Attachment 2 - Exhibit A to attachment 1- Combined Appeal Letters

CITY OF MANTECA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
Planning Division, 1001 W. Center Street, Manteca, CA 95337, (209) 456-8500 Fax (209) 923-8949
[email protected]
.. Type of Application
D Annexation D Municipal Code Amendment D Subdivision Map D Rezone/Prezone
D Development Agreement
D Specific Plan/ Amendment
D Master Plan/Amendment
D Planned Development/ Amendment
� Appeal
Project Name GBxManteca
Project Address: 2261 Operation Place
D General Plan
D Variance/Minor Zone Modification
D Sign: Master Sign Program
D Minor Plan Modification
D Site Plan Review: Minor or Major
D Reasonable Accommodation
Project Detail
D Parcel Map
[] Lot Line Adjustment
D Tentative Map Extension
D Minor Use Permit
D Conditional Use Permit
D Sewer Allocation/Point Rating
APN: 198-030-38
Project Description: The Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA) is appealing the approval of the GBx Manteca Project SPC 21-136 at the Planning Commission meeting of Nov. 17th, 2022. GSEJA believes the MND is flawed and an BIR must be prepared for the ro osed ro· ect and circulated for ublic review. See the attached 43 Nov 2 2 2BZZ
Appellant 1 .. \,Appellant
Name: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance Name: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance Contact: Joe Bourgeois Contact: Peter Sheehan
Address: 765 N. Main St. Suite 151 Address: 1265 West Shaw Ave. Suite 100 City: Corona City: Fresno
State, Zip: CA 92880 State, Zip: CA, 93711
Phone: (951) 279-4697 Phone: (951) 279-4697
E-mail: execntivedirectar@go)denstateeja cam
E-mail: [email protected]
Fax: Fax:

Office Use Only-Fees
Fees Account Number Application Type Fees Account Number Application Type Receipt Number Date Accepted by:

I File Number/s: _____________________ _
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
City of Manteca Community Development Application
Name: Name:

Title: Title:

Address: Address:

City: City:

State, Zip: State, Zip:

Phone: Phone:

E-mail: E-mail:

Fax: Fax:

General Plan Designation: Proposed General Plan Designation:

Zoning: Proposed Zoning:

General Property Dimensions:

Acres/Square Feet:

Land Use: Undeveloped/Vacant □ Developed □
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires each applicant for any development project to consult the State Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites List. Based on this list (available from the Planning Division of the Community Development Department) the applicant is required to submit a signed statement to the City of Manteca indicating whether the project is located on a site which is included on the list before the City accepts the application as complete. If the project site is listed by the State as a hazardous waste or substance site, the applicant must fully describe the nature of the attached hazard and potential impacts in the Initial Study, Part I. In either situation, the applicant must complete and sign the Affidavit in the space below.

I have been informed by the City of Manteca of my responsibilities pursuant to Section 65962.5 to notify the City as to whether the site for which a development application has been submitted is located within an area which has been listed as the location of a Hazardous Waste or substance Site by the Office of Planning and Research, State of California.

D The project site is located in an area listed as a Hazardous Waste or Substance Site.

D The project site is not in an area listed as a Hazardous Waste or Substance Site.

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Applicant Signature:. Date: _____________ _
\::,Yt}t·\\�::'.·:::
'.
t;:t,/f:;f:;;f:{;./;it{':.·.:.·;/:1f?,:,1::i,Agt.�ment.:a'rid"Rep:r$seijtptl�rifot•APl10'.daht'.i':�:tf:5d�·,,::i::>i;'.{-::::···:-:$�f':·/:;rJ::::.:;i�:·.::;?:·•:t:./§;i\:k This application is not complete, and processing of this application will not begin, until all initials and signatures are provided:
l. Applicant(s) acknowledge and agree that by making this application, and under the authority of Government Code Section 65105, that in the performance of their functions, City staff may enter upon the subject property and make examinations and surveys, provided that the entries, examinations and surveys do not unreasonably interfere with the use of the land by those persons lawfully entitled to the possession thereof. _____ (Initial)

2. Applicant(s) certify under penalty of perjury that the signature(s) provided below is/are that of the legal owner(s) (all individual owners must sign as they appear on the deed to the land), Corporate Officer(s) empowered to sign for the corporation, Owner's Legal Agent having power of Attorney (a notarized Power of Attorney document must accompany this application), or the owner's authorized representative {include a notarized consent form from the owner). _____ (Initial)
\ \utopia\Planning\common\Current Applications_Handouts\Uniform Application 092815.doc UPDATED 09/28/2015 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
City of Manteca Community Development Application Page3of 4

3. Applicant(s) acknowledge and agree that all of the required items have been submitted and understands that missing items may result in delaying the processing of this application. Applicant(s) further acknowledge and agree that by signing this document accepts the posting of public notices regarding the proposed project at the project site, newspaper, or as otherwise required by law. ______ (Initial)

4. Applicant(s) agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Manteca ("City") and its agents, officers, consultants, independent contractors and employees ("City's Agents") from any and all claims, actions or proceedings against the City or the City's Agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval by the City, or the City's Agents concerning the Project (collectively "Claim"). The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Claim and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the Applicant of any Claim or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the Applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing in this paragraph shall obligate the City to defend any Claim and the City shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement arising from any such Claim not defended by the City, unless the settlement is approved in writing by the City. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall prohibit the City from independently defending any Claim, and if the City does decide to independently defend a Claim, the City shall bear its own attorney's fees, expenses of litigation and costs for that independent defense. The Applicant may agree to reimburse the City for attorney's fees, expenses of litigation and costs for that independent defense.

Should the City decide to independently defend any Claim, the Applicant(s) shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement arising from any such Claim unless the settlement is approved by the Applicant. _____ (,Initial)

5. This Application will be a public record. ______ (Initial)

6. Those individuals listed within this application as owner, applicant, or other will be copied on correspondence regarding this application unless otherwise specified. The City is not responsible for inaccuracies of contact information (i.e., mailing addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, fax numbers, etc.) that may result in failed and/or delayed delivery of correspondence. ______ (initial)

Joe Bourgeois 11/21/2022
Print Name Date
Property Owner Signature Print Name Date
Property Owner Signature Print Name Date
\ \utopia\Planning\common\Current Applications_Handouts\Uniform Application 092815.doc UPDATED 09/28/2015 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A

BLUM COLLINS & HO, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

AON CENTER
707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUTIE 4880
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
(21 3) 572-0400
July 22, 2022
Mallorie Fenrich, Associate Planner
City of Manteca
VIA EMAIL TO:
[email protected]
1215 West Center Street, Suite 201
Manteca, CA 953 3 7
Subject: Comments on GBxManteca Project (SCH NO. 2022060520) Dear Ms. Fenrich,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed GBxManteca Project. Please accept and consider these comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA). Also, GSEJA formally requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877.

