RECEIVED
CITY OF MANTECA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIO�l 022
Planning Division, 1001 W. Center Street, Manteca, CA 95337, (209) 456-8500 Fax (209) 923-8949
[email protected]
ENT
. Type of Application
D Annexation D Municipal Code Amendment D Subdivision Map D Rezone/Prezone D General Plan D Parcel Map
0 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 [Si Appeal D Reasonable Accommodation D Sewer Allocation/Point Rating Project Detail
Project Name Airport Business Center North Project
Project Address: 3045,3123,&3157NorthAirportWay APN: 198-200-130, -060, -090 Project Description: The Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance <GSEJA) is appealing the approval of the Airport Business Center North Project SPC 22-45 SCH No. 2022100047 at the Planning Commission meeting held on Dec.15th, 2022. GSEJA believes the MND is flawed and an EIR must be prepared for the proposed project and circulated for public review. See the attached 123 pg. analysis.
Name:
Contact:
Address:
City:
State, Zip:
Phone:
E-mail:
Fax:
Fees
Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Joe Bourgeois
765 N. Main St. Suite 151
Corona
CA. 92880
(951) 279-4697
executived irectar@galdeostateej a com
Name:
Contact:
Address:
City:
State, Zip:
Phone:
E-mail:
Fax:
· Office Use Only-Fees
Account Number Application Type Fees
·>Appellant.,·:·>-:· :i
Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
Peter Sheehan
1265 West Shaw Ave. Suite 100
Fresno
CA 93711
(951) 279-4697
[email protected]
Account Number Application Type
Receipt Number Date Accepted by:
I File Number/
s: ----------------------
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022
environmental effects of the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan and the non-master plan annexations." CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 (f) states that "a later EIR shall be required when the initial study or other analysis finds that the later project may cause significant effects on the environment that were not adequately addressed in the prior EIR." The environmental analysis within the MND severely misrepresents the project and under-represents the project's significant impacts. This on its face warrants the production of an EIR for the proposed project in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 (f). The production of an EIR is also necessary as significant new information has been produced since the August 2010 Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR, including the VMT analysis requirements enacted in 2020 by SB 7 43. These impacts were not addressed at all by the 2010 EIR and an EIR for the later tiered project (Airport Business Center North) must be produced.
Additionally, the MND does not accurately or adequately describe the project, meaning "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment" (CEQA § 153 78). The proposed project is a piecemealed portion of a larger overall project in the immediate vicinity known as Centerpoint Intermodal Center Manteca2 • This project includes at minimum the
following known buildings:
1. Centerpoint South Project aka Pinnacle Commerce (SCH No. 2021040046; 99,514 sf of industrial warehouses developed by Centerpoint; Notice of Determination published March 8, 2022)
2. Centerpoint Building 3 (SCH No. 2010022024; 746,790 sf ofindustrial warehouse developed by Centerpoint; Notice ofDetermination published December 21, 2018)
3. Airport Business Centre Project (SCH No. 2021040045; 141,360 sf of industrial warehouse developed by Centerpoint; Notice of Determination published August 19, 2021) 2 Centerpoint Intermodal Center Manteca https://centerpoint.com/parks/centerpoint-intennodal-centermanteca/
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022
4. Centerpoint Intermodal Way Extension Project (SCH No. 2020050580; Notice of Detem1ination published June 22, 2022) to co1mect the constructed no1ihem portion of Intem10dal Way to the approved� but not yet constructed, portion of Intermodal Way along the l. 15.47 Acres Pre-Oeveloprnent
2. 4.32 Acres For Sale t 801ld to Suit
3. 3.53 Acres For Sale I Build to Suit
4. 60,150SF
5. 5 Acres
6. 404,657 SF
511";·c
,t . ._-i._ � :··
I' iy.d -�. i:, ,:_, ;;,:1
J�'tJ:i�;
�1'..f"fthr \1Jf..�
[.IJ;ifi'f
F :a-fl .\N·: ..i<'·f�
. .�� :.;1. .. ·
. f!t"•Th !'{;)AO
7. 746,790SF Oohverv Summer 2019
8. 278,700 SF
9. S$l.475 SF
-Speculat!ve Site J Leased c:J Available Storage Yard leased Storage Yard western boundary of CenterPoint Container Yard 2. This project is required to provide vehicular access by extending roadways to all of the project sites in the Centerpoint Intermodal Center.
5. GBxManteca (SCH No. 2022060520; 295,176 sf industrial beverage distribution building developed by Centerpoint)
The site plan depicted here includes a partial building layout of the proposed Centerpoint Intermodal Center Manteca3• Centerpoint Intermodal Center Manteca is described as "a 190-acre 3 Centerpoint Intermodal Center Manteca https://centerpoint.com/parks/centerpoint-intermodal-centermanteca/ Page4
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Mallmie Fenrich
November 2, 2022
logistics center." Other materials provide further details noting the park is a "190-acre campus accommodating up to 3.lM SF of warehouse and distribution space.4" Environmental Checklist
III. Air Quality, VI. Energy, and VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Please see attached document for SWAPE's comprehensive technical analysis. The MND does not include for analysis relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed project. This is especially significant as the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.05, CalEPA s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, the proposed project s census tract (6077005119) ranks worse than 98% of the rest of the state overall in pollution burden. The surrounding community, including Discovery Challenge Academy, Central Valley Christian Academy, Widmer Elementary School, residences to the north, west, and east, and adjacent SB 535 Census Tracts 6077005135 ( east), 6077003803 (north), 6077005127 (west), 6077005130 (west), 6077005129 (west), 6077005122 (south), bears the impact of multiple sources of pollution and is more polluted than average on every pollution indicator measured by CalEnviroScreen. For example, the project census tract ranks in the 100th percentile for groundwater threats, 98th percentile for drinking water impacts, 92nd percentile for hazardous waste impacts, 90th percentile for impacts from cleanup sites, and 87th percentile for impaired waters. The project census tract also ranks in the 57th percentile for ozone burden, the 53rd percentile for particulate matter (PM) 2.5 burden, 54th percentile for diesel PM burden, and the 56th percentile for traffic related impacts, which are all typically attributed to heavy vehicular activity in the area.
Further, the census tract is a diverse community including 39% Asian-American, 30% Hispanic, and 9% African-American residents, which are especially vulnerable to the impacts of pollution. The community has a high rate of low educational attainment, meaning 56% of the census tract over age 25 has not attained a high school diploma, which is an indication that they may lack health insurance or access to medical care. Medical care is vital for this census tract as it ranks in the 69th percentile for incidence of asthma and 55th percentile for incidence of cardiovascular disease. The community also has a high rate of linguistic isolation, meaning 58% of the census tract speaks little to no English and faces further challenges and inequities due to this.
4 Centerpoint https://centerpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/02-Manteca-Pad-Read v-2pg-Rl. pdf 5 CalEnviroScreen 4 .0 https:// oehha.ca. gov /calenviroscreen/re port/calenviroscreen-40
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022
Additionally, the project s census tract (6077005119) and the census tracts adjacent to the project site (6077005135 (east), 6077003803 (north), 6077005127 (west), 6077005130 (west), 6077005129 (west), 6077005122 (south)) are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities6, which is not discussed or presented for analysis in the MND.
California s Building Energy Code Compliance Software (CBECC) is the State's only approved energy compliance modeling software for non-residential buildings in compliance with Title 247 •
CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. 111e CalEEMod-based modeling in Appendix A does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and under-reports the project s significant Energy impacts and fuel consumption to the public and decision makers. Since the MND did not accurately or adequately model the energy impacts in compliance with Title 24, a finding of significance must be made. An EIR with modeling using the approved software (CBECC) must be circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the projects significant environmental impacts. This is vital as the MND utilizes CalEEMod as a source in its methodology and analysis, which is clearly not the approved software.
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." 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:
1. 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.
2. LU-I-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.
3. 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. 6 OEHHA SB 535 Census Tracts https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535 7 California Energy Commission 2022 Energy Code Compliance Software https :/ /www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/pro grams/building-energy-efficiencv-standards/2022- building-energ -efficiency-1
Page6
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022
4. 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 (SJCOG) adopted 2018 RTP/SCS8
• 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 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 Administration9 provides the following applicable employment generation rate for refrigerated warehouses:
8 SJCOG 2018 RTP/SCS https://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenterNiew/4156/Final-Compiled-RTPSCS2018 9 US EIA Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, Table BI: 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 Page?
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022
No Refrigeration: 1 employee per 1,224 square feet
Applying this ratio results in the following calculation:
Non-Refrigerated: 360,000 sf/ 1,224 = 295
Total: 295 employees
SJCOG' s Population, Household, and Employment Projections 10 notes that the City will add approximately 5,624 jobs between 2020 - 2045. Utilizing the U.S. EIA calculation of 295 employees, the project represents 5.2% of the City s employment growth from 2020 - 2045. A single project accounting for this amount of the projected employment growth over 29 years 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. For example, other recent industrial projects such as GBxManteca (246 employees) combined with the proposed project will cumulatively generate 541 employees, which is 9.6% of the City's employment growth forecast over 29 years and a large percentage to be attributed to only two development projects. 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.
The MND states that "The Project site is currently vacant and does not contain housing. The proposed Project would not displace housing or people," to conclude the project will have less than significant impacts. This is contradictory to the Project Description that states "A rural residence is located in the northeastern quadrant." The site contains existing housing and the MND has not adequately or accurately analyzed the project's potentially significant environmental impacts. An EIR must be prepared to include information and analysis regarding the existing onsite housing at the project site in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.
XVII. Transportation
Appendix B: Traffic Impact Analysis presents the project's trip generation forecast in Table 1:
Airport Business Centre North Project (3157 N. Airport Way) Trip Generation Rates. However, it does not specify the ITE Land Use Code that was utilized to model the proposed project. The Project Description states that the building will operate as a distribution facility, which corresponds 10 SJCOG's 2018 RTP/SCS Appendix R- Population, Household, and Employment Projections https://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/3722/Final-2018-RTPSCS-Technical-Appendix-R-- Population-Household-and-Employment-Projections?bidid=
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022
to ITE Land Use Code 155 High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse. An EIR must be prepared to state the ITE Land Use Code utilized to model the proposed project in the MND and the EIR must model the project as ITE Land Use Code 155 High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse in accordance with building operations as described in the Project Description.
The MND is internally inconsistent in its analysis of the proposed project, rendering it an inadequate informational document. The Transportation analysis concludes that Citywide VMT Per Industrial Employee will decrease by 0.6% from 75.3 to 74.8 VMT per employee.
Alternatively, the Population and Housing analysis relies upon the notion that operational jobs would be filled by local residents and "the surrounding communities" to conclude the project will have less than significant impacts. The Transportation analysis relies upon a workforce in close proximity to the project in order to artificially reduce impacts, yet the Population and Housing analysis relies on the entire available workforce/housing stock of the SJ COG area to provide and absorb its workforce and demonstrate there will be no significant impacts. The Transportation analysis must be revised to reflect longer trip distances that employees will realistically travel to work at the proposed project. The EIR must also include a construction worker employment trip analysis must also be included to adequately and accurately analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts.
The MND does not provide a threshold of significance related to VMT and utilizes the unsubstantiated finding that the project will reduce Citywide VMT from 75.3 miles per employee to 74.8 miles per employee as the reasoning fo
r a less than significant project impact. The MND
does not demonstrate how an alleged reduction of 0.5 vehicle miles traveled per employee meets the SB 7 43 requirements and will not result in a significant impact. This is misleading to the public and decision makers. An EIR must be prepared to include a legitimate VMT reduction and comply with CEQA's requirements for meaningful disclosure. This is vital as the Population and Housing analysis states that the project will be filled by "the existing labor force within Manteca and the surrounding communities," and the geographic area of the surrounding communities is undefined.
Relying upon the labor force of the greater region and potentially the entire San Joaquin County area will serve to increase VMT per employee significantly.
The MND also states that "construction of the Airport Business Centre North Project will improve the jobs to housing balance in the City of Manteca" without providing any information on the current quantity of jobs or housing units in the City. There js also no information on the existing unemployment rates or the quantity of people that are qualified for work in the industrial sector.
An EIR must be prepared to provide meaningful evidence to support this claim, particularly as the MND relies on this unsupported assumption to conclude that the project "will result in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions reductions."
Page9
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022
Appendix B sources the Govemor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 2018 CEQA Guidelines Update and Technical Advisory 11 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. Once employees arrive at work, they will conduct their jobs by driving delivery vans across the region as part of the daily operations as a distribution facility, which will drastically increase project-generated VMT. The project's truck/trailer and delivery van 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 truck/trailer and delivery van activity to adequately and accurately analyze the potentially significant project transportation impacts.
