 2021. City of Tracy Urban Water Management Plan 2020. June.

City of Tracy. 2022. City of Tracy Citywide Parks, RecreaƟon & Trails Master Plan Update. August.

City of Tracy. 2022. City of Tracy Citywide Public FaciliƟes Master Plan Update. July.

City of Tr
acy. 2022. DRAFT Citywide Roadway and TransportaƟon Master Plan. August.

City of Tracy. 2023. City of Tracy Municipal Code, Chapter 10.08 Zoning RegulaƟons. Website:
hƩps://library.municode.com/ca/tracy/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT10PLZO_CH1

0.08ZORE (accessed March 22, 2023).

City of Tracy. n.d. City of Tracy GIS Viewer . Website: hƩps://www.cityoŌracy.org/our‐city/about‐ us/city‐maps/gis‐web‐mapping‐applicaƟon (accessed December 20, 2022). 6‐3
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) County of San Joaquin. 2016. San Joaquin County General Plan. December . Website:
hƩps://www.sjgov.org/commdev/cgi‐
bin/cdyn.exe/file/Planning/General%20Plan%202035/GENERAL%20PLAN%202035.pdf (accessed May 15, 2023).

County of San Joaquin. 2022. County of San Joaquin Emergency OperaƟons Plan. February 17.

Website: hƩps://www.sjgov.org/docs/default‐source/office‐of‐emergency‐services‐ documents/emergency‐plans/2022‐sjc‐emergency‐operaƟons‐plan.pdf?sfvrsn=6fdd3c17_3 (accessed May 2023).

County of San Joaquin. 2023. San Joaq uin County Local Hazard MiƟgaƟon Plan. April. Website:
hƩps://www.sjgov.org/docs/default‐source/covid‐19/2023‐lhmp‐final‐ .pdf?Status=Master&sfvrsn=62a3c44d_3 (accessed May 2023).

Crother, B.I. (ed.). 2017. ScienƟfic and Standard English Names of Amphibians and RepƟles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in Our Understanding, pp. 1‐102. SSAR Herpetological Circular No. 43.

Fede
ral Bureau of InvesƟgaƟon (FBI). 2018. California Full‐Time Law Enforcement Employees by City.

Website: hƩps://ucr .ĩi.gov/crime‐in‐the‐u.s/2018/crime‐in‐the‐u.s.‐2018/tables/table‐ 78/table‐78‐state‐cuts/california.xls (accessed January 24, 2023).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06001C0278G, effecƟve October 16. Web site: hƩps://msc.fema.gov/portal/search? AddressQuery=301%20WEst%20Grant%20Lie%20Road%2C%20Tracy%2C%20Ca#searchresul tsanchor (accessed May 6, 2023).

Federal Transit AdministraƟon (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and VibraƟon Impact Assessment Manual.

September .

InsƟtute of TransportaƟon Engineers (ITE). 2021. ITE Trip GeneraƟon, Eleventh EdiƟon.

Larry Walker Associates. 2015. MulƟ‐Agency Post‐ConstrucƟon Stormwater Standards Manual. June.

Website: hƩps://www.cityoŌracy.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3158/ 637522653643300000 (accessed May 6, 2023).

LSA Associat
es, Inc. 2023. Cultural Resources Study. April.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler‐Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California VegetaƟon. Second ediƟon.

California NaƟve Plant Society Press, Sacramento.

South San Joaquin Fire Authority. 2022. Monthly Fire Chief Update. November . Website:
hƩps://www.sjcfire.org/home/showpublisheddocument/687/638059384614270000 (accessed Janu
ary 24, 2023).

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 6‐4 State of California, Department of ConservaƟon. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder .

Website: hƩps://maps.conservaƟon.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff (accessed January 2023).

State of California, Department of ConservaƟon. 2023. Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones.

Website: hƩps://www.conservaƟon.ca.gov/cgs/alquist‐priolo (accessed January 19, 2023).

State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023a. Haza rdous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). Website:
hƩps://www.envirostor .dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporƩype=CORTESE&si te_type=CSITES,FUDS&status=ACT ,BKLG,COM&reporƫtle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBS TANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTESE%29 (accessed May 15, 2023).

State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023b. EnviroStar Database. Website:
hƩps://www.envirostor .dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=301+WEst+Grant+Line+Road%2C+Tracy %2C+CA (accessed January 24, 2023).