1.0 Summary
The project proposes to construct and operate a single 295,176 square foot (st) industrial building.

The building would provide approximately 270,176 sf of warehouse space and 25,000 sf of associated office space. The building will include 20,000 sf for a Keg Box that maintains a 38 degrees Fahrenheit temperature and CTW 10,000 sf of 50 degrees Fahrenheit. The building proposes 40 truck/trailer loading dock spaces and a 3-bay truck maintenance facility. The proposed building occupant is a beverage distribution facility for beer ( the MND specifically notes Coors products) and Coca-Cola products. The proposed Project is located within the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan area that guides the development of industrial uses, community commercial uses, and associated site improvements on 390 acres. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan area (State Clearinghouse# 2010022024) in August 2010. Several EIR Addendums and Mitigated Negative Declarations have been completed for projects within the Master Plan area
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
Mallorie Fenrich
July 22, 2022
Page4
The MND states that "The Project site is a developed Container Yard, which involved a previous conversion of Prime Farmland to a developed use. The proposed Project does not involve any conversion of Prime Farmland. Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact tANDSITE 1
LAND SHE 2
c��)tt.1011 J
2365 N AIRPORT WAY

1. 15.47 Acres Pre-Development

2. 4.32 Acres for Sale i Build to Suit

3. 3.53 Acres For Sale I Build to Suit
]8&0
INH:RMODAI WAY

4. 60.150SF

5. 5 Acres

6. 404,657 SF

5.11 =
3201 N.

AIRPORlWAY
�493N

AIRPOOTWAY
FUH!RE

EXPANSION
2226 E.

ROTH ROAD

7. 746.790 SF Delivery Summer 2019

8. 278,700 SF

9. 551,475 SF
-Speculative Site. Leased C3 Available Storage Yard -Leased Storage Yard relative to this issue." This is directly in conflict with the Project Description's statement that "The existing use is a Container Yard, which was approved, but was not fully constructed and is not operational." The Population and Housing section also states "the Project site is currently vacant." The MND selectively describes the existing setting of the project site to best suit whichever issue is at hand. This is misleading to the public and decision makers. An EIR must be prepared to adequately and accurately provide an internally consistent environmental analysis.

Additionally, the MND states that MM AG-1 from the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan is applicable to the project. MM AG-1 states, "At the time building permits are sought for any Master Plan contemplated use, the project applicant shall pay the required City of Manteca agricultural mitigation fee to help offset the conversion oflmportant Farmland pursuant to Manteca Municipal ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
Mallorie Fenrich
July 22, 2022

Page 7 ends

public review in order to adequately analyze the project's potentially significant environmental impacts. This is vital as the MND utilizes CalEEMod as a source in its methodology and analysis, which is clearly not one of the approved softwares.

XI. Land Use and Planning
The MND concludes that "the proposed Project would not conflict with any goals, policies, or implementing actions contained within the General Plan, or within the proposed General Plan Update." However, the MND does not provide a consistency analysis with any General Plan ( existing 2023 General Plan or proposed General Plan Update) goals and policies. An EIR must be prepared that includes a consistency analysis with all General Plan goals and policies ( the current 2023 General Plan and the proposed General Plan update), including but not limited to the following:

Goal AQ-2. Integrate air quality planning with land use and transportation planning processes in order to reduce vehicle miles traveled in the City and by commuters.

LU-1-3. The City shall monitor implementation of the growth management system and new commercial and industrial development so that General Plan objectives for a balanced community are achieved.

C-P-49: The city shall require that new industrial development pay a fair share toward improvements required to accommodate heavy vehicles, including increased pavement wear.

C-P-53: The City shall establish a requirement for a TDM program in any business park, industrial or commercial land use that employs more than 50 full time equivalent employees.

Further, the MND does not provide an analysis of all applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, such as the applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The MND also does not provide any consistency analysis with the San Joaquin County Council of Governments (SJ COG) adopted 2018 RTP/SCS10. Due to errors in modeling and modeling without supporting evidence as noted throughout this comment letter, the proposed project has signifiant potential for inconsistency with Policy 1 to enhance the environment for existing and future generations and conserve energy, Strategy 3 to improve air quality by reducing transportation-related emissions, Strategy 4 to improve regional transportation system efficiency, and Strategy 8 to improve major transportation corridors to minimize impacts on rural roads. An EIR must be prepared to include accurate Air 10 SJCOG 2018 RTP/SCS https://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenterNiew/4156/Final-Compiled-RTPSCS-2018 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
Mallorie Fenrich
July 22, 2022

Page 8 ends

Quality/HRA, Energy, GHG, and VMT modeling and provide an analysis of potential inconsistency with the 2018 RTP/SCS document and the AQMP.

Additionally, as required by the General Plan, the City maintains a list of ongoing commercial and industrial development. However, there is no analysis of the proposed project in relation to the growth management requirements of the General Plan. The list of ongoing commercial and industrial development is not provided for public review. An EIR must be prepared that includes an analysis of the project in relation to the City's growth management requirements as detailed in the General Plan in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis, including potential cumulatively significant impacts.

XIV. Population and Housing
The MND concludes that "although the proposed Project would create new jobs, which could create some population growth, it is anticipated that such new jobs would be for the existing labor force within Manteca and the surrounding communities," resulting in a less than significant impact.