Further, the MND states that "The Baseline VMT and Cumulative Project VMT was developed using the City of Manteca travel demand model that was derived from the San Joaquin Council of Government's (SJCOG) Regional Travel Demand Model. The model was developed in 2020 and calibrated to adjusted pre COVID-19 traffic counts." However, the City ofManteca travel demand model software utilized is not included as a reference. An EIR must be prepared to state the name 11 Governor's Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQ A https :// opr .ca.gov/ ceq a/ docs/20190122-743 Technical Advisory. pdf
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022
of the City of Manteca TDM utilized and also provide a web link to the software in order to comply with CEQA' s requirements for meaningful disclosure and incorporation by reference because the City ofManteca TDM contributes directly to analysis of the problem at hand (CEQA § 15150 (f)).
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
In analyzing the project's cumulative impacts, the MND states that "the City of Manteca maintains a list of ongoing commercial and industrial development, as provided in the "Ongoing Projects" list in Appendix F." However, there is no further information given and the list of ongoing development is not included. Notably, the list of appendices in the table of contents ends at Appendix D: MMRP for the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan and nothing is listed regarding an Appendix E or F. An EIR must be prepared that includes a cumulative 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 cumulative analysis.
Additionally, this section does not discuss any of the significant and unavoidable impacts generated by the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan BIR/overall Centerpoint Intermodal Center.
The Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR concludes that the project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Agricultural Resources, Air Quality (cumulatively considerable), and 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, 1LP
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022
Attachments:
1. SW APE Technical Analysis
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
I SWAP E I Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
.___ ____ ___.
Litigation Support for the Environment
November 1, 2022
Gary Ho
Blum Collins LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 4880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
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]
Subject: Comments on the Airport Business Centre North Project (SCH No. 2022100047) Dear Mr. Ho,
We have reviewed the October 2022 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND"} for the Airport Business Centre North Project ("Project") located in the City of Manteca ("City"). The Project proposes to construct a 360,00-square-foot ("SF") warehouse building with 335 parking spaces on the
21.3-acre site.
Our review concludes that the 15/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project's air quality and health risk 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 air quality and health risk impacts that the project may have on the environment.
Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The 15/MND's air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with California Emissions Estimator Model ("CalEEMod") Version 2020.4.0 (p. 38). 1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with 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 1 "CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output 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 well as provide justification for the values selected.
When reviewing the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality Technical Information ("AQ Information") 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 may be underestimated. An EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.
Failure to Consider Potential Cold Storage Requirements Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the 11Manteca Airport Business Center North" model includes the entirety of the proposed warehouse land use space as "Unrefrigerated WarehouseNo Rail" (see excerpt below) {Appendix A, pp. 155}. 150.00
Parl<lngLot 13.04 . ..
General Office Building
· E
10.00 · :
MeirtC:
Acre 13.04 : 568,0:U .. 40
·��� �--+-���-----+--------���� 1000sqft 0.2s : m,000.00 As demonstrated in the excerpt above, the model does not include any refrigerated warehouse space whatsoever. However, this is incorrect, as the 15/MND mentions that the warehouse will operate as a distribution facility (p. 1). As such, the proposed distribution facility may require cold storage. Therefore, as refrigerated warehouse space is the most energy-intensive, the Project should have included all of the proposed warehouse space as cold storage in order to conduct the most conservative analysis.
This inconsistency presents an issue, as refrigerated warehouses release more criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions than non-refrigerated warehouses. First, warehouses equipped with cold storage, such as refrigerators and freezers, are known to consume more energy when compared to warehouses without cold storage. 2 Second, warehouses equipped with cold storage typically require refrigerated trucks, which are known to idle for much longer when compared to unrefrigerated hauling trucks. 3 Third, 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 non-refrigerated hauling trucks.4 Furthermore, 11CEQA requires the use of 'conservative analysis' to afford 'fullest possible protection of 2 "Warehouses." Business Energy Advisor, available at: https://ouc.bizenergyadvisor.com/article/warehouses. 3 "Estimation of Fuel Use by Idling Commercial Trucks." Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board, January 2006, p. 8, available at:
https:ljwww.researchgate.net/publication/245561735 Estimation of Fuel Use by Idling Commercial Trucks. 4 "Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage" Presentation. SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee, July 2014, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-ratestudy-for-air-quality-analysis/finaltrucktripstudymsc072514.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 7, 9. 2 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
the environment."' 5 As such, the model should have included the warehouse space as refrigerated in order account for the additional emissions that refrigeration requirements may generate.
By failing to account for potential cold storage requirements, the model may underestimate the Project's operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared to account for the potential refrigerated warehouse needs.
Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the " Airport Business Centre North Project" model includes several reductions to the default architectural coating emission factors (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 156).
Table Name ·· .,. I
100.00 000
V�V�ft-·�··- Mff�·-��··*"·� �-��w-�w---��···�·--·�� «MW·---��-1---��- -� � ------ *�·"·�---���-·•R•=*��--�·- tblArchrtecturalCoating : EF _Residentta1_1nterior : ·150.00 0 .. 00 ·------··----------···-····--4-·-···-·-·-····-·---·-·-·-- --1-���������-�- � ---------·-·· ··--·-···-·· tblAreaCoating : A.rea_EF _Nonresidential_lnterlo! : 150 0 ·-. ---· ... - ·-. -· ---·- ........ 4. - . - ------- - .. ---- ----- - - - .. . ..... --- ---- - - . - -- . « --- - • -- • • - <•• • - • - ttAA.reaCoaoog : A1ea _Ef_ Residenbat _ :ii.efi : : � :-: O . --·-····-·« •<••-·-·····---�-----·---· ····-·-·-·-·*·-···"-��---�� --�--.p.. ................................... ......
As demonstrated in the excerpt above, the residential and nonresidential interior architectural and area coating emission factors are each reduced from the default value of 150- to 0-grams per liter ("g/L"). As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified. 6 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table, the justifications provided for these changes are:
"100 g/L for exterior coating limitations provided per rule 4601. No interior coatings for this project," and "This project does not contain interior coatings." (Appendix A, pp. 155).
Furthermore, the IS/MND includes Mitigation Measure ("MM") AIR-lb which states:
"During the architectural coating phase for all Master Plan uses, paints with a volatile organic compound content less than 10 grams per liter shall be used" (p. 7).
However, the reductions to the architectural and area coating emission factors remains unsubstantiated as MM AIR-lb fails to require the Project use specific coatings. As such, the Project cannot simply assume that all coatings used during project construction and operation will have a voe content of less than 10 g/L.
These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the architectural and area coating emission factors to calculate the Project's reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound 5 "Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage'1 Presentation. SCAQMD Inland Empire Logistics Council, June 2014, available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-triprate-study-for-air-quality-analysis/final-ielc 6-19-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 3. 6 "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.
3 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
("ROG11
/"VOC") emissions.7 Thus, by including underestimated reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors, the model may underestimate the Project's construction-related and operational ROG/VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Failure to Substantiate Amount of Material Import or Export According to the CalEEMod User's Guide:
"Grading involves the cut and fill of land to ensure that the proper base and slope is created for the foundation." 8
As demonstrated above, grading involves the use of material import (fill) and export (cut). However, the IS/MND fails to discuss construction or grading whatsoever. Furthermore, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Manteca Airport Business Center North" model fails to include any amount of material import or export. As such, the models may underestimate the amount of material import and export required during Project construction.
This potential underestimation presents an issue, as the inclusion of material import and export within the models is necessary to calculate emissions produced from material movement, which includes truck loading and unloading, as well as additional hauling truck trips. 9 As the 15/MND fails to substantiate any amount of material import or export, the models may underestimate the Project's construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared to verify the amount of required material import and export and revise the models, if necessary.
Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact In an effort to more accurately estimate the Project's construction-related emissions, we prepared an updated CalEEMod model, using the Project-specific information provided by the IS/MND. In our updated model, we omitted the unsubstantiated changes to the operational vehicle fleet mix and excluded the incorrect mobile- and water-related operational mitigation measures. 10 Our updated analysis estimates that the Project's construction-related voe emissions exceed the applicable San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District ("SJVAPCD") threshold of 100 pounds per day ("lbs/day") (see table below). 11
7 11
CalEEMod User's Guide." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide. p. 35, 40.
8 "CalEEMod User's Guide." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https:llwww.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide. p. 32.
9 "CalEEMod User's Guide." California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https:ljwww.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 34.
10 See Attachment A for updated air modeling.
11 "San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District." SJVAPCD, June 2012, available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/FY1-329.pdf, p. 1. 4 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
voe
Model
SWAPE
SJVAPCD Threshold
Exceeds?
(losrnav)
262.5
100
Yes
As demonstrated above, construction-related VOC emissions, as estimated by SWAPE, exceed the applicable SJVAPCD significance threshold. Thus, our model demonstrates that the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not previously identified or addressed by the IS/MND. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the environment.
Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis r'HRA"). Instead, the IS/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 construction and 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 operational DPM would be approximately 4.62, and from construction DPM 1.581, for a total of 6.20, well below the SJVAPCD threshold of 10 that would require development of air toxics Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that includes air dispersion modeling" (p. 40).
As demonstrated above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact based on the estimated prioritization score of 6.20. However, the IS/MN D's evaluation of the Project's potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect.
Regardless of the SJVAPCD's Prioritization Calculator, the California Department of Justice ("DOJ') recommends that all warehouse products conduct a quantitative HRA. Specifically, the State of California Department of Justice recommends that warehouse projects prepare a quantitative HRA pursuant to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA11 ), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air district guidelines. 12 OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for 12 "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/odfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6. 5 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015. 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. 13 Furthermore, according to OEHHA:
"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)." 1 4 Thus, as the Project's anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month Thus, as the Project's anticipated construction duration will likely exceed the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA, as corroborated by SWAPE's Ca IEE Mod model, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire construction period. 15 Furthermore, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate the individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident ("MEIR"). 16 While the Project documents fail to provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, operation of the Project also exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the entire 30-year residential exposure duration, as indicated by OEHHA guidance. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, an EIR should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions.
Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially ignificant Health Risk Impact In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model. 17 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated ("CAPCOA") guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments ("HRSAs"). 18• 19 A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.
13 "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. 14 11
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. 15 See Attachment A for expected construction duration. 16 "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. 2-4. 17 "AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model," U.S. EPA, April 2011, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411 AERSCREEN Release Memo.pdf 18 "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. 19 "Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects." CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA HRA LU Guidelines 8-6-09.pdf. 6 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Projecfs construction and operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the IS/MND's CalEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life. The IS/MND's construction CalEEMod emissions indicate that construction activities will generate approximately 278 pounds of DPM over the 664-day construction period. 20 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:
. . (
grams)
_
277.9 lbs 453.6 grams .1 day 1 hour
Emission Rate d - 664 d x lb x 24 h x 3 600 d = 0. 00219 g/s secon ays s ours , secon s
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00219 grams per second ("g/s").
Subtracting the 664-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project's operational DPM for an additional 28.18 years. SWAPE's operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 80 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation:
(
grams) 79.6 lbs 453.6 grams 1 day 1 hour
Emission Rate d = x x x - 0 00114 g/s
secon 365 days lbs 24 hours 3,600 seconds - ·
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00114 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated as a 21.3-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 415- by 208-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.
An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of Manteca was obtained from U.S. 2020 Census data. 21 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The U.S. EPA suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures. 22 According to the IS/MND the closest sensitive receptors are the rural residential properties located adjacent to the Project site (p. 40). However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the MEIR is located approximately 200 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 1.214 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 20 See Attachment B for calculations.
21 "Manteca." U.S. Census Bureau, 2020, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geold/0645484. 22 "Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised." U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019 OCR.pdf. 7 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
200 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.1214 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the singlehour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 0.6325 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 200 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.06325 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SJVAPCD.23 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including highpoint estimate (i.e; 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors ("ASF") in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the daily breathing rates {"BR/BW"), exposure duration ("ED"), age sensitivity factors rASF"), fraction of time at home ("FAH"), and exposure frequency ("EF") utilized for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:
Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Breathing Age Exposure Fraction of Exposure Exposure
Age Group Rate Sensitivity Duration Time at Frequency Time (L/kg-day) 24 Factor 25 (years} Home26 ( days/year)27 (hours/day) 3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 0.85 350 24
Infant (O - 2) 1090 10 2 0.85 350 24
Child (2 - 16) 572 3 14 0.72 350 24
Adult (16 - 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
23 "Update to District's Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA's Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document." SJVAPCD, May 2015, available at: https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/staff-report-5-28-15.pdf. 24 "Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics 'Hot Spots' Information and Assessment Act." SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/p1anning/riskassessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=l9, p. 19; see also "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. 25 "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. 8-5 Table 8.3. 26 "Risk Assessment Procedures." SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures 2017 080717.pdf, p. 7. 27 "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. 5-24. 8 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify do se for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor {"CPF") in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1
) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm:
where:
DoseAIR,peragegroup = Cair X EF X [::1 X A X CF
D0seA1R = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Ca1r = concentration of contaminant in air {µg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A= inhalation absorption factor (default= 1)
CF = conversion factor (lxl0-6, µg to mg, L to m3)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:
where:
ED
Cancer RiskAIR = DoseAIR X CPF X ASF X FAH X AT
D0seA1R = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT= averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 664-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy {0.25 years), and the first 1.57 years of the infantile stage of life (O - 2 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 0.43 years of the infantile stage of life, as well as the entire child {2 -16) and adult (16- 30 years) stages of life. The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.