State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory On EvaluaƟng TransportaƟon Impacts in CEQA. April. Website:
hƩps://opr .ca.gov/docs/20180416‐743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf (accessed May 15, 2023).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. GeoTracker . Website:
hƩps://geotracker .waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=301+West+Grant +Line+Road (accessed May 15, 2023).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. 2022. NaƟonal Pollutant Discharg
e EliminaƟon System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with ConstrucƟon and Land Disturbance AcƟviƟes (General Permit) Order WQ 2022‐0057‐ DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 Website:
hƩps://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2022/wq o_2022‐0057‐dwq.pdf (accessed February 2023).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2019. Small MS4 General Permit WQ Ord er 2013‐ 0001‐DWQ as amended by Orders WQ 2015‐0133‐EXEC, WQ 2016‐0069‐EXEC, WQ 2018‐ 0001‐EXEC, and WQ 2018‐0007‐EXEC. January 1. Website: hƩps://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/remediated_phase2ms4permit_v2.pdf (accessed May 6, 2023).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. 2020‐2022 California Integrated Report (Clean Wate
r Act SecƟon 303(d) List and 305(b) Report). Website:
hƩps://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2020_ 2022_integrated_report.html (accessed May 6, 2023).

Tracy Unified School District. n.d. Schools. Website: hƩps://www.tracy.k12.ca.us/schools (accessed January 24, 2023).
6‐5
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) TransportaƟon Research Board of the NaƟonal Academies. 2016. HCM Sixth EdiƟon Highway Capacity Manual.

United States Census Bureau. 2022. U.S. Census QuickFacts, City of Tracy PopulaƟon EsƟmates.

July 1. Website: hƩps://www.census.gov/quickfacts/tracycitycalifornia (accessed January 24, 2022).

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources ConservaƟon Service (NRCS). n.d .

Web Soil Survey. Website: websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed February 2023).

United States Department of TransportaƟon (DOT). “T able 4‐23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles.” Website: hƩps://www.bts.gov/content/average‐fuel‐efficiency‐us‐light‐duty‐ vehicles (accessed May 2023).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. InformaƟon fo r Planning and ConsultaƟon (IPaC). February 20.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). n.d. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Website:
hƩps://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake‐hazards/modified‐mercalli‐intensity‐scale (accessed January 19, 2023).

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) 6‐6 This page intenƟonally leŌ blank

A‐1
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023
E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) APPENDIX A

CALEEMOD OUTPUT SHEETS

E L   P ESCADERO   P ARK   &   M ULTI ‐ G ENERATIONAL   R ECREATION   C ENTER T RACY ,   C ALIFORNIA
I NITIAL   S TUDY /M ITIGATED   N EGATIVE   D ECLARATION J ULY   2023

P:\LPX2204 Tracy Rec Center\PRODUCTS\IniƟal Study\Screencheck\TracyRecCenter_Screen DraŌ IS.docx (07/24/23) A‐2 This page intenƟonally leŌ blank
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 1 / 72
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated

3.2. Site Preparation (2023) - Mitigated
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 2 / 72

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.4. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.12. Paving (2025) - Mitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

3.14. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 3 / 72

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated

4.3.1. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.4.1. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.5.1. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 4 / 72

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 5 / 72

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 6 / 72

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 7 / 72

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 8 / 72

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 9 / 72

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Tracy Recreational center Project
Construction Start Date 12/4/2023
Operational Y ear 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.40
Precipitation (days) 6.60
Location 301 W Grant Line Rd, Tracy, CA 95376, USA
County San Joaquin
City Tracy
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2136
EDFZ 4
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.11

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 10 / 72
City Park 9.90 Acre 9.90 0.00 431,244 431,244 — —
Government (Civic
Center)

52.2 1000sqft 2.50 52,244 0.00 — — —
Parking Lot 190 Space 1.50 76,000 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Energy E-16 Require Zero Net Energy Buildings
Water W-5 Design Water-Efficient Landscapes