The MND does not provide any calculation of the employees generated by the proposed project during the construction phase or during project operations. The U.S. Energy Information Administration11 provides the following applicable employment generation rate for refrigerated warehouses:

Any Refrigeration: 1 employee per 1,049 square feet
No Refrigeration: 1 employee per 1,224 square feet
Applying this ratio results in the following calculation:

Refrigerated: 30,000 sf/ 1,049 = 29
Non-Refrigerated: 265,176 sf/ 1,224 = 217
Total: 246 employees
SJCOG's Population, Household, and Employment Projections12 notes that the City will add approximately 5,624 jobs between 2020 - 2045. Utilizing the U.S. EIA calculation of 246 employees, the project represents 4.3% of the City's employment growth from 2020 - 2045. A single project accounting for this amount of the projected employment growth over 29 years 11 US EIA Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, Table Bl: Summary table: total and means of floorspace, number of workers, and hours of operation, 2018 https:/ /www.eia.gov/ consumption/commercial/ data/2018/bc/html/b 1.php 12 SJCOG's 2018 RTP/SCS Appendix R- Population, Household, and Employment Projections https://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenterNiew/3722/Final-2018-RTPSCS-Technical-Appendix-R-- Population-Household-and-Employment-Projections?bidid=
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
Mallorie Fenrich
July 22, 2022

Page 9 ends

represents a significant amount of growth. An EIR must be prepared to include this analysis, and also provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since 2020 and projects "in the pipeline" to determine if the project will exceed SJCOG's employment growth forecast for the City. Additionally, an EIR must also provide demographic and geographic information on the location of qualified workers to fill these positions in order to provide an accurate environmental analysis.

XVII. Transportation
Appendix E: Transportation sources the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 2018 CEQA Guidelines Update and Technical Advisory13 as contributing to the methodology for VMT analysis. The VMT analysis does not state if any truck/trailer trips were included for analysis.

The MND does not provide a statutory source of exemption for medium/heavy trucks. The OPR's 2018 Technical Advisory which states that "here, the term "automobile" refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks." However, the purpose of the OPR Technical Advisory document is purely advisory, stating in its introduction:
"The purpose of this document is to provide advice and recommendations, which agencies and other entities may use at their discretion. This document does not alter lead agency discretion in preparing environmental documents subject to CEQA. This document should not be construed as legal advice."
The OPR document is not a legal interpretation, court decision, or amendment to the CEQA statute that clarifies the definition of automobile. The term "automobile" is not defined in the CEQA statute and application of the OPR interpretation is speculative and does not provide an analysis of the "worst-case scenario" for environmental impacts. Widespread public understanding and perception indicates that trucks, including medium/heavy-duty truck/trailer trips associated with the industrial nature of warehouse operations, are automobiles. An EIR must be prepared to include all truck/trailer activity for quantified VMT analysis. The operational nature of industrial/warehouse uses involves high rates of truck/trailer VMT due to traveling from large import hubs to regional distribution centers to smaller industrial parks and then to their final delivery destinations. The project's truck/trailer activity is unable to utilize public transit or active transportation and it is misleading to the public and decision makers to exclude this activity from VMT analysis. An EIR must be prepared to reflect a quantified VMT analysis that includes all 13 Governor's Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/20190122-743 Technical Advisory.pdf ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
Mallorie Fenrich
July 22, 2022

Page 11 ends

Traffic ( cumulatively considerable). Excluding this pertinent information from the cumulative analysis does not comply with CEQA' s requirements for meaningful disclosure and an EIR must be prepared.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, GSEJA believes the MND is flawed and an EIR must be prepared for the proposed project and circulated for public review. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877.

Sincerely,
Gary Ho
Blum Collins & Ho, LLP
Attachments:

1. SW APE Comment Letter
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
I SWAP E I Technical Consultation,. Data Analysis and
.___ ____ ___.

Litigation Support for the Environment
July 20, 2022
Gary Ho
Blum Collins LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 4880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: Comments on the GBxManteca Project (SCH No. 2022060520) Dear Mr. Ho,
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310} 795-2335
[email protected]
We have reviewed the June 2022 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("15/MND") for the GBxManteca Project ("Project") located in the City of Manteca ("City"). The Project proposes to construct 270,176-square-feet ("SF") of warehouse space, 25,000-SF of office space, and 307 parking spaces on the 16.02-acre site.

Our review concludes that the 15/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project's hazards, hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential hazards, hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the environment.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Inadequate Disclosure and Analysis of Impacts
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ("ESA") was not prepared for the 15/MND and, therefore, the Project's potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts are inadequately evaluated. An EIR that includes a Phase I ESA is necessary to disclose if environmental conditions, which may be significant and require mitigation, exist at the Project site.

The completion of a Phase I ESA is a common practice under CEQA to provide an adequate basis to disclose hazardous materials impacts that may pose a health risk to the public, workers, or the ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
environment. Standards for performing a Phase I ESA have been established by the US EPA and ASTM International and are undertaken to identify conditions that may result in the release of hazardous substances.1 Phase I ESAs include:
• a review of all known sites in the vicinity of the subject property that are on regulatory agency databases undergoing assessment or cleanup activities;
• an inspection;
• interviews with people knowledgeable about the property; and • recommendations for further actions to address potential hazards.

To determine impacts, the IS/MND only undertook the first step, a review of California Department Toxics Substances Control records (p. 63). This is an insufficient basis to identify and disclose environmental conditions at the Project site that may necessitate further investigation and mitigation to protect public health. The need for a Phase I is especially important for the Project site, as past agricultural uses may have left residual pesticides in the soil.

A complete Phase I ESA, to include an inspection and interviews, is necessary to determine if recommendations are needed to address any "recognized environmental conditions" {"RECs") that are identified. A REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. If RECs are identified, then a Phase II ESA is generally recommended, which includes the collection of soil, soil vapor, and groundwater samples, as necessary, to identify the extent of contamination and need for cleanup to reduce exposure potential to the public.

To provide for adequate disclosure of impacts, and to identify any necessary mitigation, a Phase I ESA is necessary for inclusion in an EIR to evaluate the potential for RECs at the Project site. If a REC is identified, a Phase II should be conducted to sample for potential contaminants in soil, including pesticides. Any contamination that is identified above regulatory screening levels, including those established by the California Department of Toxics Substances Control 2, should be further evaluated and cleaned up, if necessary, in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Toxics Substances Control.

Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The IS/MND's air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with the California Emissions Estimator Model ("CalEEMod") Version 2020.4.0 (p. 33). 3 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type 1 http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1527.htm
2 https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2022/02/HHRA-Note-3-June2020-Revised-May2022A.pdf 3 "CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.
2 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and 11output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as weJI as provide justification for the values selected.

When reviewing the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the "CalEEMod Results" as Appendix A to the 15/MND, we found that several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the 15/MND. As a result, the Project's construction and operational emissions are underestimated. An EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that Project construction and operation will have on local and regional air quality.