9 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration Cancer Risk (ug/m3) 3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.1214 1.40E-06
Construction 1 .. ,J 0.12L4 2.bbE 0'7
Operauon 0.41 0.06:U 1 &ot n6
Infant (O - 2) Total 2 3.04E-05
Child (2 - 16} Operation 14 0.0633 l.65E-OS
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0633 2.54E-06
Lifetime 30 S.OSE-05
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for the 3 rd trimester of pregnancy, infants,
children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 200 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 1.4, 30.4, 16.5, and 2.54 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 50.8 in one million. The infant and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SJVAPCD threshold of 20 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND.
Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between Project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts. According to the U.S. EPA:
"EPA's Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments iteratively using a tiered approach to 'strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinemenf (U.S.
EPA, 1992).
In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier) of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening-level assessment).
The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screeninglevel assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models." As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. Thus, as our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project 10 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, an EIR analysis should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.
Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant air quality and health risk impacts that should be mitigated further. As such, in an effort to reduce the Project's emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, to reduce the Project's emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAG's 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR'sAir Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures ("PMM-AQ-1") as described below: 28 SCAG RTP /SCS 2020-2045
Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures - PMM-AQ-1:
In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(l)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Minimize land disturbance.
b) Suspend grading and earth moving when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soil is wet enough to prevent dust plumes.
c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt.
d) Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately. e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved surfaces and stabilize any temporary roads. f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. g) Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway.
h) Revegetate disturbed land, including vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road vehicular activities.
j) Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (SO horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARS-approved fleet.
k) Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. 28 "4.0 Mitigation Measures." Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/fpeir connectsocal addendum 4 mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420. p. 4.0-2 -4.0-10; 4.0-19 -
4.0-23; See also: "Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report." Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020. available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir. 11 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
I) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes-saves fuel and reduces emissions. m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust; watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service.
Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site. q) Require projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools to use Tier 4 equipment for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp) unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. r) Projects located within the South Coast Air Basin should consider applying for South Coast AQMD "SOON" funds which provides funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially available low-emission heavyduty engines to achieve near-term reduction of NOx emissions from in-use off-road diesel vehicles. s) Projects located within AB 617 communities should review the applicable Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) for additional mitigation that can be applied to individual projects. t) Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools, including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE), and Why Air Quality Matters programs.
u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors).
Furthermore, additionally mitigation measures can be found in the Department of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices document.29 Therefore, to further reduce the Project's emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made:
• Requiring off-road construction equipment to be zero-emission, where available, and all dieselfueled off-road construction equipment, to be equipped with CARB Tier IV-compliant engines or better, and including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts, with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities. • Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the 11 on11 position for more than 10
hours per day.
• Requiring on-road heavy-duty haul trucks to be model year 2010 or newer if diesel-fueled. 29 "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. 6-9. 12 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
• Providing electrical hook ups to the power grid, rather than use of diesel-fueled generators, for electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools whenever feasible.
• Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area. • Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for particulates or ozone for the project area.
• Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than two minutes. • Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications.
• Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts. • Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings that have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L.
• Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction employees.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for construction employees.
• Requiring that all facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025. Facility operators shall maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. • Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030.
• Requiring on-site equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be electric with the necessary electrical charging stations provided.
• Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations.
• Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use.
• Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the air district, and the building manager.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer's recommended maintenance intervals, air filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the project.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer's recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project, and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not 13 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air.
• Constructing electric truck charging stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
• Constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door, if the warehouse use could include refrigeration.
• Constructing electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of parking spaces at the project.
• Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity, such as equal to the building's projected energy needs. • Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel. • Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks. • Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages singleoccupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation, including carpooling, public transit, and biking.
• Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking. • Achieving certification of compliance with LEED green building standards. • Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations. • Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route. • Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project area.
• Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB-approved courses. Also require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. • Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency's SmartWay program, and requiring tenants to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers. • Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.
These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation.
Furthermore, as it is policy of the State that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045, we emphasize the applicability of incorporating solar power system into the Project design. Until the feasibility of incorporating on-site renewable energy production is considered, the Project should not be approved.
14 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
An EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project's significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.
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 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,
I I
/t( l�·Z,,)(/t·U ... -- -·
Matt Hagemann, P .G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Attachment A: Updated CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment B: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment C: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment D: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment E: Paul Rosenfeld CV
15 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Manteca Airport Business Center North
San Joaquin County, Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Attachment A
General Office Building : 10.00 : 1000sqft : 0.23 : 10,000.00 I 0 -·-········-------------------J------------------------------1-------------------------------�--------------l------------------+-···-···--···-- Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail : 350.00 : 1000sqft : 8.03 : 350,000.00 I 0 ·····-------------------------;-------------······-··········-=--------------------------------1---------------�------------- ---�----------·-··· Parking Lot 13.04 Acre 13.04 568,022.40 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
2 Wind Speed (m/s)
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
2.7 0.033
Precipitation Freq (Days)
Operational Year
N20 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Land Use - See SWAPE's comments on ''Failure to Consider Potential Cold Storage Requirements" Construction Phase - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Grading - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
51 2024
0.004
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Architectural Coating - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Vehicle Trips - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Fleet Mix - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
tblConstDustMitigation CleanPavedRoadPercentReduction 0 I I
9 ·····························4·····························-1------------------------------+·························· tblConstDustMitigation : WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed : 0 I 5 - - . -••• - - - - - - - - - . - ••..•• - .••. -I - .•......•••••.... - •.•...••.• .;.-----------------------------+ ......................... . tblFleetMix : HHD : 0.02 I 0.20 ••.•••••••••.•••••••.••••••.• 4 •••••••••.••••••••••••••••••• .;..-----------------------------+·························· tblFleetMix : LOA : 0.54 l 0.44 ............................. � ............................. .;..-----------------------------+ ......................... . tblFleetMix : LDT1 : 0.05 I 0.04 ··-----·········--·-----·--·-�·-················-······---·.;..------- ---------------------+----·-·---·-··-------·--·- tblFleetMix : LDT2 : 0.17 I 0.14 ·····························4·····························-1------------------------------+·························· tblFleetMix • LHD1 • 0.03 1 0.02 • • I
•••••••••••.•••••.•••.••••••• 4 •••••..••••••••••••••••••• ••• .;..-----------------------------+·························· tblFleetMix : LHD2 : 6.2410e-003 I 5.1060e-003 -···························-4-----··-··----------·-···----.;..-----------------------------+········-·····-·-········· tblFleetMix : MCY : 0.02 I 0.02 ·····························4··························----1------------------------------+···-···················-·· tblFleetMix • MDV • 0.15 t 0. 12 • • I
--·····--------------···----- ·------·---------------···----.;..-----------------------------+----··--------··-·--··-··· tblFleetMix : MH : 3.5220e-003 I 2.8810e-003 ••••••••••
tblF
l
eetMix
•••••••••• � •••••••••••• 0
MHD
•••••••••••• -:-------------
0.01 -------------t ••••••••
8 .
7350e003
••••••••
• • I
·························-··-4·-··········-·····-·········-.;.-----------------------------+·························· tblFleetMix : OBUS : 4 7100e-004 I 0.00 ···-··············--·-··-·---�------·······················.;..-----------------------------+·······················-·· tblFleetMix • SBUS • 1.1190e-003 1 0.00 • • I
.••••••••••••••.•••••.••••••• 4 •••••••••••••••••••••..•••••• .;.-----------------------------+·························· tblFlee!Mix : UBUS : 3.2500e004 ! 0.00 ·····························4·····························+------------------------------+·························· tblVehicleTrips : ST_TR : 2.21 I 0.00 ·······---······--··--·····--4···-·-·······------·-··--·---.;..-----------------------------+·····------·-···-········· tblVehicleTrips : ST_TR : 2.12 I 3.88 ·····························-1·························-···-1------------------------------+····-·-··················· tblVehicleTrips : SU_TR : 0.70 j 0.00 ·····························4·····························-1------------------------------+·························· tblVehicleTrips : SU_TR : 2.12 I 3.88 ·····-··-------·-·-·····-----4·--········-················-.,1------------------------------+····-·-···········-···-··· tblVehicleTrips : VIID_TR : 9.74 I 0.00 ...•••••.•••••••••.••.••••• - . -I •••••••.••••• -•••• - •••• - - .••• -1-------------------------------1, ... .. ................ .... . tblVehicleTrips : WD_TR : 2.12 : 3.88
2.0 Emissions Summary
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
2022 ., 0.0891 • 0.9092 • 0.6796 , 1.3900e- • 0.2331 • 0.0410 • 0.2741 • 0.0989 • 0.0378 • 0.1367 t 0.0000 • 122.0474 • 122.0474 • 0.0371 • 1.0000e- • 123.0036 :: : : :003 : ! ! : : : I : ! : :004 :
•• I I I I I 1 I 1 I & I I I I I
. - .. ..... .. ... •1-------.,-------.,--------,-------.,-------...--------. ------.,-------.,-------.,..---____ ,. .... ... · ·-------.. -------.,-------,-------..... .. -.. 2023 :: 0.3748 : 2.9049 ; 3.5265 : 0.0108 : 0.5995 : 0.1019 : 0.7013 ! 0.1620 : 0.0958 : 0.2578 ! 0.0000 : 988.0697 : 988.0697 : 0.0888 : 0.0641 : 1,00� .391
•l I I I I I I I I I l I I I I l
•• ••-•• • •·-�-------,-------,-------,-------,-------, ------�-------, ------..,-------.,..-------�•�•••• •1-------""t-------,--------,-------T••••••• 2024 :: 2.8129 : 1.3587 : 1.7613 : 5.2ig�e- : 0.2536 : 0.0456 • 0.2992 0.0688 0.0429 : 0.1117 f 0.0000 : 481.3163 : 481.3163: 0.0445 : 0.0302 : 491.4125 : t : :
Maximum 2.8129 2.9049 3.5265 0.0108 0.5995 0.1019
Mitigated Construction
0.7013 0.1620 0.0958 0.2578 0.0000 988.0697 988.0697 0.0888 0.0641 1,009.391 2022 :: 0.0091 : o.9092 : o.6796 : 1.3itt· : 0.2328 : 0.0410 : 0.2738 : o.0989 : o.0378 : 0.1367 l 0.0000 : 122.0412 : 122.0412 : 0.0311 : 1. o g
0 o
4 0e- : 123.0035
··········-�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------� ------..:..------� ------�-------.:--------!-------�------..:-------� ------..:-------�---···· 2023 :: o.3748 : 2.9049 : 3.5265 : 0.0108 : o.5613 : 0.1019 : o.6632 : o.1527 : o.0958 : o.2484 I 0.0000 : 988.0693 ; 988.0693 : o.0888 : o.0641 : 1.00� _391
•• I I I I I I I I I I, 1 I I I I •••••••••••�-------�-------� ------�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------� ------T-------�•-••••••-------�-------..,-------�-------�••••••• 2024 al 2.8129 1.3587 I 1.7613 : 5.2iite- : 0.2347 I 0.0456 0.2803 I 0.0642 : 0.0429 I 0.1070 i 0.0000 : 481.3161 : 481.3161 : 0.0445 I 0.0302 : 491.4123 Maximum 2.8129" 2.9049 3.5265
I I I j I I I 1
0.0108 0.5613 0.1019 0,6632 0.1527 0.0958 0.2484 0.0000 988.0693 988.0693 0.0888 0.0641 1,009.391 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 37 Date: 11/1/20221:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Percent
Reduction
2 3
4 6
7 10-15-2022
1-15-2023
4-15-2023
7-15-2023
10-15-2023
1-15-2024
4-15-2024
7-15-2024
1-14-2023
4-14-2023
7-14-2023
10-14-2023
1-14-2024
4-14-2024
7-14-2024
9-30-2024
Highest
0.00 0.00
1.1988 1.1988
0.8013 0.8013
0.7965 0.7965
0.8077 0.8077
0.8155 0.8155
0.7702 0.7702
0.8186 0.8186
2.4504 2.4504
2.4504 2.4504
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
Area :: 1.
7052 ! 3.
oggie- : 3.4gg�e- : 0.