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.94 20.9 18.6 0.03 0.76 0.65 1.41 0.71 0.16 0.87 3,666 0.14 0.13 3,712 Mit. 0.94 20.9 18.6 0.03 0.76 0.65 1.41 0.71 0.16 0.87 3,666 0.14 0.13 3,712 % Reduced — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.51 54.8 37.5 0.09 1.44 7.81 8.93 1.32 3.97 4.99 11,293 0.38 0.78 11,534 Mit. 1.51 54.8 37.5 0.09 1.44 7.81 8.93 1.32 3.97 4.99 11,293 0.38 0.78 11,534 % Reduced — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 11 / 72
Average
Daily (Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.66 17.2 13.8 0.03 0.56 0.83 1.40 0.52 0.27 0.79 3,109 0.11 0.14 3,156 Mit. 0.66 17.2 13.8 0.03 0.56 0.83 1.40 0.52 0.27 0.79 3,109 0.11 0.14 3,156 % Reduced — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.12 3.14 2.52 < 0.005 0.10 0.15 0.25 0.10 0.05 0.14 515 0.02 0.02 523 Mit. 0.12 3.14 2.52 < 0.005 0.10 0.15 0.25 0.10 0.05 0.14 515 0.02 0.02 523 % Reduced — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.87 19.8 17.3 0.03 0.70 0.57 1.27 0.65 0.14 0.79 3,463 0.13 0.13 3,508 2025 0.94 20.9 18.6 0.03 0.76 0.65 1.41 0.71 0.16 0.87 3,666 0.14 0.13 3,712 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 1.15 39.9 29.2 0.05 1.12 7.81 8.93 1.02 3.97 4.99 5,448 0.22 0.05 5,468 2024 1.51 54.8 37.5 0.09 1.44 7.81 8.93 1.32 3.97 4.99 11,293 0.38 0.78 11,534 2025 0.91 21.0 17.9 0.03 0.76 0.65 1.41 0.71 0.16 0.87 3,615 0.13 0.13 3,656 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.06 2.19 1.60 < 0.005 0.06 0.43 0.49 0.06 0.22 0.27 299 0.01 < 0.005 300 2024 0.66 17.2 13.8 0.03 0.56 0.83 1.40 0.52 0.27 0.79 3,109 0.11 0.14 3,156 2025 0.59 13.3 11.4 0.02 0.49 0.40 0.89 0.46 0.10 0.55 2,276 0.08 0.08 2,303 Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 12 / 72
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.01 0.40 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.04 0.05 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 49.6 2024 0.12 3.14 2.52 < 0.005 0.10 0.15 0.25 0.10 0.05 0.14 515 0.02 0.02 523 2025 0.11 2.42 2.08 < 0.005 0.09 0.07 0.16 0.08 0.02 0.10 377 0.01 0.01 381

2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.87 19.8 17.3 0.03 0.70 0.57 1.27 0.65 0.14 0.79 3,463 0.13 0.13 3,508 2025 0.94 20.9 18.6 0.03 0.76 0.65 1.41 0.71 0.16 0.87 3,666 0.14 0.13 3,712 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 1.15 39.9 29.2 0.05 1.12 7.81 8.93 1.02 3.97 4.99 5,448 0.22 0.05 5,468 2024 1.51 54.8 37.5 0.09 1.44 7.81 8.93 1.32 3.97 4.99 11,293 0.38 0.78 11,534 2025 0.91 21.0 17.9 0.03 0.76 0.65 1.41 0.71 0.16 0.87 3,615 0.13 0.13 3,656 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.06 2.19 1.60 < 0.005 0.06 0.43 0.49 0.06 0.22 0.27 299 0.01 < 0.005 300 2024 0.66 17.2 13.8 0.03 0.56 0.83 1.40 0.52 0.27 0.79 3,109 0.11 0.14 3,156 2025 0.59 13.3 11.4 0.02 0.49 0.40 0.89 0.46 0.10 0.55 2,276 0.08 0.08 2,303 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2023 0.01 0.40 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.04 0.05 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 49.6 2024 0.12 3.14 2.52 < 0.005 0.10 0.15 0.25 0.10 0.05 0.14 515 0.02 0.02 523 2025 0.11 2.42 2.08 < 0.005 0.09 0.07 0.16 0.08 0.02 0.10 377 0.01 0.01 381 Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 13 / 72