Failure to Model Proposed Cold Storage Land Use
Regarding-the proposed land uses, the IS/MND states:
"There will be refrigerated space inside the building totaling 20,000 sf for a Keg Box that maintains a 38 degrees F temperature" (p. 4).

As demonstrated above, the IS/MND indicates that the proposed Project would include 20,000-SF of refrigerated warehouse space. However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "GBxManteca" model includes the entirety of the warehouse space as unrefrigerated (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 144).
···Land Uses' Sile ·; Metric_; Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area � ' � ,, . ".... '
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 280.98 lOOOsqft 6.45 280,983.00 Parking Loi 9.57 Acre 9.57 416,869.20
As you can see in the excerpt above, the model fails to include the proposed refrigerated warehouse space. This presents an issue, as refrigerated warehouses release more criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions when compared to unrefrigerated warehouses for three reasons. First, warehouses equipped with cold storage, such as refrigerators and freezers, are known to consume more energy when compared to warehouses without cold storage. 4 Second, warehouses equipped with cold storage typically require refrigerated trucks, which are known to idle for much longer when compared to unrefrigerated hauling trucks. 5 Lastly, according to a July 2014 Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage presentation prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"), hauling trucks that require refrigeration result in greater truck trip rates when compared to non4 "Warehouses." Business Energy Advisor, available at: https://ouc.bizenergyadvisor.com/article/warehouses. 5 "Estimation of Fuel Use by Idling Commercial Trucks." Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board, January 6 p. 8, available at:
https:ljwww.researchgate.net/publication/245561735 Estimation of Fuel Use by Idling Commercial Trucks. 3 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
Table Name I
Column Name Default Value
• • • • 0 - • • • • - • • - V • •· • • • • • • • o • 0 W O .. • • • • W • • • ·• - • • • 0 • • • •. W W W • - 0 • 0 • W tblAreaCoating : Acea_EF _Nooresidentiaf_Exterm : 150
New Value
100
--·-··••+••- ·••+••·--···--�--------------·-·· .--·-·····•+:---------�-······-·--·------··------ tblAreaCoating : Area_EF _Nonresidentlal_lnterior : 150 O -- --------·---------------�-----·-··-----·-··-·---·-·-·· ... =---------_...,---------- tblAreaCoatiog : Area_EF _Residentiat_Exterior : '150 100 -----------------------------4·-------------------- ---------+:----------t-•------------- ------------ tblAreaCoating : Area_EF _Residenliat_lnterior : 150 0
--------------------·--------�-----------------------------·------------------------------------- As you can see in the excerpt above, the nonresidential and residential exterior area coating emission factors are both reduced from the default value of 150- to 100-grams per liter ("g/L''). Furthermore, the nonresidential and residential interior area coating emission factors are both reduced from the default value of 150- to 0- g/L. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified. 10 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table, the justification provided for the revised area coating emission factors is:
"100 g/L for exterior coating limitations provided per Air District Rule 4601. No interior coatings for this project." (Appendix A, pp. 144).

However, these changes remain unsupported for two reasons.

First, the IS/MND fails to explicitly require the use of exterior coatings during Project operation or prohibit the use of interior coatings. As such, the reductions remain unsubstantiated.

Second, we cannot verify the accuracy of the revised area coating emission factors based on San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District ("SJVAPCD") Rule 4601 alone. The SJVAPeD Rule 4601 voe Content Limits for Coatings Table provides the required voe limits (grams of voe per liter of coating) for 46 different coating categories. 11 The voe limits for each coating varies from a minimum value of 50 g/L to a maximum value of 730 g/L. As such, we cannot verify that SJV APCD Rule 4601 substantiates a reduction to the default coating values without more information regarding what category of coatings will be used on the Project site. As the IS/MND fails to explicitly require the use of a specific type of coating, we are unable to verify the revised emission factors assumed in the model.

These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the area coating emission factors to calculate the Project's reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound ("ROG" /"VOe") emissions.12 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the default area coating emission factors, the model may underestimate the Project's operational ROG/VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
10 "CalEEMod User's Guide." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.
11 SJVAPCD Rule 4601 Architectural Coatings." SJVAPCD, April 2020, available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/ru1es/currntrules/r4601.pdfhttp://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rulebook/reg-xi/rl113.pdf?sfvrsn=24, p. 4601-17, Table 1 voe Content Limits for Coatings. 12 "CalEEMod User's Guide." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user1
s-guide, p. 35, 40.
5 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths Review of the Cal EE Mod output files demonstrates that the "GBxManteca" model includes several changes to the default individual construction phase lengths (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 145). 'TableName
. I
· Column Name I
.. Default Value New Value
tbtConstructionPhase : umDays : I0.00 5-.00
--- -- - - - -- ----- . ------- ---- ---1------- ------· - . ----------- -- --=------------------------------------ tbtConstructionPhase : NumOays : 20.00 16.00 ------------------------------1------------------------------+:-----------tl-------------------------- tblConstructionPhase : NumDays : 30.00 20.00
------------------------ ----�-----------------------------+:-----------11-------------------------- tblConstructionPhase : NumDays : 300.00 202.00
tblConstructionPhase · · !
NumOays · •�----20
-00, ------ · • · - · • · • 0 40 .. 00 - • • • • • • • • - ·
tblConstructionPhase 1 NumDays •�-----20
-.00------11-· --· · · · · · -10.00 · · · -· · · · · · - ----------------------· >••---�------------------------------1-:-----------P---------- As a result of these changes, the model includes the following construction schedule (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 112):
, ;;fer" I Phase Name J• ·' . P��1:Jt< \ · Start Oat�-- _i • ·• End 9�� , , ��:e'!:� NtJm Di:lYS
1 :Site Preparation :site Preparation :9/1/2022: !91712022 ; 51 I
51 - -- ----•-- -- -- -- - - -- ----- - - ----1-----------------------t-. -------1- ----------1------ 2 :Demolition :Demolition :9'. t.202' :9/2912022 ; 5, 1s:
•••••••I••••••••••••·•·•••••••••� I I I
3 :Grading :Grading :9130/2022 :10127/2022 5• • 20;
4 :Building Construction :Building Construction : 10/28/2022 :8/7/2023 : 5: 202:
-------•------------------------•-----------------+------------+------------�------ �--------• 5 :Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating •512512023 :1119.12023 : 5: 401 •••••••I•-•-••••••••••••••••••••= ! I I I I
6 :Paving :Paving :1 2512023 :a/712023 : s: 10:
• - I I ■ •
As you can see in the excerpt above, the site preparation phase is decreased by 50%, from the default value of 10 to 5 days; the demolition phase is decreased by 20%, from the default value of 20 to 16 days; the grading phase is decreased by 33%, from the default value of 30 to 20 days; the building construction phase is decreased by 33%, from the default value of 300 to 202 days; the architectural coating is increased by 100%, from the default value of 20 to 40 days; and the paving phase is decreased by 50%, from the default value of 20 to 10 days. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified. 13 According to the "User Entered Comments & NonDefault Data" table, the justification provided for these changes is:
"Construction schedule as provided by project applicant. Site prepare reduced due to site conditions requiring little to no veg or debris removal. Site is flat" (Appendix A, pp. 144).