0000 : : 1
.oggie- : 1.oggie- : : 1
.0
0 ogie- : 1.oggie- l 0.0000 : 6
.
6 Jg�e- : 6
.6a7gfe- : 2
.og
0 oie- : 0.0000 : 1.1gg�-
•• I t I I I I I I I l I I I I I
••••••• ••••.-------�-------�-------�-------�-------� -------ra------�-------...-------"T'"-------�•••• ••••-------�-------�-------�-------T••••• • En
e
rgy : 3
.
0 0
1gie- : 0
.
0274 : 0.
0230 : 1.agg1e-
; : 2 .oig�e-
: 2.oigfe-
; : 2.oggfe-
; 2.oggfe- i 0.0000 ; 663.0279 : 663.0279 ; o
. 1030 : 0.0130 : 669.4664
•• I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I
•••• �•-••�•a-------,-------,-------� ------,-------, ------,-------,-------,-------'T"-------;•• • •--•1-------,-------, ------,-------T••• •• • Mobile :: 0.5926 : 3.5782 : 5
.
9378 ! 0.0230 : 1.5132 ! 0.0313 ! 1.5445 : 0.4064 : 0.0297 ! 0.4361 i 0.0000 ; 2, 16� .855 : 2, 16�
.855 ! 0.0639 : 0.2256 ! 2,23�
.684
at I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
------· -- ----------,-------�-------, ------� ------...--------,-------,-------,-------�-------;- -- --- -.-------,-------� ------,-------�- ------ Waste , , : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 68.671 8 : 0.0000 : 68.6718 : 4.
0584 : 0.0000 ; 170.
1316
•• I I I I I I I I I I I I
···········=-------.:-------�-------� ------.:..------�-------.:-------�-------.:...------�-------�-·-----:-------�-------.:-------�-------�------· Wat
e
r
.,
: : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 z 26.2416 : 41.7636 : 68.0052 : 2.7020 : 0.0645 ; 154.7648 Total 2.3008
I t I I I I I j I I I I
t I I I I I ' t I I I
3.6056 5.9642 0.0232 1.5132 0.0334 1.5466 0.4064 0.0318 0.4382 94.9134 2,873.653 2,968.566 6.9274 4 8
0.3030 3,232.054
9 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applled
2.2 Overall Operational
Mitigated Operatjonal
Area •• 1.7052 • 3.0000e- • 3.4200e- • 0.0000 • • 1.0000e- • 1.0000e- • • 1.0000e- • 1.0000e- ' 0.0000 , 6.6700e- , 6.6700e- • 2.0000e- • 0.0000 • 7.1000e- :: : 005 : 003 : : : 005 : 005 : : 005 ; 005 t : 003 : 003 : 005 : : 003 a1 I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I
Energy :: 3.0100e- � 0.0274 � 0.0230 � 1.6000e- � � 2.0800e- � 2.0800e- � � 2.0800e- i 2.0800e- 1 0.0000 : 663.0279 ":"" 663.0279 � 0.1030 � 0.0130 -;- 669.4664 :: 003 ! : ! 004 : ! 003 : 003 : ; 003 : 003 f : : : ! ! at I I I I I I I , I I I t I I I
Mobile :: 0.5926 : 3.5782 : 5.9378 : 0.0230 : 1.5132 : 0.0313 : 1.5445 : 0.4064 : 0.0297 : 0.4361 1 0.0000 : 2,168.855: 2,168.855: 0.0639 : 0.2256 : 2,237.684 :
: : ! : : : : : : : t : 2 : 2 : : : g
.. - - ........ - ... - .. --------,------,-------.,-------,-------..-------.,-------... --------.-------..... -------·. - .... - .. -,-------..-------...-------,-------.,. ..... - ..
Waste •• : : : : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 t 68.6718 : 0.0000 : 68.6718 : 4.0584 : 0.0000 : 170.1316 •1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
···········=-------�-------�-------..:-------�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------J ....... :-------�--------=-------�-------�----··· Water : : : 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 t 26.2416 : 41.7636 : 68.0052 : 2.7020 0.0645 : 154.7648 ' I I I I I
I r t I I
Total 2.3008 3.6056 5.9642 0.0232 1.5132 0.0334 1.5466 0.4064 0.0318 0.4382 94.9134 2,873.653 2,968.566 6.9274 0.3030 3,232.054 Percent
Reduction
0.00 3.0 Construction Detail
0.00 0.00 0.00
f.llQ!tlye i �X�\1!$l' PM10 "' F1.1gltJ:v, .'. . �aµst KPM2,5 ·, .i, F!,Jtt!IO> :'., 1.M10'/''' ; ·tota1>• PM2:s . - > 1»M2,s i Ti>taJ. ;, . f,;·_-1 ..,; ... �':·'·. ..\·
/·�·. ;'
; . ·'\'·. :!-, �,. �-� !�'.,�
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
:Demolition :Demolition :10/15/2022 :11/11/2022 : 5: 20:
4 8
------·1---------------····--·-·1-----------------------1------------�------------4--------�--------�--------------------···-- 2 :Site Preparation :Site Preparation : 11/12/2022 p 1125/2022 : 5: 10:
·------s-----------·----·----··-�----------------------+-------------�-----------4--------4---------�---·-·······--···-··-··-· 3 :Grading :Grading :11/26/2022 :1/13/2023 5: 35:
9 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 4 :Building Construction :Building Construction :1/14/2023 :S/14/2024 , s
: 370:
······-�·······················-�-----------------------+------------+------------�--------�--------+------------------······· 5 :Paving :Paving :s/1512024 :7112/2024 : s: 20:
·······1····-·················--�----------------------�------------1------------_,_--------�--------�---······················ 6 :Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating :7/13/2024 :8/9/2024 s: 20:
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase}: 15
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase}: 105
Acres of Paving: 13.04
Residential Indoor: O; Residential Outdoor: O; Non-Residential Indoor: 540,000; Non-Residential Outdoor: 180,000; Striped Parking Area:
34,081 (Architectural Coating - sqfl)
Demolition :Concrete/Industrial Saws : 11 8.00: 81: 0.73 Demoli
tion
_._ •. __ .• __ • __
_ ._._ •• �Ex
cav
ators
_____ ---__________ _
t _______________
3 1-_______
a
.
o
at ______________
1 sat _ .... _ ... _
0 .
38 Demolition :Rubber Tired Dozers : 2j a
.oo: 247: 0.40
............................ :---------------------------1------------------!-..... -..... ·!-··---··--··-----··-� ............. .
Site Preparation :Rubber Tired Dozers : 3! 8.00: 247: 0.40 •........•............•.... · 1---------------------------1-----------------�-.... -... -.. ·I-··--··-······------� ............. .
Site Preparation :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes : 4j 8.0o: 97: 0.37 ............................ :---------. -----------------1------------------1---. ---. --. --1-··-··--····-----�. -- . -. - . -.. - - - Grading :Ex
cavators : 2! 8.00: 158: 0.38
........................... -1------------------------- --1-----------------4-.. --....... ·1----··-·····-------� ............. .
Grading :Graders : 1 i 8.00: 187: 0.41
- .............. -.............. -. :------------- --------------1-------------------1-.. - .. - - ... - - -...... ·--··-····------� .... - -....... -...
Grading :Rubber Tired Dozers : 1 j a
.oo: 247: 0.40
..... -..................... -=---------------------------1-----------------;-----------··1-··------····-----� - .. -. - .... - .. .
Grading :Scrapers : 21 8.00: 367: 0.48
Grading.······················ :
T
ractors/
Loaders/Backhoes· - --- • -i
----------------
2 i· • • - • • • • •
8 .
00 �·-·
--··--·
·-----
97 �
,
• • • • • • • • • •
0.37 .. I I I
............................ z---------------------------1-----------------,------·-. --__ ,.. ----·-------� ........... -..
Building Construction :cranes : 11 7.00: 231: 0.29
.. ------... -.......... "' -.... "' ...... ---.. - =--------------.. --.. -------- -1-----------------.{- ... - - ...... - - - - - ·I-·-----------·-·----� - - .. - - .. - .... - ...... w Building Construction :Forklifts : 3j 8.00: 89: 0.20
............................ =---------------------------1-----------------;-..... -. -.. -·1----··-····-------� ............. .
Building Construction :Generator Sets : 1 i 8.00: 84: 0.74 .......................... -. :---------------------------!-----------------;-- -.. --. --. --1- ----------------�. - - --- -..... -.
Building Construction :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes : 3j 7.oo: 97: 0.37 •.....••.••.•••..•.••.••... ·I· •••• ---•••••••••• • ••• --•• -1----------------·i· .......... - ·I-··---··-····----···-� ............. .
Building Construction :welders : 11 8.00: 46: 0.45
.................... - ...... - ;. --------------------------1-----------------�--.... --.. - - ·1-····--·--····-----� ............. .
Paving :Pavers : 21 8.00: 130: 0.42
--------··-··········-------�--------------------------+------------------+----------- -+--------------�-------·· -··· Paving :Paving Equipment 2: 8.00; 132: 0.36
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version; CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Paving :Rollers 2: a.oo: so: 0.38
••.. - •••••••••• -• - - - - - -•• - - - •• - -• - - -• - ••••• - -•••.•••••• + .• -••••••••••••• -� •.••.••••••• + •••••.••.•.••••• - ••••••• -. -• Architectural Coating :Air Compressors : 1: 6.0o: 78; 0.48 Trips and VMT
Demolition : s: 15.oo: O.OOl o.oo: 10.80: 7.30: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix :HHDT · · · · - - · · - · · · · • · ·1---------------1-----------1· - · · · · · · · · �- · --- - - ---1-----------1----------4-- - ---· - --1--------------1· · · - · · · - · · + · · · · · · · · · · Site Preparation : 7: 18.oo: O.DOI o.oo: 10.ao: 7.30: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix lHHDT ............... -1---------------1-----------1- ......... �----------1-----------1----------4----------1---- . ---------1· -... ·.· -.. + .•........
Grading : a: 20.00: o.oo: o.oo: 10.ao: 7.30: 20.oo:LD_M1x :HDT_MIX JHHDT · ... · ·. · · - - - - - · -1---------------1-----------1- · · - - · - · · - �-----· · · · -1-----------,----------4- --· -· · -- -1--------------1- · · · · · · · · · "- - · - - · - · - - · Building Construction : s: 389.oo: 152.00I o.oo: 10.ao: 7.30: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix lHHDT -........ · · · · .. ·=---------------1-----------1· · · · · · · · · · �-----· · ---1----------1----------4------- ---1---------- . ---1· - · • · · · · · · + · • · · · · · • · · Paving : s: 15.00: 0.001 o.oo: 10.ao: 7.30: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix lHHDT ··············--�--------------+-----------�----------+----------�----------+-----------J----------.,..-------------�---------...J. ......... .
Architectural Coating : 1: 78.00: o.oo: o.oo: 10.ao: 7.30; 20.oo;LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix :HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
-Clean Paved Roads
3.2 Demolition • 2022
Unmjtjgated Construction On-Site
0.2572
Total 0.0264 0.2572
0.2059 I 3.90008• I
: 004 I
0.2059 3.9000e004
0.0124
0.0124
0.0124 0.0116 0.0116
0.0124 0.0116 0.0116
0.0000 ' 33.9902 33.9902 I 9.55008- I 0.0000 34.2289
: 003 :
0.0000 33.9902 33.9902 9.5500e- 0.0000 34.2289
003
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Demolition • 2022
unmitigated constructjon Off-Site
Hauling :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 f 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 a1 I I I I I I I I I A: I I I I
•• l l t I I I I I I ' 1 I I I I
Vendor � 0.0000 : 0.0000 ! 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 i I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I
- - • - .. - .. - .. - .. :.:-------..:-------.: ------�-------�-------�-------�-------.:-------�-------..:..-------� .... - .. - ... -:-------..:-------�-------�-------.:.. - I,, - .........
Worker :
: 4.70
ogJe- : 3.3
ggJe- : 3.7lg�e-
: 1.
0 0
ogie-
: 1
.�0
o�e- : 1
.0
0 ogia- : 1.�gie- : 3.2ggJe- : 1.o
ggie- : 3.2c?ci°4
oe- i 0.0000 : o .9702 : 0.9702 : 3. oggie-
: 3. o
g
0 o
5 ae-
: 0.9797
I I I I I & I I I I
Total 4.7000e- 3.3000e- 3.7300e- 1.0000e- 1.1900e- 1.0000e- 1.2000e- 3.2000e- 1.0000e- 3.2000e- � � � � � � � � � � Mitigated Construction On-Site
Off-Road 0.0264 0.2572
Total 0.0264 0.2572
0.2059 I 3.90008- I
: 004 !