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9.34 5.42 53.3 0.10 0.09 3.22 3.32 0.09 0.58 0.67 11,264 24.9 0.71 12,135 Mit. 9.34 5.42 53.3 0.10 0.09 3.22 3.32 0.09 0.58 0.67 11,196 24.8 0.71 12,066 % Reduced — — — — — — — — — — 1% < 0.5% < 0.5% 1%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.78 6.23 43.6 0.09 0.09 3.22 3.31 0.08 0.58 0.66 10,511 24.9 0.75 11,359 Mit. 7.78 6.23 43.6 0.09 0.09 3.22 3.31 0.08 0.58 0.66 10,442 24.9 0.75 11,291 % Reduced — — — — — — — — — — 1% < 0.5% < 0.5% 1%
Average
Daily (Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.26 5.88 45.4 0.10 0.09 3.22 3.31 0.09 0.58 0.67 10,692 24.9 0.73 11,549 Mit. 8.26 5.88 45.4 0.10 0.09 3.22 3.31 0.09 0.58 0.67 10,624 24.9 0.73 11,480 % Reduced — — — — — — — — — — 1% < 0.5% < 0.5% 1%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.51 1.07 8.29 0.02 0.02 0.59 0.60 0.02 0.11 0.12 1,770 4.12 0.12 1,912 Mit. 1.51 1.07 8.29 0.02 0.02 0.59 0.60 0.02 0.11 0.12 1,759 4.12 0.12 1,901 % Reduced — — — — — — — — — — 1% < 0.5% < 0.5% 1%

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 14 / 72
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 7.05 5.38 47.7 0.10 0.09 3.22 3.31 0.08 0.58 0.66 10,256 0.49 0.50 10,456 Area 2.28 0.05 5.58 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 22.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 23.0 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 643 0.10 0.01 649 Water — — — — — — — — — — 181 8.17 0.20 444
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 161 16.1 0.00 563
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.13
Total 9.34 5.42 53.3 0.10 0.09 3.22 3.32 0.09 0.58 0.67 11,264 24.9 0.71 12,135 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 6.41 6.23 43.6 0.09 0.09 3.22 3.31 0.08 0.58 0.66 9,525 0.57 0.54 9,703 Area 1.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 643 0.10 0.01 649 Water — — — — — — — — — — 181 8.17 0.20 444
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 161 16.1 0.00 563
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.13
Total 7.78 6.23 43.6 0.09 0.09 3.22 3.31 0.08 0.58 0.66 10,511 24.9 0.75 11,359 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 6.44 5.85 42.7 0.10 0.09 3.22 3.31 0.08 0.58 0.66 9,695 0.53 0.52 9,881 Area 1.82 0.02 2.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.4 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 643 0.10 0.01 649 Water — — — — — — — — — — 181 8.17 0.20 444
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 161 16.1 0.00 563
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.13
Total 8.26 5.88 45.4 0.10 0.09 3.22 3.31 0.09 0.58 0.67 10,692 24.9 0.73 11,549 Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 15 / 72
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.18 1.07 7.79 0.02 0.02 0.59 0.60 0.01 0.11 0.12 1,605 0.09 0.09 1,636 Area 0.33 < 0.005 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.88 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 106 0.02 < 0.005 108 Water — — — — — — — — — — 30.0 1.35 0.03 73.5
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 26.6 2.66 0.00 93.2
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.02
Total 1.51 1.07 8.29 0.02 0.02 0.59 0.60 0.02 0.11 0.12 1,770 4.12 0.12 1,912

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 7.05 5.38 47.7 0.10 0.09 3.22 3.31 0.08 0.58 0.66 10,256 0.49 0.50 10,456 Area 2.28 0.05 5.58 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 22.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 23.0 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 643 0.10 0.01 649 Water — — — — — — — — — — 113 8.16 0.19 375
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 161 16.1 0.00 563
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.13
Total 9.34 5.42 53.3 0.10 0.09 3.22 3.32 0.09 0.58 0.67 11,196 24.8 0.71 12,066 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 6.41 6.23 43.6 0.09 0.09 3.22 3.31 0.08 0.58 0.66 9,525 0.57 0.54 9,703 Area 1.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 643 0.10 0.01 649 Water — — — — — — — — — — 113 8.16 0.19 375
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 16 / 72
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 161 16.1 0.00 563
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.13
Total 7.78 6.23 43.6 0.09 0.09 3.22 3.31 0.08 0.58 0.66 10,442 24.9 0.75 11,291 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 6.44 5.85 42.7 0.10 0.09 3.22 3.31 0.08 0.58 0.66 9,695 0.53 0.52 9,881 Area 1.82 0.02 2.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 11.4 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 643 0.10 0.01 649 Water — — — — — — — — — — 113 8.16 0.19 375
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 161 16.1 0.00 563
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.13
Total 8.26 5.88 45.4 0.10 0.09 3.22 3.31 0.09 0.58 0.67 10,624 24.9 0.73 11,480 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.18 1.07 7.79 0.02 0.02 0.59 0.60 0.01 0.11 0.12 1,605 0.09 0.09 1,636 Area 0.33 < 0.005 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.88 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 106 0.02 < 0.005 108 Water — — — — — — — — — — 18.7 1.35 0.03 62.1
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 26.6 2.66 0.00 93.2
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.02
Total 1.51 1.07 8.29 0.02 0.02 0.59 0.60 0.02 0.11 0.12 1,759 4.12 0.12 1,901