However, this justification remains insufficient, as the IS/MND fails to mention the proposed construction schedule or justify the revised individual construction phase lengths whatsoever. This is incorrect, as according to the CalEEMod User's Guide:
13 "CalEEMod User's Guide." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.
6 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
"CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA." 14
Here, as the IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised individual construction phase lengths, we cannot verify the changes.

These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as the construction emissions are improperly spread out over a longer period of time for some phases, but not for others. According to the CalEEMod User's Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below). 15 Demolition involves removing buifdings or structures.

Site Preparation involves clearing vegetation {grubbing and tree/stump removal) and removing stones and other unwanted material or debris prior to grading.

Grading involves the cut and fill of land to ensure that the proper base and slope is created for the foundation.

Building Construction involves the construction of the foundation. structures and buildings.

Architectural Coating involves the application of coatings to both the interior and exterior of buildings or structures, the painting of parking lot or parking garage striping, associated signage and curbs, and the painting of the walls or other components such as stair railings inside parking structures.

Paving involves the faying of concrete or asphalt such as in parking lots. roads. driveways. or sidewalks.

Thus, by disproportionately altering and extending some of the individual construction phase lengths without proper justification, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the prolonged phases. As such, there will be less construction activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day. As a result, the model may underestimate the peak daily emissions associated with some phases of construction and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Incorrect Application of Energy-Related Operational Mitigation Measure Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the 11GBxManteca11 model includes the following energy-related mitigation measure (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 167):

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated
14 "CalEEMod User's Guide." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user1
s-guide, p. 13-14.
15 "CalEEMod User's Guide." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 32.
7 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.16 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data11 table, the justification provided for this inclusion is:
"Mitigation: on-site renewable energy (on-site solar will generate approximate 800 kW, according to the applicant)" (Appendix A, pp. 145).

However, this justification is insufficient, as the IS/MND not only fails to mention the inclusion of on-site renewable energy generation, but also fails to explicitly require on-site solar panels in a formal mitigation measure. This is incorrect, as according to the Association of Environmental Professionals ("AEP11
) CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures:
"While not 'mitigation', a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact." 17
As demonstarted above, project design features ("PDFs") are not mitigation measures and may be eliminated from the Project's design. Thus, as the above-mentioned operational measure included in the model is not formally included as a mitigation measure, we cannot guarantee that it would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. As a result, the inclusion of the energyrelated operational mitigation measure in the model is incorrect. By including an operational mitigation measure without properly committing to its implementation, the model may underestimate the Project's operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Incorrect Application of Area-Related Operational Mitigation Measure Review of the Ca IEE Mod output files demonstrates that the "GBxManteca11 model includes the following area-related operational mitigation measures (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 170):
16 "CalEEMod User's Guide." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user1
s-guide, p. 1, 14.
17 "CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures." AEP, February 2020, available at:
https:ljceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6. 8 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
Use Low voe Paint - Residential Interior
Use Low voe Paint - Residential Exterior
Use Low voe Paint - Non-Residential Interior
Use Low voe Paint - Non-Residential Exterior
As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.18 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table, the justification provided for the inclusion of the area-related operational mitigation measure is:
"VOC Paint Per SJVAPCD rules. No interior paint." (Appendix A, pp. 145).

However, the inclusion of the above-mentioned operational mitigation measures remain unsupported for three reasons.

First, as previously discussed, the Rule 4601 alone cannot substantiate the use of low voe paint.

Without more information regarding what category of coating will be used, we cannot verify the inclusion of the above-mentioned mitigation measures.

Second, the inclusion of the operational mitigation measures, based on the Project's purported compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 4601, is unsupported. As previously stated, according to the AEP CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures:
"By definition, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design. Rather, mitigation measures are actions taken by the lead agency to reduce impacts to the environment resulting from the original project design. Mitigation measures are identified by the lead agency after the project has undergone environmental review and are above-and-beyond existing laws, regulations, and requirements that would reduce environmental impacts." 19 As you can see in the excerpt above, mitigation measures "are not part of the original project design" and are intended to go "above-and-beyond" existing regulatory requirements. As such., the inclusion of these measures, based on the Project's compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 4601, is unsubstantiated.

Third, the 15/MND fails to formally include the use of low voe paints as a mitigation measure. This is incorrect, as AEP guidance states:
"While not "mitigation", a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). 18 "CalEEMod User's Guide Version." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14. 19 "CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures." AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020. pdf, p. 5. 9 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact."20
As demonstrated above, design features that are not formally included as mitigation measures in a MMRP may be eliminated from the Project's design altogether. Thus, as the use of low voe paint is not formally included as a mitigation measure, we cannot guarantee that it would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. As such, the inclusion of the above-mentioned operational mitigation measures in the model is incorrect. As a result, the model may underestimate the Project's area-related operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The I5/MND conducts a screening analysis using the SJVAPCD's Prioritization Calculator to evaluate the impacts from exposure to diesel particulate matter ("DPM") emissions generated by heavy-duty diesel trucks during Project operation. Specifically, the IS/MND states:
"The results of the screening analysis show that the cancer and non-cancer risks associated with the proposed Project are below the SJVAPCD screening thresholds contained within their Prioritization Calculator. Specifically, the Prioritization Calculator estimates that the prioritization score associated with total cancer risk from proposed project DPM would be approximately 3.12, well below the SJVAPCD threshold of 10 that would require development of air toxics Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that includes air dispersion modeling. Additionally, noncancer (i.e. chronic and acute risks) associated with project DPM would also be well below the applicable thresholds for the Maximally Exposed Individual (i.e. greater than or equal to the Hazard Index level of 1). Therefore, the complex air dispersion modeling using software such as AERMOD is not required. See Appendix B for further detail" (p. 36).