I I
0.2059 3.9000e004
0.0124 0.0124 0.011
6 0.0116
0.0124 0.0124 0.0116 0.0116
0.0000 0.9702
0.0000 33.9902
0.9702 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.9797
005 005
33.9902 I 9.55008• I 0.0000
: 003 :
34.2289
0.0000 33.9902 33.9902 9.5500e- 0.0000 34.2289
003
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applled
3.2 Demolition - 2022
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
Hauling :: 0.0000 ! 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 . -......... -::-------�------.:-------.:-------�-------�-------�------�-------�-------.:--------" - . -.. --:-------�-------� ------�-------� ........ ..
Vendor :
: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 t 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •t I I • I I I I I I l I I I • '
a1 I I I I I I I I • I, I I I I I
- ....... - - . - .... -111--------,--------,--------,--------.---------,-------,-------,-------.. -------,--------.. .......... - -,-------,-------,-------.. --------r ..... "' .... -..
Worker :: 4.7
0 og2e- ! 3
.3gg2
e
- ! 3
.7:gi
e- : 1.ogg5
o
e- : 1.�
og
3 o
e- : 1.
�
ogt-
: 1.
��t
e-
: 2.9
0 og
4 o
e- : 1.oggie- : 3.og
0 0
2 e- i 0.0000 : 0.9702 : 0.97 02 : 3.oggr-
: 3.oggie- : 0.9797
I I I I Ji I I I
Total 4.70008· 3.30008• 3.73008· 1.00008• 1.10008· 1.0000e- 1.1100e- 2.9000e· 1.00008· 3.0000e- � � � m � � � � m �
3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On.Site
0.0000 0.9702 0.9702 3.00008• 3.0000e005 005
0.9797
Fugitive Dust :: : 0.0983 : O 0000 : 0.0983 : 0.0505 : 0.0000 : 0.0505 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ............ ::-------�-------�------�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------..:.--------l - ....... - -:-------�-------�-------�-------.:.. ...... .
Off-Road •• 0.0159 0.1654 : 0.0985 : 1.9gg4
o
e- : : 8.�gte- : 8.�g�
e- : : 7.6zgt
e- : 1.4ggie- l 0.0000 : 16.7197 : 16.7197 : 5.�gte- : 0.0000 : 16.8549 Total 0.0159 0.1654
I I f I
0.0985 1.9000e- 0.0983 8.06-00e· 0.1064
004 003
0.0505 7.4200e003
0.0579 0.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e- 0.0000
003
16.8549
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Site Preparation • 2022
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Hauling :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 f 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
···-··---- ·�-------...-------� ------,-------�-------,-------�-------.,-------,-------..--------�· -···- -�------� ------�-------�-------�······· Vendor •• 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 • 0.0000 , 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 t 0.0000 , 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 :
: : : : : ! : : : . : !
: : : : :
•1 I I I l I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••• ••-••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------�-------�• ••• •••1-------..-------,-------,-------T••• •• • Worker •• 2.8000e- , 2.0000e- • 2.24008- , 1.0000e- • 7.2000e- , 0.0000 • 7.20008- • 1.90008- • 0.0000 • 1.9000e- t 0.0000 • 0.5821 • 0.5821 • 2.0000e- • 2.00008- • 0.5878 Total
:: 004 : 004 : 003 : 005 I 004 I I 004 : 004 I I 004 :i I I : 005 : 005 :
•1 I I I I I I I I
2.8000e· 2.0000e· 2.2400e- 1.0000e· 7.2000e- 0.0000 7.20008· 1.90008· 0.0000 004 004 003 005 004 004 004
1.9000e·
004
0.0000 0.5821 0.5821 2.0000e· 2.00008• 0.5878
005 005
Mitigated Construction On..Sjte
Fugitive Dust :: ; 0.0983 : 0.0000 ; 0.0983 : 0.0505 ! 0.0000 : 0.0505 f 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 •1 I I I I J 1 j I I I I I
•• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Off-Road :: 0.0159 � 0.1654 i 0.0985 T"1.9000e- � i8.0600e- � 8.0600e- � T"7.4200e- i 7.42008- 1 0.0000 ; 16.7197; 16.7197 � 5.410De-; 0.0000 -;- 16.8549 OI : I I 004 I I 003 I 003 I : 003 I 003 i I I : 003 I I Total 0.0159
I I I I
0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e- 0.0983 8.0600e• 0.1064
004 003
0.0505 7.4200e003
0.0579 0.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e• 0.0000
003
16.8549
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Site Preparation .. 2022
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
· )·¢at�i»!Y .�;,\ _'\}
: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : :
: 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 :
•1 I I I I I
Hauling
•1 I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I
Vendor :: 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 T 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 :: : : : : : : : : : f : : : : :
···worker ···::-2.8000e- i2.ooooe- � 2.2400e- �-1.ooooe- �-6.6000e- �- 0.0000-� 6.6000e- �-1.8000e- �- 0.0000--:- 1.8000e- j·o.0000 · :- o.5821-�- 0.5821-�-2.ooooe- �-2.ooooe- • ·o.5878 •
:: 004 : 004 : 003 : 005 : 004 : : 004 : 004 : : 004 I : : : 005 : 005 :
Total
•t I I f I I I I I I I I I I I
2.8000e- 2.0000e- 2.2400e- 1.0000e- 6.6000e- 0.0000 6.60008- 1.8000e- 0.0000 004 004 003 005 004 004 004
1.8000e- 0.0000
004
0.5821 0.5821 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.5878
005 005
3.4 Grading - 2022
unmitigated Construction On-Site
Fugitive Dust :; : 0. 1310 ; 0.0000 : 0.1310 : 0.0474 : 0.0000 : 0.0474 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ! 0.0000 •t I I I 1 t I I t I I I I I I I
Off-Road :: 0.0453 : 0.4655 : 0.3630 ;7.8000e-: : 0.0204 : 0.0204 : ; 0.0188 T 0.0188 1 0.0000 : 68.1683 ; 68.1683 ; 0.0221 : 0.0000 : 68.7194 •t I I I 004 I I I I I t l t I I I I
Total
•t I I I t f I t I I l I I I I I
0.0453 0.4855 0.3630 7.8000e- 0.1310
004
0.0204 0.1514 0.0474 0.0188 0.0662 0.0000 68.1683 68.1683 0.0221 0.0000 68.7194 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Grading - 2022
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Hauling :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 l 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 a1 I I I I I I I I I l I I I I
•1 I I f I I I I I I ' I I I I I
Vendor :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •1 I I I I I t I I I ii I I I I
•1 I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I
•• •••••• ••·�-------�-------�-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------�-------T-------�• • ••-•·�------,-------1-------� ------�•• ••••• Worker :: 7.9ggie- : 5.5
0 ogJe- : 6.2igte-
: 2.
oggge- : 1.9gg
3 oe-
: 1.oggge-
: 2.oggie-
: 5.3:ie- : 1.
oggge- : 5.'1;1gte- ! 0.0000 : 1.6169 , 1.6169 : s.
oggge- : 5.
oggge- : 1.6329
I I I I I A
Total 7.9000e- 5.5000e- 6.22000• 2.0000e• 1.9900e• 1.0000e- 2.0000e- 5.3000e- 1.0000e- 5.40008· 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004
0.0000 1.6169 1.6169 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 1.6329
005 005
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Fugitive Dust :: : 0.1310 : 0.0000 : 0.131 O : 0.0474 : 0.0000 : 0.0474 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •1 I I I I I t j I I I I I
a1 I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I
............. ·--------.,-------,--------.-------.,--------,-------.,-------.,-------...--------,.-------... -- ... -.--------.-------.,-------.. -------........ .
Off-Road :
: 0.0453 : 0.4855 ; 0.3630 : 7.sggie-
: : 0.0204 : 0.0204 : : 0.0188 : 0.0188 i 0.0000 ; 68.1682 : 68.1682 ; 0.0221 : 0.0000 : 68.7193 Total 0.0453
I I I I I I t I
0.4855 0.3630 7.80008• 0.1310
004
0.0204 0.1514 0.0474 0.0188 0.0662 0.0000 68.1682 68.1682 0.0221 0.0000 68.7193 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Grading - 2022
Mitigated Construction Off.Site
:: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 l 0.0000 ! 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ! 0.0000 •• I I I I I I I I I l t I I I I
......... "' . - - ..... --------r-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------.,-------..-------.,-------... -----·-·. - - .... ··-------.,-------.,-------.. -------...... - ....
Vendor :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 t 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 :: : : : : : : : : : i f : : : : --- � - - - - -- -�-------,-------...-------,-------,-------,-------� ------,-------,-------?-------•- ---·- -,-------,-------�-------,-------�-- - ---- Worker ., 7.90008- • 5.5000e- • 6.2200e- , 2.0000e- , 1.8400e- • 1.0000e- • 1.8500e- • 4.9000e- • 1.0000e- • 5.0000e- ', 0.0000 , 1.6169 • 1.6169 • 5.0000e- • 5.0000e- • 1.6329 •• 004 I 004 I 003 : 005 I 003 : 005 I 003 I 004 I 005 : 004 i o I 005 : 005
Total 7.90008• 5.5000e- 6.2200e- 2.0000e- 1.8400e- 1.00008· 1.8500e- 4.9000e· 1.00008· 5.0000e- 0.0000 � � � � m � m � � �
1.6169 1.6169 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 1.6329
005 005
3.4 Grading - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
., '
0.0000 : 0.0226 t 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 e1 I I t I I f I I I 6 t I I I A
·- ···· ··-- ��-------�-------� ------�-------�-------�-------�-------,-------,-------..... -------�- ---····-------�-------�-------,-------�··· ···· Off-Road •• 0.0166 , 0.1726 1 0.1403 , 3.1000e- , • 7.1200e- • 7.1200e- , • 6.5500e- , 6.55008- ' 0.0000 , 27.2676 • 27.2676 • 8.8200e- , 0.0000 • 27.4881 •• I : 004 : I 003 : 003 I I 003 I 003 t I I 003 : I
Total 0.0166 0.1726
I I I ' I
0.1403 3.1000e- 0.0858 7.1200e- 0.0929
004 003
0.0228 6.5500e003
0.0291 0.0000 27.2876 27.2678 8.8200e- 0.0000
003
27.4881
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Grading - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
:: 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •1 I t I I I t I I I j I I I I t
•• •••• •••• •m-------,-------1--------.--------,-------�-------� ------..-------�-------�-------•···· ···�-------,--------,--------,-------�······· Vendor :
: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •1 I I I I I I I I I Ji I I I I
a1 I I I I I I I t I j I I I I I
Work.er ; 2.9000e-: 1.9000e-: 2.21ooe-f 1.0oooe-: 8.0oooe-: 0.0000 : 8.ooooe-: 2.1oooe-: 0.0000 : 2.2oooe- 1 0.0000 : 0.6259 : 0.6259 : 2.ooooe- f 2.ooooe-: 0.63 17 •• 004 I 004 t 003 I 005 I 004 I I 004 I 004 t I 004 ,I I t t 005 I 005 1 Total
•1 I I I I I I I I I A I I I I I
2.9000&• 1.9000e- 2.2700e- 1.0000e, 8.0000e- 0.0000 8.0000e- 2.1000e· 0.0000 004 004 003 005 004 004 004
2.2000e004
0.0000 0.6259 0.6259 2.0000e, 2.0000e, 0.6317
005 005
Mitigated Construction On-Site
••
: o.0858 : 0.0000 : o.0858 : 0.0226 : 0.0000 : 0.0226 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• I I I I I I I I I l I I I 1 I