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2023) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 17 / 72
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.07 39.9 28.3 0.05 1.12 — 1.12 1.02 — 1.02 5,295 0.21 0.04 5,314 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 2.18 1.55 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 290 0.01 < 0.005 291 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — — 0.42 0.42 — 0.22 0.22 — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.40 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 48.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 48.2 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.04 0.04 — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 18 / 72
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 153 0.01 0.01 155 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.71 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.44 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.2. Site Preparation (2023) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.07 39.9 28.3 0.05 1.12 — 1.12 1.02 — 1.02 5,295 0.21 0.04 5,314 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 19 / 72
——————————————Average
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 2.18 1.55 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 290 0.01 < 0.005 291 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — — 0.42 0.42 — 0.22 0.22 — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.40 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 48.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 48.2 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.04 0.04 — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 153 0.01 0.01 155 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.71 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.44 Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 20 / 72
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.07 39.9 28.3 0.05 1.12 — 1.12 1.02 — 1.02 5,296 0.21 0.04 5,314 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.39 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 51.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 52.0 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.04 0.04 — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.07 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 8.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.61 Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 21 / 72
————0.010.01—0.010.01—————Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 149 0.01 0.01 152 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.52 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.4. Site Preparation (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 22 / 72
——————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.07 39.9 28.3 0.05 1.12 — 1.12 1.02 — 1.02 5,296 0.21 0.04 5,314 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.39 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 51.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 52.0 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.04 0.04 — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.07 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 8.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.61 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 23 / 72
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 149 0.01 0.01 152 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.52 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.33 48.8 35.3 0.06 1.36 — 1.36 1.23 — 1.23 6,598 0.27 0.05 6,621 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — — 3.60 3.60 — 1.43 1.43 — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 24 / 72
——————————————Average
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 4.01 2.91 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 542 0.02 < 0.005 544 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — — 0.30 0.30 — 0.12 0.12 — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.73 0.53 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 89.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 90.1 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.02 0.02 — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 171 0.01 0.01 173 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.10 5.84 1.30 0.03 0.08 1.17 1.26 0.08 0.32 0.41 4,524 0.10 0.72 4,740 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.47 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.03 372 0.01 0.06 390 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.42 Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 25 / 72
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.09 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 61.5 < 0.005 0.01 64.5

3.6. Grading (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.33 48.8 35.3 0.06 1.36 — 1.36 1.23 — 1.23 6,598 0.27 0.05 6,621 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — — 3.60 3.60 — 1.43 1.43 — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 4.01 2.91 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 542 0.02 < 0.005 544 Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
— — — — — 0.30 0.30 — 0.12 0.12 — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.73 0.53 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 89.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 90.1 Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 26 / 72
————0.020.02—0.050.05—————Dust From
Material
Mov
ement
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.08 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 171 0.01 0.01 173 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.10 5.84 1.30 0.03 0.08 1.17 1.26 0.08 0.32 0.41 4,524 0.10 0.72 4,740 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.47 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.03 372 0.01 0.06 390 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.42 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.09 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 61.5 < 0.005 0.01 64.5

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 27 / 72
——————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