As demonstrated above, the IS/MND determines that the Project would have a prioritization score of

3.12, indicating that the Project is not required to conduct a health risk assessment ("HRA") for the operational-related health risk impacts. However, regarding the health risk impacts associated with Project construction, the IS/MND states:
"The construction phase of the project would be temporary and short-term, and the implementation of all State, Federal, and SJVAPCD requirements would greatly reduce pollution concentrations generated during construction activities. As shown in Table AIR-1, the proposed Project's construction-related criteria pollutant emissions would not exceed the applicable thresholds. Therefore, dust from construction of the proposed Project would be reduced and would be consistent with SJVAPCD guidance on this topic. Impacts to sensitive receptors during construction would be negligible and this is a less than significant impact" (p. 35). 20 "CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures/' Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), February 2020, available at: https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6. 10 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
As demonstrated above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant construction-related health risk impact because the criteria air pollutant emissions associated with Project construction would not exceed the applicable thresholds. However, the IS/MND's evaluation of the Project's potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for three reasons.

First, by failing to prepare a quantified construction HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQN s
requirement to make "a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project's air quality impacts to likely health consequences." 21 This poses a problem, as construction of the Project would produce DPM emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a duration of approximately 11 months (Appendix A, pp. 150). However, the 15/MND fails to evaluate the toxic air contaminant ("TAC") emissions associated with Project construction or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project's construction-related TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the IS/MND is inconsistent with CEQA's requirement to correlate Project-generated emissions with the potential adverse impacts on human health.

Second, the State of California Department of Justice recommends that warehouse projects prepare a quantitative HRA pursuant to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air district guidelines. 22 OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015, as referenced by the 15/MND {p. 35). This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically, OEHHA recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks. 23 Furthermore, according to OEHHA:
11 Exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project. In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs (OEHHA, 2009)."24 Thus, as the Project's anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire construction period.

These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, an EIR should be 21 "Sierra Club v. County of Fresno." Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907 /Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 22 "Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act." State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6. 23 "Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 24 "Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 11 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Projectgenerated DPM emissions.

Third, while the IS/MND includes a screening analysis evaluating the health risk impacts to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project operation, the IS/MND fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation together.

According to OEHHA guidance, "the excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer risk at the receptor location."25 However, the IS/MND fails to sum each age bin to evaluate the total cancer risk over the course of the Project's total construction and operation. This is incorrect and thus, an updated analysis should quantify and sum the entirety of the Project's construction and operational cancer risks to compare to the SJVAPCD's specific numeric threshold of 20 in one million. 26
Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The IS/MND relies upon the Project's consistency with the City's Climate Action Plan ("CAP"} in order to conclude a less-than-significant greenhouse gas ("GHG"} impact. Specifically, the IS/MND claims to be consistent with the following strategies (see excerpt below) (p. 60, Table GHG-2):

TABLE GHG-2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH THE M. ANTECA CAP No. . ·Strategy
The City shall encourage projects consistent with the
CD-1 development densities allowed by the General Plan and are contiguous to existing development meet compact
development criteria.

The City shall encourage projects that are at or near the CD-2
maximum densities allowed by the General Plan and
zoning designations to achieve more compact
development.

Notify developers oflarge commercial and industrial
developments of the requirements of SJVAPCD Rule TDM-1 9410 to implement TOM programs that reduce commute trips.

The City shall provide developers of projects with the
potential for employing more than 100 persons at a
TEF-1 single work site with information on end-of-trip
facilities appropriate for the type of business and size of the project that will assist in their compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 9410.

The City shall require developers to exceed Title 24
energy efficiency standards by at least 10 percent The
City recognizes that it may not be feasible for all
buildings and structures to exceed Title 24 by this
ENB-1 amount because of the form or function of the building.

Projects that cannot meet the reduction level may
provide solar panels or other non-building-related
energy efficiency measures such as exterior lighting or water savings.

Consistency Determination
Consistent: The project is consistent with
the development densities allowed by the
General Plan.

Consistent: The project is near the
maximum density allowed by the General
Plan and zoning designations.

Consistent: The City would notify the
developer of the project regarding the
requirements of SJVAPCD Rule 9410 to
implement TDM programs that reduce
commute trips.

Consistent: The City would notify the
developer of the project regarding the
potential for employing more than 100
persons at a single work site with
information on end-of-trip facilities
Consistent: The project developer would
be required to develop building plans
consistent with this measure.
25 "Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 8-4 26 "Recommended Thresholds of Significant Impact." SJVAPCO, available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/ceqaanalysislevels.htm. 12 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
As such, the IS/MND concludes:
"Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the strategies as described in the City of Manteca CAP and it functions as an implementation project toward achieving the City's Climate Action Plan. Since the proposed project would not conflict with the Manteca CAP (including consistency with the growth projections generated by the Manteca CAP or SJCOG's RTP/SCS, the proposed project would not generate a significant cumulative impact to GHGs.

The proposed project would not generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations. Therefore, impacts related to greenhouse gasses are less than significant" (p. 30).

However, the IS/MN D's claim that the Project is consistent with the City's CAP, and the subsequent lessthan-significant impact conclusion, is unsupported for two reasons.

First, the IS/MND fails to mention or discuss that the Project intends to exceed Title 24 standards other than in the context of the City1
s CAP. Rather, the IS/MND simply states:
'The proposed Project would comply with all existing energy standards, including the statewide Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, and would not result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources" (p. 48).

Here, the IS/MND only indicates that the Project intends on meeting the existing Title 24 standards. This is insufficient, as the Project must exceed Title 24 standards by 10% in order to be consistent with the City's CAP.

Second, the IS/MND fails to incorporate the above-mentioned strategies as formal mitigation measures.

As previously discussed, according to AEP guidance, measures that are not formally included in a MMRP may be eliminated from the Project's design altogether. 27 Thus, we cannot guarantee that these strategies would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site.