..... - ....... ·--------., ------.,--------.-------..,-------.,--------.-------.. --------i-------.... -------...... -.. ··-------.,-------.,-------.,-------"T' .. - -. -- Off-Road
.,
o.0166 : 0.1726 : 0.1403 : 3.1
gg4
oe- : ! 7.�2gt-
: 1.1:3
oe-
: : 6.5tgfe- ! 6.s�
o
i
e- i 0.0000 27.2676 : 27.2676 : B.8Jgie- : 0.0000 : 27.4880 Total 0.0166 0.1726
l I I I I I '
0.1403 3.1000&• 0.0858 7.1200e- 0.0929
004 003
0.0226 6.5500e003
0.0291 0.0000 27.2676 27.2676 8.82008• 0.0000 27.4880
003
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Grading • 2023
Mit;gated Construction Off-Site
Hauling :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ' i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000
aa I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•J I I I I I I I I I ' I I I 1 I ·-··-·····-�-------�-------,-------..-------�-------�-------..-------,-------�-------?-------··· ·· ····-------..-------..-------,-------�·- ····· Vendor :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 f 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• I f I I I I I I I j 1 I I I
•t I I I I I I I I I j I I I I I
Worker :: 2.9000e- f 1.9000e- : 2.2700e- : 1.0000e- : 7.3000e- : 0.0000 : 7.4000e- : 2.0000e- : 0.0000 : 2.0000e- 1 0.0000 ! 0.6259 : 0.6259 : 2.0000e- : 2.0000e- : 0.6317 :
· 004 : 004 : 003 : 005 : 004 : : 004 : 004 : : 004 t : ; : 005 : 005 :
Total 2.90008· 1.9000e- 2.27008· 1.0000e, 7.3000e· 0.0000 7.4000e- 2.0000e· 0.0000 004 004 003 005 004 004 004
3.5 Building Construction • 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Total 0.1966 1.7981
2.0305 • 3.37000- •
: 003 :
2.0305 3.3700e,
003
0.0875 0.0875 0.0823
2.0000e,
004
0.0823
0.0000 0.6259 0.6259 2.0000e, 2.0000e• 0.6317
005 005
0.0000 : 289.7559 : 289.7559 : 0.0689 : 291.4791
I I I
• I o
0.0000 289.7559 289.7559 0.0689 0.0000 291.4791
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Hauling :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000
WI I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
Vendor :: 0.0201 : 0.8406 : 0.2474 : 3.8100e-: 0.1256 : 5.3700e-: 0.1309 : 0.0363 : 5.1400e-; 0.0414 1 0.0000 : 366.0722: 366.0722: 1.8000e-: 0.0553 : 382.6095 oo I I I 003 I I 003 I I I 003 I l I I I 003 I I
•• I t J I I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••• ••••·�-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------�-------�· -•-••·1-------,-------,-------,-------T•• • •• • • Worker :: 0.1412 : 0.0934 : 1.1061 : 3.�0
o
3 oe- : 0.3873 • 1.9
0 �
3 0e- : 0.3892 • 0.1030 : 1.7:3
oe- ; 0.1047 t 0.0000 : 304.3481 : 304.3481 : 9.2;gie- : 8.7 0 �
o
i
e- : 307.1834
Total 0.1613 0.9340
I I I I I I ' I I I I
1.3535 7.1300e- 0.5129 7.2800e- 0.5202
003 003
0.1393 6.9000e- 0.1462
003
0.0000 670.4202 670.4202 0.0111 0.0641 689.7929
Mitigated Construction On-Site
1.7981
Total 0.1966 1.7981
2.0305 3.37006• I
003 :
2.0305 3.370De003
0.0875 0.0875 0.0823 0.0823
0.0000 : 289.7556 : 289.7556 : 0.0689
I I I
I I I
0.0000 289.7556 289.7556 0.0689
0.0000 : 291.4788
0.0000 291.4788
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applled
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off.Site
Hauling
1 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Vendor :; 0.0201 : 0.8406 : 0.2474 ; 3.8100e-: 0.1176 : 5.3700e-; 0.1230 : 0.0343 : 5.1400e-: 0.0395 t 0.0000 : 366.0722: 366.0722: 1.8000e-; 0.0553 : 382.6095 •• I t I 003 t t 003 t t , 003 t ' , t I 003 I ,
at I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- • • Wo�er - • ·:: 0.1412 -� 0.0934 -� 1.1061-�-3.3200e- �- 0.3572 -�-1.9100e- �- 0.3591-�- 0.0956 -�-1.7600e- �- 0.0973 -1· 0.0000 ·: 304.3481 � 304.3481 �-9.2700e- �-8.7400e- : 307.1834 • :: : : : 003 ! ! 003 : : : 003 : i : ! : 003 : 003 :
•I I I I f I I I I I ) I I I I I
Total 0.1613 0.9340 1.3535 7.1300e- 0.4748 7.2800e- 0.4820 003 003
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On.Site
Off-Road •• 0.0883
Total 0.0883
0.8066
0.8066
0.9700 I 1.62008• I
: 003 :
I I
0.9700 1.6200e003
0.0368
0.0368
0.0368
0.0368
0.1299 6.9000e• 0.1368
003
0.0346 0.0346
0.0346 0.0346
0.0000 670.4202 670.4202 0.0111
0.0000 : 139.1095 : 139.1095: 0.0329
• I t
I I •
0.0000 139.1095 139.1095 0.0329
0.0641 889. 7929
0.0000 : 139.9319
I
0.0000 139.9319
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Building Construction • 2024
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
:: 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 f 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •t I I I I I I I I I A I I t I I
........... :-------�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------..:-------�-------�·-····-:-------..:-------� ------..:-------�---···· Vendor •• 9.4000e- 1 0.4037 • 0.1164 • 1.8000e- • 0.0603 • 2.6000e- • 0.0629 • 0.0174 • 2.4900e- • 0.0199 t 0.0000 , 172.9849 • 172.9849 • 8.3000e- • 0.0261 , 180.7900 :: 003 : ! : 003 : : 003 : : : 003 : i : : : 004 : :
•• I I I I I I I I I Ji I I I I I
Worker :; 0.0625 : 0.0394 : 0.4909 :1.5400e-: 0.1859 : 8.6000e-: 0.1868 : 0.0494 : 7.9000e-: 0.0502 1 0.0000 : 141.0230: 141.0230: 3.9900e-: 3.8700e-: 142.2762 a1 I I I 003 I I 004 I I I 004 I i I I I 003 I 003 I
•1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I t f
Total 0.0719 0.4431 0.6073 3.3400e· 0.2462 3.4600e- 0.2497 003 003
Mitigated Construction On-Sjte
Total 0.0883 0.8066
0.9700 1.6200e- I
003 :
0.9700 1.6200e003
I
0.0368 0.0368
0.0368 0.0368
0.0669 3.2800e- 0.0701
003
0.0346 0.0346
0.0346 0.0346
0.0000 314.0079 314.0079 4.8200e- 0.0300 323.0662
003
0.0000 : 139.1093 : 139.1093 : 0.0329
I I I
I I I
0.0000 139.1093 139.1093 0.0329
0.0000 : 139.9317
I
0.0000 139.9317
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Building Construction· 2024
Mitigated Constructjon Off-Site
Hauling :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 t 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I
.......... .... :------�-------�-------..:-------�-------..:-------..:-------�-------�-------�-------� ....... -:-------�---·----�-------.:------� .... . - . vendor :: 9.6
o
g3
oe- : 0.4037 : 0.1164 : 1.8gg3oe- : 0.0565 : 2.6gg3oe- : 0.0591 : 0.0165 : 2.'b9g1e- : o.0190 ! 0.0000 : 172.9849 : 172.9849: 8.3gg1e- : o.0261 : 180.7900 ···Work.er • • • ::- 0.0625 -i- 0.0394 -t" 0.4909 -i-1.5400e- i- 0.1714 -i-8.6000e- "!- 0.1723 -i- 0.0459 -i-7.9000e-f- 0.0467 -1 · 0.0000 ·:-141.0230 i-141.0230 i-3.9900e- � 3.8700e- f 142.2762- :: : : : 003 � : 004 : : : 004 : I : : : 003 : 003 :
Total
•1 I I I I f I I i I I I I I I I
0.0719 0.4431 0.6073 3.3400e- 0.2279 3.4600e- 0.2314
003 003
0.0624 3.2800e003
0.0656 0.0000 314.0079 314.0079 4.8200e- 0.0300 323.0862 003
3.6 Paving • 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
:: 9
.aigia- ; 0.0953 : 0.14
63 : 2 3
0 o
gJe-
: : 4
.6igfe- : 4.
6 igi
e
-
: ; 4
.3do°�e- : 4.3da°fe- t 0.0000 : 20.0265 ; 20.0265 : 6.il3g�e- : 0.0000 ! 20.1885 •• t I I I 1 I I I I • I I I I t
Paving :: 0.0171 ; � : : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 ! 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 ., 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ... 0.0000
Total 0.0270
I t I I I
I I J I I
0.0953 0.1463 2.3000e- 4.6900e- 4.6900e- 4.3100e- 4.31008• 0.0000 20.0265 20.0285 6.4800e- 0.0000 004 003 003 003 003 003
20.1885
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Paving - 2024
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Hauling :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 l 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 a1 I t I I I I I I I A I I I I I
•• I I I I I I I I I A I I I I I
Vendor � 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 f 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 T 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 T 0.0000 •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-----------..-------,-------...-------� ------�-------�-------,-------,-------....--------,--------�- ----- -�------,-------,-------,-------�-- ----- Worker ., 4.0000e- • 2.50008- • 3.15008- 1 1.00008- • 1.19008- 1 1.0000e- 1 1.2000e- • 3.20008- • 1.00008- • 3.2000e- t 0.0000 • 0.9063 1 0.9063 • 3.0000e- • 2.00008- • 0.9144 •• 004 ' 004 : 003 005 I 003 I 005 I 003 I 004 ' 005 I 004 i : 005 : 005 :
Total 4.0000e- 2.50008· 3.1500e• 1.0000e• 1.1900e• 1.0000e- 1.2000e- 3.2000e• 1.0000e- 3.2000e· 0.0000 � � � � � � � � � �
0.9063 0.9063 3.0000e· 2.0000e- 0.9144
005 005
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Off-Road " 9.8800e- , 0.0953 , 0.1463 • 2.3000e- , , 4.6900e- , 4.6900e- • , 4.3100e- • 4.3100e- + 0.0000 • 20.0265 • 20.0265 • 6.4800e- • 0.0000 • 20.1884 :: 003 : : : 004 : : 003 : 003 : : 003 : 003 i : : : 003 : :
•• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Paving :: 0.0171 7" : ., ., : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 � 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 Total 0.0270 0.0953 0.1463 2.3000e004
I I il I I
I I: I I
4.6900e- 4.6900e003 003
4.3100e- 4.3100e003 003
0.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e· 0.0000
003
20.1884
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Paving - 2024
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
Hauling :; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 .......... -.. ::-------�------�-------..:-------.:-------�-------..:-------�------�-------�-------� ......... -:-------�-------.:------�-------� . -.... .
Vendor :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 f 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •1 I I t I I I I I I I I I I I t
a1 I I I I I I I I I j t I f I f •• • • • •• � • ••ft-------,-------,-------�-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------•• ••• •••1-------.,-------.,-------,-------T••••• •• Worker •• 4.0000e- , 2.5000e- • 3.1500e- , 1.0000e- • 1.1000e- • 1.0000e- , 1.11 00e- • 2.9000e- • 1.0000e- , 3.0000e- + 0.0000 , 0.9063 • 0.9003 , 3.0000e- , 2.0000e- • 0.9144 •• 004 I 004 : 003 : 005 : 003 : 005 I 003 I 004 : 005 : 004 i • I : 005 : 005 I Total 4.0000e, 2.5000e, 3.1500e, 1.0000e, 1.1000e· 1.0000e- 1.1100e- 2.9000e· 1.0000e, 3.0000e, 0.0000 � � � � � � � � � �
0.9063 0.9063 3.0000e- 2.0000e· 0.9144
005 005
3. 7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
•I I
: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 t 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• C I I I I I I I I ' • I I I I
................ -------,-------,--------.-------.,------..-------.,-------.,--------... -------'"P"-------· ......... ··-------.,-------.. -------.,-------............ ..