0.62 18.9 14.3 0.02 0.69 — 0.69 0.64 — 0.64 2,398 0.10 0.02 2,406 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.62 18.9 14.3 0.02 0.69 — 0.69 0.64 — 0.64 2,398 0.10 0.02 2,406 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.38 11.7 8.87 0.01 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 1,487 0.06 0.01 1,492 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 2.14 1.62 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 246 0.01 < 0.005 247 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.15 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 460 0.02 0.02 467 Vendor 0.02 0.77 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 605 0.01 0.09 635 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.20 2.19 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 415 0.03 0.02 421 Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 28 / 72
Vendor 0.02 0.82 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 606 0.01 0.09 634 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 264 0.01 0.01 268 Vendor 0.01 0.50 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.03 376 0.01 0.06 393 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 43.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 44.4 Vendor < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 62.2 < 0.005 0.01 65.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Building Construction (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.62 18.9 14.3 0.02 0.69 — 0.69 0.64 — 0.64 2,398 0.10 0.02 2,406 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.62 18.9 14.3 0.02 0.69 — 0.69 0.64 — 0.64 2,398 0.10 0.02 2,406 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 29 / 72
Off-Road
Equipment

0.38 11.7 8.87 0.01 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 1,487 0.06 0.01 1,492 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 2.14 1.62 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 246 0.01 < 0.005 247 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.15 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 460 0.02 0.02 467 Vendor 0.02 0.77 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 605 0.01 0.09 635 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.20 2.19 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 415 0.03 0.02 421 Vendor 0.02 0.82 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 606 0.01 0.09 634 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 264 0.01 0.01 268 Vendor 0.01 0.50 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.03 376 0.01 0.06 393 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 43.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 44.4 Vendor < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 62.2 < 0.005 0.01 65.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 30 / 72

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.62 18.9 14.3 0.02 0.69 — 0.69 0.64 — 0.64 2,398 0.10 0.02 2,406 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.62 18.9 14.3 0.02 0.69 — 0.69 0.64 — 0.64 2,398 0.10 0.02 2,406 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.38 11.5 8.70 0.01 0.42 — 0.42 0.39 — 0.39 1,459 0.06 0.01 1,464 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 2.10 1.59 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 242 0.01 < 0.005 242 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.14 2.54 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 450 0.02 0.02 457 Vendor 0.02 0.74 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 595 0.01 0.09 623 Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 31 / 72
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.18 2.01 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 407 0.01 0.02 412 Vendor 0.02 0.79 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 596 0.01 0.09 622 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.09 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 254 0.01 0.01 257 Vendor 0.01 0.47 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.03 362 0.01 0.05 379 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 42.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 42.6 Vendor < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 60.0 < 0.005 0.01 62.7 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.10. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.62 18.9 14.3 0.02 0.69 — 0.69 0.64 — 0.64 2,398 0.10 0.02 2,406 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 32 / 72
Off-Road
Equipment

0.62 18.9 14.3 0.02 0.69 — 0.69 0.64 — 0.64 2,398 0.10 0.02 2,406 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.38 11.5 8.70 0.01 0.42 — 0.42 0.39 — 0.39 1,459 0.06 0.01 1,464 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 2.10 1.59 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 242 0.01 < 0.005 242 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.14 2.54 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 450 0.02 0.02 457 Vendor 0.02 0.74 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 595 0.01 0.09 623 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.18 2.01 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 407 0.01 0.02 412 Vendor 0.02 0.79 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 596 0.01 0.09 622 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.09 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 254 0.01 0.01 257 Vendor 0.01 0.47 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.03 362 0.01 0.05 379 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 33 / 72
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 42.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 42.6 Vendor < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 60.0 < 0.005 0.01 62.7 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.50 13.3 10.6 0.01 0.58 — 0.58 0.54 — 0.54 1,511 0.06 0.01 1,517 Paving 0.26 — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.55 0.44 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 62.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 62.3 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 10.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.3 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 34 / 72
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 125 < 0.005 0.01 127 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.89 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.12. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.50 13.3 10.6 0.01 0.58 — 0.58 0.54 — 0.54 1,511 0.06 0.01 1,517 Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 35 / 72
Paving 0.26 — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.55 0.44 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 62.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 62.3 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.10 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 10.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.3 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 125 < 0.005 0.01 127 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.89 Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 36 / 72
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.67 0.59 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 82.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 82.6 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.12 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 13.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.7 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 37 / 72
——————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 90.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 91.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 81.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 82.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 51.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 52.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.63 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.14. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 38 / 72
134< 0.0050.011340.06—0.060.07—0.07< 0.0050.961.090.05Off-Road Equipment
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 1.09 0.96 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 134 0.01 < 0.005 134 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.67 0.59 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 82.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 82.6 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.12 0.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 13.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.7 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 90.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 91.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 81.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 82.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 39 / 72
——————————————Average
Daily
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 51.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 52.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 8.63 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 1.02 0.77 6.88 0.01 0.01 0.46 0.48 0.01 0.08 0.10 1,478 0.07 0.07 1,506 Governmen
t
(Civic
Center)