Until an EIR is prepared to include the applicable strategies from the City's CAP as formal mitigation measures, the Project's GHG analysis is insufficient and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing 27 "CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures." AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6. 13 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
·)tl /J-i-i�r,.,t- c-----
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV
14 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
r ..:'..'./s. .:,;,w:';•,, ..:.,,.,,.,A · p E I Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and ; ::,,.. Litigation Support for the Environment
Matthew F. Hagemann,P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Education:

Attachment A
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Storm water Compliance
CEQAReview
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

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

Professional Certifications:

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

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

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SW APE) (2003- present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 - 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H20 Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A

• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production-related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

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

Hydro geology:

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

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

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 3 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

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

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

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

Policy:

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

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA' s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EP A's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 4 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
principles into the policy-making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

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

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

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

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

Invited Testimony, Reports. Papers and Presentations:

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

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

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

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

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

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

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

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

Hagemann, M.F ., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
6 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

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

Unpublished report.

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

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

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

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas,. Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill,. M.,. 1996,. Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te rizati on and Cl ean up at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPLcontaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 7 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention ... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011.
8 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SW APE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amee), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 - 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 - 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aennod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P�E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113-125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K .. , Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Fonner Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation's Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application ofBiosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS-6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001 ). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131 (1-4), 24 7-262.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses OfBiogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States" Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Co,iferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 - 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants - DIOXJN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey's C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey's Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants .. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington ..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M.A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Sociery Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Bio/est. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P .E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Herny, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on voe emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants
Case No.: No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case Number CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case Number 1:l 7-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Gamer, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Gamer vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jack son County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No.: 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS "Conti Perdido" Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles - Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles - Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. lnc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No.: l:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warm Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-NM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 201 7
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711 l 15
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action NO. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Port Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A

CITY OF MANTECA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
Planning Division, 1001 W. Center Street, Manteca, CA 95337, (209) 456-8500 Fax (209) 923-8949
[email protected]
D Annexation D Municipal Code Amendment D Subdivision Map D Rezone/Prezone D General Plan D Parcel Map
D Development Agreement D Variance/Minor Zone Modification D Lot Line Adjustment D Specific Plan/ Amendment D Sign: Master Sign Program D Tentative Map Extension D Master Plan/ Amendment D Minor Plan Modification D Minor Use Permit D Planned Development/ Amendment D Site Plan Review: Minor or Major D Conditional Use Permit 00 Appeal D Reasonable Accommodation
Project Name GBx Manteca Site Plan Review SPC2 l-136
Project Address: 2261 Operation Place
Project Description:

See attached appeal letter dated November 28, 2022
Name:

Contact:

Address:

City:

State, Zip:

Phone:

E-mail:

Fax:

Fees Account Number Application Type
Receipt Number Date
APN: 198-030-38
Name: City of Lathrop
Contact: Mark Meissner
Address: 390 Towne Centre Drive
City: ------------------- Lathrop
St ate, Zip: CA, 95336
Phone: (209) 941-7266
E-mail: [email protected]
Fax:

Fees Account Number Application Type
Accepted by:

File Number/s: _____________________ _
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
City of Manteca Community Development Application Page 2 of 4 Name: Name:

Title: Title:

Address: Address:

City: City:

State, Zip: State, Zip:

Phone: Phone:

E-mail: E-mail:

Fax: Fax:

General Plan Designation: Proposed General Plan Designation:

Zoning: Proposed Zoning:

General Property Dimensions:

Acres/Square Feet:

Land Use: Undeveloped/Vacant □ Developed □
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires each applicant for any development project to consult the State Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites List. Based on this list (available from the Planning Division of the Community Development Department} the applicant is required to submit a signed statement to the City of Manteca indicating whether the project is located on a site which is included on the list before the City accepts the application as complete. If the project site is listed by the State as a hazardous waste or substance site, the applicant must fully describe the nature of the attached hazard and potential impacts in the Initial Study, Part I. In either situation, the applicant must complete and sign the Affidavit in the space below.

D The project site is located in an area listed as a Hazardous Waste or Substance Site. 1>t The project site is not in an area listed as a Hazardous Waste or Substance Site.

I declare under penal of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Applicant Signature:. Date: --LIL_/-.=...�=.a,::4,.-===----- --- f;fJ�;;�,'.\ll��i
1 1!;f!;��<i,:t?�t{{�it�t)\gfeeiii:eh(C1n·c1 ,Re1ires�nt9ti<iiii:o(Appn�·µijtf · This application is not complete, and processing of this application will not begin, until all initials and signatures are provided:

1. Applicant(s} acknowledge and agree that by making this application, and under the authority of Government Code Section 65105, that in the performance of their functions, City staff may enter upon the subject property and make examinations and surveys, provided that the entries, examinations and surveys do not unreasonably interfere with the use of the land by those persons lawfully entitled to the possession thereof. MM (Initial}

2. Applicant(s} certify under penalty of perjury that the signature(s} provided below is/are that of the legal owner(s} (all individual owners must sign as they appear on the deed to the land}, Corporate Officer(s} empowered to sign for the corporation, Owner's Legal Agent having power of Attorney (a notarized Power of Attorney document must accompany this application}, or the owner's authorized representative (include a notarized consent form from the owner}. MM (Initial}
\ \utopia\Planning\common\Current Applications_Handouts\Uniform Application 092815.doc UPDATED 09/28/2015 ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
City of Manteca Community Development Application Page 3 of 4

4. Applicant(s) agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Manteca ("City'') and its agents, officers, consultants, independent contractors and employees ("City's Agents") from any and all claims, actions or proceedings against the City or the City's Agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval by the City, or the City's Agents concerning the Project (collectively "Claim"). The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Claim and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the Applicant of any Claim or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the Applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing in this paragraph shall obligate the City to defend any Claim and the City shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement arising from any such Claim not defended by the City, unless the settlement is approved in writing by the City. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall prohibit the City from independently defending any Claim, and if the City does decide to independently defend a Claim, the City shall bear its own attorney's fees, expenses of litigation and costs for that independent defense. The Applicant may agree to reimburse the City for attorney's fees, expenses of litigation and costs for that independent defense.