Off-Road •• 1.sdgie- : 0.0122 0.0181 : 3.o:ie- : : e.1gg1e- : e.1 0 o
gJe- : : 6.�
o
0 0
1 e- : a.1gg1e- i 0.0000 • 2.5533 : 2.5533 ; 1.4gg2e- : 0.0000 : 2.5569 Total 2.6232 0.0122 0.0181 3.0000e005
I I I I '
6.1000e• 6.1000e004 004
6.1000e- 6.1000e004 004 0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e- 0.0000 004
2,5569
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Unmitigated Construct;on Off-Site
:: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 f 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •t I I I I I I I I I j I I t I I
•1 I I I I I f I I I j I I I I I •• •••• •• •• •n-------�-------...-------�-------�-------�-------, ------...-------,-------�-------�··· ·· · ·.-------�-------..-------.,-------�···· ·· Vendor :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 t 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •t I I I I I I I I I ii f I I I
H I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I
Worker :: 2.09008-: 1.3200e-: 0.0164 f 5.0000e-: 6.2100e- f 3.0000e-: 6.2400e- f 1.6500e-f 3.0000e- T 1.6800e- 1 0.0000 : 4.7129 : 4.7129 : 1.3000e-: 1.3000e-: 4.7547 :: 003 : 003 : : 005 : 003 : 005 : 003 : 003 : 005 : 003 J : : : 004 : 004 :
Total 2.0900e- 1.3200e- 0.0164 5.00008· 6.2100e- 3.0000e. 6.2400e- 1.6SOOe· 3.0000&· 1.6800e· 0.0000 � � � � � � � � �
4.7129 4.7129 1.3000e- 1.30008• 4.7547
004 004
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Archit. Coating :: : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 f 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •1 I I I I I j I I I I I
•t I I I I ( I I I 1 I I I I I I
Off-Road :: 1.8100e-: 0.0122 : 0.0181 : 3.0000e-: f 6.1000e-: 6.1000e-: f e.1oooe-: 6.1000e- 1 0.0000 : 2.5533 : 2.5533 f 1.4000e-: 0.0000 : 2.5568 ., 003 , I ,005 , ,004 , 004 1 1004 1 004 ' , I ,004 , , Total
•1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
2.6232 0.0122 0.0181 3.0000e005
6.1000e- 6.10008·
004 004
6.10008• 6.1000e·
004 004
0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e• 0.0000
004
2.5568
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehlcle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
Hauling :; 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 al I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I
••• • •••••••n-------�-------�-------,-------�-------,-------,-------,-------,-------�-------•···· ·· ·1-------..-------,-------..-------�····•·• Vendor :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •1 I I I I I I f I I I t I I I
•• I I I I I I • I I I I I ' I I
- .. Worker - - • ::-2.0900e- �-1.3200e- �- 0.0164-�-5.0000e- �-5.7300e- �-3.0000e- �-5.76000- �-1.5300e- �-3.0000e -
-:-- 1.56008- 1" 0.0000 ·:- 4.7129 -�- 4.7129 -�-1.3000e- �-1.3000e- -; - 4.7547 Total
:
: 003 I 003 I I 005 : 003 I 005 : 003 I 003 : 005 I 003 i I I : 004 I 004 :
2.0900e· 1.3200e· 0.0164 5.0000e· 5.7300e· 3.0000e· 5.7600e- 1.5300&• 3.00008· 1.5600e- 0.0000 4.7129 � � � � � � � � �
4.7129 1.30008• 1.30008• 4.7547
004 004
4.0 Operational Detail • Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 37 Date: 11/1/20221:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Mitigated :; 0.5926 : 3.5782 ; 5.9378 : 0.0230 : 1 .5132 ; 0.0313 : 1.5445 : 0.4064 : 0.0297 : 0.4361 ! 0.0000 ; 2, 16� .855: 2,16�
.855: 0.0639 : 0.2256 ; 2,23�
.684
•• I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I
Unmitigated :!" 0.5926 "':" 3.5782 "':" 5.9378 "':" 0.0230 � 1.5132 "':" 0.0313 "':" 1.5445 "':" 0.4064 "':" 0.0297 "':" 0.4361 ! 0.0000 �2,168.855-:-2,168.855-:- 0.0639 "':" 0.2256 ; 2,237.684 •• : ' : ' : ' 2 : 2 ' : ' 9
' ' '
4.2 Trip Summary Information
General Office Building • 0.00 • 0.00 1 0.00 • •
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : f ;�Eg: ��1
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : :t:::: ����:::: t:::���::::t : : : : �-�?: : : : 1 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : [ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail • 1,358.00 • 1,358.00 1 1358.00 • 3,964,696 • 3,964,696 Total 1,358.00 1,358.00 1,358.00 3,964,696 3,964,696
4.3 Trip Type Information
General Office Building : 9.50 : 7.30 : 7.30 • 33.00 : 48.00 : 19.00 77 19 4 ........ .................. ----... -....... --T"--------- 'I" •• - .... - ... - .... ---------r •.... - ..... ·r ... - ............ .......... - r ••• •• ••• •• •• - - ...... .... - - .... - • Parking Lot : 9.50 : 7.30 : 7.30 : 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 : 0 : 0 : 0 • R;t�i9�;a·1�ctwir;h��s"e:N;. ": ••• e�so· .. -:-·· ·-;_30--·�. - . - 7 �30 ... :. ·s9.oc,. :·. ·o.oo. -·: ... 41�0
0· •. ·: · ... s2· ... ·: ..... 5
••••• : ••• -•••• i ....... .
4.4 Fleet Mix
General Office Building
Parking Lot
0.536987: 0.052416: 0.169237: 0.150872: 0.026159: 0.006241: 0.012518: 0.016886: 0.000471: 0 000325: 0.023246: 0.001119: 0.003522 ·····---�---------1----------t----------1----------1----------1----------1----------1----------1----------1----------1---------+-·-·····
0.536987: 0.052416; 0.169237; 0.150872; 0.026159; 0.006241; 0.012518; 0.016886: 0.000471; 0.000325; 0.023246; 0.001119; 0.003522 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off�Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied RefrigeratedWarehouse-NoRail: 0.439290: 0.042880; 0.138447: 0.123423: 0.021400: 0.005106; 0.008735: 0.198822; 0.000000: 0.000000: 0.019017: 0.000000: 0.002881
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Electricity : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 633.2242 : 633.2242 : 0.1024 : 0.0124 : 639.4856 Mitigated •• , , , 1 , , , ,
•1 I I I l I I I I I I I I I I l --··· ·-··· ·�-------,-------""t-------,-------...-------� ------,-------.,-------,-------�-------·· ····· -.-------,-------,-------,-------�------· Electricity :: • • • • : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ' 0.0000 : 633.2242 : 633.2242 : 0.1024 : 0.0124 : 639.4856 Unm1t1gated ., , , , , , t , , , , ,
•• 1 I I t I I I I I I I t I I I
··········-�-------,-------..-------,-------..-------,-------�-------...-------,-------.... -------·· ··· ·· ··-------,-------...-------�-------�···--- - N�t�i�
�:�s :: 3. o�g�e
-
: 0.027 4 : o
.0230 : 1.ag
0 o
4 o
e
-
: : 2. o
�g�
e
-
: 2.
oig�
e- : : 2.oig�e- : 2.
oig�e- t 0.0000 : 29.8037 : 29.8037 : 5.7
0 o
g
4 o
e- : 5.5gg4
o
e- ! 29.9808
•• I I I ' t I I • I I • I I I I
- - .. · .. - - ........ r------.,..------.,..-------,-------...,.-------,.-------.--------,.-------.-------...... -------1' .... - - - · -r-------,..------""T"-------.--------r ...... - - .....
NaturalGas •• 3.0100e- • 0.027 4 • 0.0230 • 1.6000e- • • 2.0800e- • 2.0800e- • • 2.0800e- • 2.0800e- • 0.0000 • 29.8037 • 29.8037 • 5.7 000e- • 5.5000e- • 29.9808 Unmitigated •• 003 ' : 004 ' ' 003 ' 003 ' ' 003 ' 003 ' 004 ' 004 ' ..
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 37 Date: 11/1/20221:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for (,,asollne Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
G
e
n;�����ic
e : 16
3000 i: 8.0ggJe-
: 7.
9a9gie-
: 6.1
0 1g�e-
: 5.oggie- : : 6.1ggJe
-
: 6.1:Je-
: : 6.1ggJe-
: 6
.1ggJe- I 0.0000 ; 8.6983 : 8.6983 : 1.1ggJe- : 1.eggJe- : 8.7500
I &1 I I I I I f I I I I I I I I I
········ ··-�------�-------�-------� ------�-------.,-------�-------�-------�-------� ------..--------�---··· -·-------� ------�-------� ------�· ······ Parking Lot • 0 :: 0.0000 : 0.
0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 t 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 11 I I I I I I f I I :. f I I I I
I 11 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I l
- - - - - - •" - · - ,-------..-------T------T·-----T------T·-----T------T------T·-----T·-----,- --- - -- ·t - - - · "" •.-------T------T·····-T··-··-,."" - """ Refrigerated • 395500 •• 2.1300e- 1 0.0194 1 0.016
3 1 1.2000e- 1 1 1.4700e- 1 1.4700e- 1 1 1.4700e- 1 1.4700e- • 0.0000 • 21.1054 1 21.1054 1 4.0000e- 1 3.9000e- 1 21.2308 Warehouse-No : :: 003 l l l 004 l l 003 : 003 l : 003 : 003 ' ' l l 00 4 l 004 l
Rail • •• , 1 , 1 , , , , 1 1 1 1 1
Total 3.0100e· 0.0274 0.0230 1.7000e- 2.0800e- 2.0800e- 2.0800e• 2.0800e· 0.0000 29.8037 29.8037 5.7000e- 5.5000e- 29.9808 � � � � � � � � Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Mitigated
General Office , 163000 1, 8.8000e- • 7.9900e- • 6.7100e- • 5.00009- • • 6.1000e- • 6.10009- • • 6.1000e- • 6.1000e- ' 0.0000 , 8.6983 • 8.6983 , 1.7000e- • 1.60009- • 8.7500 Building : :: 004 : 003 : 003 : 005 : : 004 : 004 : : 004 : 004 i : : : 004 : 004 ! t 61 I I I I I I I I I l I I 1 I I
Parking Lot : 0 t 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 t 11 I I I I I I f t I ' t I I I I
I t\1 I I t I I 1 I I I ' I I I I I
- R�tng;r;�d - - :-3essoo-::-2:-:t3ooe:ro.01-s4-ro.0163T1}oocie:T------T1A1ooeT 1A1ooe:r-----T1.41ooe: T-1�41ooe":..:. ii.0000· ·:--21�1os4-r£i�1os.i T4.ooooe:T isoooe': 1 ·2·1 �23oe · Wareh��rt-No ' :: 003 !
J l 004 !
J 003 ! 003 J ! 003 ! 003 : : l J 004 ! 004 !
Total 3.0100e- 0.0274
003
0.0230 1.7000e·
004
2.0800e- 2.0800e003 003
2.0800e· 2.0800e- 0.0000 29.8037 29.8037 5.7000e- 5.5000e- 29.9808 003 003 004 004
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.3 Energy by Land Use • Electricity
Unmitigated
General Office
Building
Parking Lot
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
Total
96600 t: 8.9378 : 1.�g�e-
: 1.8
ggJe-
: 9.0262
----"-:-------�-------� ------�---····
198808 !: 18.3945 : 2
.9
ig�e- : 3.6
ggie- : 18.5763
11 I I I
s.s4as""a-:-aos.s910 r o.ii0ao-r a.ii11in s1 i.aa·3; •
+006 •• l l l
•• I I I
633.2242 0.1025 0.0124 639.4856
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Mitigated
General Office , 96600 l, 8.9378 , 1.4500e- • 1.BOOOe- • 9.0262 Building ; :; : 003 : 004 !
I 61 I I I
···· ·· ·····�--------------...-------..-------�· ····· Parking Lot : 198808 %: 18.3945 : 2.eig3
oe-
: 3.6i
0 o
4 oa-
: 18.5763
I 61 I I I
• R�irig�r;t�d •• :-s.s4a5�-::sos�si19ro.ogsctro.0110·1 a11.as31.
Warehouse-No , +006 •• 1 1 1 Rail • •• , , ,
Total
6.0 Area Detail
633.2242 0.1025 0.0124 639.4856
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Mitigated :: 1.7052 : 3.
oggie
-
: 3
.�gJe- : 0.0000 : : 1.0
0 ogie
-
: 1
.�ogie
-
: : 1.oggge
-
: 1. ogg5
o
e
-
t 0.0000 : 6.s
c7g3
o
e- : 6.s
c7gJe
-
: 2.
oggt-
: 0.0000 ; 7.1:�e
-
. · · · · · · ·. · .. =-------..:.------..:..------..:.-------:.------..:.------4------� -------:.------4-------l -....... ;,. ______ �------..:..------..:.-------:. ...... .
Unmitigated •• 1.7052 • 3.0000e
-
• 3.4200e- • 0.0000 • •
1 .0000e- • 1.0000e- • 1.0000e- • 1.
0000e- 0.0000 , 6.6700e- , 6.6700e- • 2.0000e- 0.0000 , 7.1000e- · � · � �·�· � � ·�·a·� ·� ..