6.04 4.60 40.8 0.09 0.07 2.76 2.83 0.07 0.50 0.57 8,779 0.42 0.43 8,949 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 7.05 5.38 47.7 0.10 0.09 3.22 3.31 0.08 0.58 0.66 10,256 0.49 0.50 10,456 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 40 / 72
City Park 0.92 0.90 6.28 0.01 0.01 0.46 0.48 0.01 0.08 0.10 1,372 0.08 0.08 1,398 Governmen
t
(Civic
Center)

5.49 5.33 37.3 0.08 0.07 2.76 2.83 0.07 0.50 0.57 8,153 0.49 0.47 8,305 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 6.41 6.23 43.6 0.09 0.09 3.22 3.31 0.08 0.58 0.66 9,525 0.57 0.54 9,703 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.17 0.15 1.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 231 0.01 0.01 236 Governmen
t
(Civic
Center)

1.01 0.91 6.67 0.01 0.01 0.50 0.52 0.01 0.09 0.10 1,374 0.07 0.07 1,400 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.18 1.07 7.79 0.02 0.02 0.59 0.60 0.01 0.11 0.12 1,605 0.09 0.09 1,636

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 1.02 0.77 6.88 0.01 0.01 0.46 0.48 0.01 0.08 0.10 1,478 0.07 0.07 1,506 Governmen
t
(Civic
Center)

6.04 4.60 40.8 0.09 0.07 2.76 2.83 0.07 0.50 0.57 8,779 0.42 0.43 8,949 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 7.05 5.38 47.7 0.10 0.09 3.22 3.31 0.08 0.58 0.66 10,256 0.49 0.50 10,456 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 41 / 72
City Park 0.92 0.90 6.28 0.01 0.01 0.46 0.48 0.01 0.08 0.10 1,372 0.08 0.08 1,398 Governmen
t
(Civic
Center)

5.49 5.33 37.3 0.08 0.07 2.76 2.83 0.07 0.50 0.57 8,153 0.49 0.47 8,305 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 6.41 6.23 43.6 0.09 0.09 3.22 3.31 0.08 0.58 0.66 9,525 0.57 0.54 9,703 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.17 0.15 1.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 231 0.01 0.01 236 Governmen
t
(Civic
Center)

1.01 0.91 6.67 0.01 0.01 0.50 0.52 0.01 0.09 0.10 1,374 0.07 0.07 1,400 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.18 1.07 7.79 0.02 0.02 0.59 0.60 0.01 0.11 0.12 1,605 0.09 0.09 1,636

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Governmen
t
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — 611 0.10 0.01 617
Parking Lot — — — — — — — — — — 32.0 0.01 < 0.005 32.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — 643 0.10 0.01 649
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 42 / 72
——————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Governmen
t
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — 611 0.10 0.01 617
Parking Lot — — — — — — — — — — 32.0 0.01 < 0.005 32.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — 643 0.10 0.01 649
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Governmen
t
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — 101 0.02 < 0.005 102
Parking Lot — — — — — — — — — — 5.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.35 Total — — — — — — — — — — 106 0.02 < 0.005 108

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Governmen
t
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — 611 0.10 0.01 617
Parking Lot — — — — — — — — — — 32.0 0.01 < 0.005 32.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — 643 0.10 0.01 649
Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 43 / 72
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Governmen
t
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — 611 0.10 0.01 617
Parking Lot — — — — — — — — — — 32.0 0.01 < 0.005 32.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — 643 0.10 0.01 649
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Governmen
t
(Civic
Center)
— — — — — — — — — — 101 0.02 < 0.005 102
Parking Lot — — — — — — — — — — 5.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.35 Total — — — — — — — — — — 106 0.02 < 0.005 108

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Governmen
t
(Civic
Center)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 44 / 72
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Governmen
t
(Civic
Center)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Governmen
t
(Civic
Center)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2T CH4 N2O CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Governmen
t
(Civic
Center)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tracy Recreational center Project Custom Report, 4/28/2023 45 / 72
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Governmen
t
(Civic
Center)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Governmen
t
(Civic
Center)