MM (Initial)

5. This Application will be a public record. __ M_M ___ (lnitial)

7. This Application is made under, and shall in all respects be interpreted, enforced, and governed by, the laws of the State of California. In the event of a dispute concerning the terms of this Application, the venue for any legal action shall be with the appropriate court in the County of San Joaquin, State of California. Should legal proceedings of any type arise out of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to costs, attorney's fees, and legal expenses, including but not limited to expert fees and costs. MM (Initial) Mark Meissner
Print Name
Property Owner Signature Print Name
Property Owner Signature Print Name
\ \utopia\Planning\common\Current Applications_Handouts\Uniform Application 092815.doc Nov. 28, 2022
Date
Date
Date
UPDATED 09/28/2015
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
Community
Cityof � �
Development
�
Department
Planning Division
November 28, 2022
City of Manteca
Attn: Chris Erias, Development Services Director
1215 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337
Mr. Erias:
390 Towne Centre Drive- Lathrop, CA 95330
Phone (209) 941-7290 - Fax (209) 941-7268
www.ci.lathrop.ca.us
Re: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Site Plan Design Review Application for GBx;t\1anteca (SPC21-136), Planning Commission Resolution No's. 1614 and 1615 Pursuant to Manteca Municipal Code Section 17 .08.070, the City of Lathrop ("Lathrop") hereby appeals the Manteca Planning Commission's decision on November 17, 2022 to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") and Site Plan Design Review Application for GBxManteca (SPC2 l-136) ("Project"), Planning Commission Resolution No's. 1614 and 1615, respectively. Lathrop requests a hearing within 45 days as required by Manteca Municipal Code Section 17 .08.070 (D). Lathrop's appeal is based on the following:

BACKGROUND
As you are aware, the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan ("Master Plan") is a 300-acre industrial master planned-area, located in the northwest corner of Manteca ("City"), adjacent to the Union Pacific Lathrop Intermodal Terminal. The Master Plan area land uses are industrial and commercial. By the action taken on November 17, 2022, Manteca's Planning Commission adopted and approved the MND and the application for the above referenced Project, altering the environmental effects analyzed in Manteca's original Master Plan Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") and circulation pattern of the Master Plan. Lathrop finds these Project approvals deficient and in violation of law for the following reasons:

I. FIRST REASON TO REVERSE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL:

THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH MANTECA'S MASTER PLAN EIR The project has been conditioned to divert truck traffic from Airport Way to Roth Road. Doing so compromises the EIR and the Master Plan. More specifically, as noted in Conditions of Approval #8 d, ( ... "semi-truck and trailer access to this project site shall be via Intermodal Way while all other automobile and motorcycle traffic shall continue to be permitted to access this project via Airport Way").

Such diversion will affect the traffic analysis and trip distribution for the Master Plan area. It suggests a new, long-term strategy to shift truck traffic away from Airport Way and Lathrop Road with no presently available alternative. Simply stated, if anticipated traffic is diverted to alternative roadways, the llPage
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
distribution of these trips will have impacts unaddressed by the Master Plan EIR and its mitigation measures. Such a significant change in Manteca's strategy ignores Manteca's requirement to bear its share of regional truck trips, which requires a complete environmental analysis that cannot, and has not, been accomplished by the adopted MND.

The Trip Distribution Map (Exhibit 3.12-4) from the Master Plan EIR illustrates this point. This shows the majority of traffic generated by the Master Plan was expected to use Roth road to and from Interstate 5, Airport Way between French Camp Road to points south of Lathrop Road, and Lathrop Road from Interstate 5 to State Route 99. Manteca has failed to approve truck routes (STAA in particular) on segments of two of these (Airport Way south of Lathrop Road, and Lathrop Road east of Airport Way) that were expected to carry 41 % ( 18 % + 23 % ) of traffic to and from the Master Plan area.

Page 3 ends

vehicle trips will be trucks. If trucks are no longer allowed to use Airport way and Lathrop Road, then 22% (41 % x 53%) of truck trips will be routed through Lathrop. With roughly 4,000 total new trips generated, that is 880 more trucks per day through Lathrop ( and 73 per hour - more than one a minute - assuming a 12-hour commercial day) than the Master Plan EIR anticipated. Diversion of these trips greatly changes the impacts on Lathrop roadways and intersections.

CEQA Guidelines section 15162 subdivision (a) directs that when an EIR has been certified and significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of identified significant effects in the original EIR occur, a subsequent or supplemental EIR must be prepared. New information of "substantial importance" means environmental effects that have become more severe than shown in the certified EIR. (14 Code Cal. Regs, §15162 subds. (a) (1), (2), (3). Therefore, without full environmental analysis of the actual effects of the Project, and more specifically the change in the mentioned traffic patterns, there will be significant detrimental effects on Lathrop that will have escaped environmental review. As you are aware, the effects felt outside a project area must always be considered in an adequately prepared environmental study (see CEQA Guidelines§ 15130). For this reason, Lathrop requests the City Council grant Lathrop's appeal, reverse the action taken by the Planning Commission, and order a complete environmental analysis to properly identify and mitigate the Project's impacts on Lathrop and regional roadways.

II. SECOND REASON TO REVERSE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL:

CIRCULATION INCONSISTENT WITH THE MASTER PLAN
Conditions of Approval #8 d (as stated above) which diverts truck traffic from Airport Way is inconsistent with the following Chapters of the Master Plan:
o Chapter 2, Section B.3 "Circulation/ Access"
o Chapter 8, Section B.3 "Circulation"
Diversion of circulation patterns in the Master Plan is not a Minor Adjustment, thus triggering an Amendment to the Master Plan per Chapter 8, Section C 6 "Amendments". Therefore, Planning Commission Resolution No. 1615 is additionally flawed because the Project, as conditioned, is inconsistent with the Master Plan.
21Page
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A

CONCLUSION
Lathrop requests the City Council grant its appeal, order Planning Commission Resolution No's. 1614 and 1615, the MND, and Project approvals rescinded, and direct staff to undertake an appropriate environmental review of the Project and its environmental effects as required by CEQA and other related laws.

Lathrop is supportive of orderly development and encourages the Manteca City Council to correct the action of the Manteca Planning Commission.
'
Director, Community Development
Cc: Honorable Manteca City Council
Manteca City Clerk
Stephen J. Salvatore, City Manager
Michael King, Assistant City Manager
Brad Taylor, City Engineer
Rick Caguiat, Assistant Director, Community Development Salvador Navarrete,
City Attorney
3IPage
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A

Manteca City CouncilJanuary 10, 2023

Manteca City Council
January 10, 2023