6.2 Area by Subcategory
Unmitigated
Architectural :: 0.2621 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 t 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : . 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 Coating •• , , , , , , I , , ,
•1 I I I I I I I I 1 ' 1 I I I I •• •• •• •• •••�-------.,--------,-------� ------�------.,-------.,-------�-------�-------�-------�•••••••1-------.,-------�-----w-�-------�••••• •• c
;r
�����r : 1
.4427 : : 1 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 at I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
- - ...... - .. - .. - .... -------.,--------,--------,------··,-------, ------,--------,-------·,-------"T"--------t - ........... -1--------. -------,-------,-------"T .. - - .... - - Landscaping :: 3.2ggi
e- : 3. o:ie- : 3.�g� : 0.0000 : : 1.oggie- : 1. oggie
-
: : 1.oggie- : 1.ogg5
o
e- i 0.0000 : s.s
6 gi
e- : s.s6
g�
e- : 2.og
0 o
5 o
e- : 0.0000 ; 7.1a°a
0t
·
Total 1.7052 3.0000e- 3.4200e- 0.0000
005 003
I I A I I I
1.0000e- 1.0000e005 005
1.0000e· 1.0000e005 005 0.0000 6.6700e- 6.6700e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 7.1000e003 003 005 003 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
6.2 Area by Subcategory
Mitigated
Ar�::i��
al :: 0.2621 : : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 f 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 H I I I I f I I I I I I I I I I
Consumer :; 1.4427 : : : : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 f 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 Products ., • , , , , , , 1 , & , , • , •
WI I I I 1 I f I I I ' t I I I I
Landscaping :: 3.2000e-: 3.0000e-: 3.4200e-: 0.0000 : : 1.ooooe-: 1.0000e-: : 1.0000e·: 1.0000e- 1 0.0000 : 6.6700e·: 6.6700e-: 2.0000e-: 0.0000 : 7.1000e- •• 004 , 005 , 003 , , , 005 , 005 , , 005 , 005 I , 003 , 003 , 005 , , 003 •1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I f I I
Total 1.7052 3.00008• 3.4200&• 0.0000
005 003
7 .0 Water Detail
7 .1 Mitigation Measures Water
1.0000e· 1.0000e005 005
1.0000e- 1.0000e005 005
0.0000 6.6700e- 6.6700e- 2.0000e• 0.0000 7.1000e·
003 003 005 003
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off�Modef Adjustment Factors for Gasollne Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Mitigated :: 68.0052 : 2.7020 : 0.0645 : 154.7648
•1 I I I
•• I I l
• 0Un-;;itlg�t�d •• =·68�0052 ... -2.7020_..,._ci_oe4s·: 154.7648.
7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
General Office • 1.77734 I 1' 1.8065 , 0.0581 • 1.3900e- • 3.6741 Building : 1.08934 �: : : 003 :
I &1 I I I
Parking Lot : O / O !: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 I J:1 I I I
I 11 I I I
... ........ ,-------..-------T·-----T·-----,- · "" - . " Refrigerated : 80.9375 I :: 66.1988 : 2.6439 : 0.0631 j 151.0907 Warehouse-No , O .. 1 1 1 Rail ' "' I I I
Total 68.0052 2. 7020 0.0645 154. 7648
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applled 7 .2 Water by Land Use
Mitigated
GeneralOffica •1.777341 '• 1.8065 , 0.0581 , 1.3900e- • 3.6741 Building : 1.08934 t : : 003 :
I ,. I I I
Parlling Lot : o / O E 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 I i\1 I I I
I j1 I I I
. R�inii;,;t�d .. :-so:S31si:: ea� 0ss r 2.e439-r o.ooiq ; s1·.oio1.
Warehouse-No , O ., 1 1 1 Rail • •• , , 1
Total
8.0 Waste Detail
68.0052 2.7020 0.0645 154.7648
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Category/Year
Mitigated :; 68.6718 : 4.0584 : 0.0000 170.1316
•• t I
a1 t I
Unmmgated :: 68.6718
..,.
4.0584 .,. 0.0000 170.1316
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
General Office
Building
Parking Lot
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
Total
9.3 t: 1.8878 : 0.1116 : 0.0000 : 4.6770
It I I I
11 I I I
o r 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 7 0.0000
il1 J I I
11 I I I
--32s--:-ee�1a4ori9.iaa-rci.oooo-11ss.454s-
•• 1 l I
•• I I I
•• 1 I I
68.6719 4.0584 0.0000 170.1316
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Mitigated
General Office , :: 1.8878 : 0.1116 : 0.0000 : 4.6770
Building : 1, , , ,
I 11 I I f •••• •••• • ••r------•-------..-------..-------�······ Parking Lot ; o :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000
t 11 I I I
I 11 I 1 I
- R�ftig�r�t�d - · :-329--r:-66�7840T-3.9468_T_o.oooo-1165.4546 0 Warehouse-No , •• 1 1 1 Rail • •• , 1 ,
Total 68.6719 4.0584 0.0000 170.1316
9.0 Operational Offroad
10.0 Stationary Equipment
User Defined Equipment
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 37 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1 :37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
11.0 Vegetation
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 30 Date: 11/1/202210:54AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Manteca Airport Business Center North
San Joaquin County, Summer
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
General Office Building • 10.00 • 1000sqft , 0.23 • 10,000.00 l O ...... -................ -...... i .............................. 4-------------------------------�--------------! - ................. i .............. .
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail : 350.00 : 1 OOOsqft : 8.03 : 350,000.00 I O ······························'·····--·····················--�-------------------------------1---------------�------------------1-------········· Parking Lot : 13.04 : Acre 13.04 568,022.40 O
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Utlllty Company
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Urban
2 Wind Speed (m/s)
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
203.98 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
2.7 0.033
Precipitation Freq (Days)
Operational Year
N20 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Land Use - See SWAPE's comments on "Failure to Consider Potential Cold Storage Requirements" Construction Phase - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Grading - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
51 2024
0.004
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Architectural Coating - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Vehicle Trips - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
Fleet Mix - Consistent with IS/MND's model.
I
I
............................. .;. ............................. -1------------------------------t ......................... . tblConstDustMitigation : WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed : 0 i 5 .... - - - -...... - - ... - .... - ...... -.... - - ...... - .;. . -. - - .... - - .. - .......... - - - -. - .......... - -1------------------------------t - - - - - -. - .. -... - - -... - - . - - .. -.. . tblFleetMix : HHD : 0.02 I 0.20
............................. .;. ............................. -1-------------------------------t ......................... . tblFleetMix : LOA : 0.54 I 0.44
·····························4·····························-1------------------------------t·························· tblFleetMix : LDT1 : 0.05 l 0.04
·····························4··············-··-···········-1------------------------------t·························· tblFleetMix : LDT2 : 0.17 I 0.14
............................. .;. ............................. .;..-----------------------------+·························· tblFleetMix • LHD1 • 0.03 I 0.02 • • I
···-·----·······-············�-----························..;..-----------------------------i··-······················· tblFleetMix : LHD2 : 6.2410e-003 I 5.1060e-003
····························-4--···························-1------------------------------t·························· tblFleetMix : MCY : 0.02 I 0.02
·····························4·····························-1------------------------------t·························· tblFleetMix • MDV • 0.15 1 0.12
• • I
............................. ······························-1------------------------------+························-· tblFleetMix • MH • 3.5220e-003 1 2.8810e-003
• • I
-........................ -.. -.;. ...... - --. -.. - .............. - -1-------------------------------t ....... -.............. -.. . tblFleetMix : MHD : 0.01 I 8.7350e-003
....................... -..... .;. -......... -... -.. -........... -1-------------------------------t ......................... . tblFleetMix • OBUS • 4.7100e-004 1 0.00
• • I
............................. .;. ...... -...................... +-----------------------------+ ......................... . tblFleetMix : SBUS : 1.1190e-003 I 0.00 ............................. .;. ............................. -1------------------------------+···-······················ tblFleetMix • UBUS • 3.2500e-004 1 0.00
• • I
............................. .;. ............................. .;..-----------------------------t·························· tblVehicleTrips : ST_TR : 2.21 j 0.00
.................... -- - ...... .; .... -- ..... -............ -.. -. -1-------------------------------t --. -... -..... ---......... . tblVehicleTrips : ST_TR : 2.12 I 3.88
............................. .;. ............................. +-----------------------------t·························· tbNehicleTrips : SU_TR : 0.70 -
! 0.00
............................. .;. ............................. ..,_ _____________________________ + ......................... . tblVehicleTrips : SU_TR : 2.12 ! 3.88 ............................. .; ............................. -1-------------------------------t·························· tblVehicleTrips : WD_TR : 9.74 i 0.00
............................. .;. ............................. -1------------------------------""' ......................... . tblVehicleTrips • WD_TR : 2.12 • 3.88
2.0 Emissions Summary
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasollne Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Unmitigated Construcuon
2022 :: 3.6959 : 38.8834 : 29.6001 : 0.0636 : 19.8049 : 1.6357 : 21 .4182 : 10.1417 : 1.5049 : 11.6259 I 0.0000 : 6,16� .353: 6, 16�
.353: 1.9487 : 4.oigie- : 6,21;
.275
•• I I • ' ' I I I I I I • I • I
2023 :;3.3869: 34.5505 :2a.5603: o.oes1: 9.3679: 1.4253 :10.1932: 3.6973: 1.3113: 5.00B6 1 0.0000 ;B,677.663:B,677.663: 1 .9482 ;o.5597 :8,861.972 a1 I t I I I I I I I I I 6 I 6 I I I Q
•• 1 I I I I I I I I ' • I I I I
2024 ::262.5521 : 20.4823 : 27.2102 : 0.0846 : 4.2256 : o.6710 : 4.8967 : 1.1442 : o.6316 T 1.7758 1 0.0000 : 8,526.954: s.526.954: 0.1166 : o.54ao T 8,706.aa1 :: : : ! : : ! : : : t : 8 ! 8 : ! : 1
Maximum 262.5521 38.8834 29.6001 0.0861 19.8049 1.6357 21.4182 10.1417 1.5049 11.6259 0.0000 8,677.663 8,677.663 1.9487 6 6
0.5597 8,861.972
0 Mitigated Construction
2022 :: 3.6959 : 36.8834 : 29.6001 : 0.0636 : 19.7933 : 1.6357 : 21 .4066 : 10.1388 : 1.5049 ! 11.6231 t 0.0000 : 6, 16?53: 6,16� _353: 1.9487 : 4.oi
0 o
3 oe- : 6,21 ;
.275
·······----�------� ------�-------�------�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------:-------.:-------�-------�-------..:.---··· 2023 :: 3.3869 : 34.5505 ! 28.5603 : 0086 1 : 9.3550 : 1.4253 : 10.7803 : 3.6942 : 1.3113 : 5.0054 ! 0.0000 : 8,67 �
.663
: 8,67
�
.683: 1 .9482 : 0.5597 ; 8,866
.972
... ....... "' .. ::-------.:-------.:-------�-------�-------..:-------�------�-------�-------.:..-------� .... - .. -: ------.:-------�-------�-------..:. .......... - 2024 :: 262.5521 : 20.4823 : 27.2102 I 0.0846 I 3.9097 : 0.6710 I 4.5807 : 1.0667 : 0.6316 l 1.6982 l 0.0000 : 8,52 :
.954: 8,52�
.954: 0.7166 I 0.5460 : 8,70�
.887
Maximum
a1 t I I I I I I J J t
262.5521 38.8834 29.6001 0.0861 1.5049 11.6231 0.0000 8,6n.663 8,677.663 1.9487 6 6
0.5597 8,861.972
0 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.92 0.56 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applled
2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
Area • 1.4000e- • 1.4000e- , , 1.4000e- , 1.4000e- A , 0.0816 , 0.0816 , 2.1000e- , • ,
0.0870
: 004 : 004 : : 004 : 004 t : : : 004 :
a1 I I I I I I I I I ' I I t I I
Energy :; 0.0165 : 0.1500 ; 0.1260 ; 9.0000e-: : 0.0114 ; 0.0114 ; : 0.0114 : 0.0114 1 ; 180.0161; 180.0161; 3.4500e-; 3.3000e-: 181.0859 •• I I I 004 I J I I t I I o I I 003 I 003 I
al I I f I I I I t I j I t I I I
Mobile :: 3.7480 : 18.7181 : 33.8235 : 0.1304 : 8.5660 : 0.1719 : 8.7379 : 2.2946 : 0.1634 T 2.4580 1 : 13,535.23: 13,535.23: 0.3687 : 1.3538 : 13,947.88 :: : : : : : : : : : f : 12 : 12 : : : 73
Total 13.1096 18.8685 33.9875 0.1313
Mitigated Operational
8.5660 0.1834 8.7494 2.2946 0.1750 2.4696 13,715.32 13,715.32 0.3724 90 90
1.3571 14,129.06
01 : 1.4:Je-
: 1.4aogJe
- l : 0.0816 ! 0.0816 : 2.1:Je-
: ; 0.0870 •1 I I I I I I I J I f I t I I I -----------�-------..-------�-------�-------.,-------�-------�-------�-------..-------�-------•---·--·,-------�-------�-------..-------�----··- Energy :: 0.0165 : 0.1500 : 0.1260 : 9.oigJe- ! : 0.0114 ! 0.0114 ! ! 0.0114 ! 0.0114 i ! 180.0161 ! 180.0161 ; 3.4a5g3 0e. : 3.3gt�e- : 181.0859
••••••••w••:-------�-------�-------..:-------� ------� ------�-------�-------�-------�-------�•••••••:-------�-------�-------.:-------�•••••• Mobile •• 3.7480 , 18.7181 , 33.8235 , 0.1304 : 8.5660 , 0.1719 , 8.7379 , 2.2946 0.1634 , 2.4580 f ; 13,��5.23: 13,��5.23: 0.3687 , 1.3538 : 13,9;;-88 Total 13.1096 18.8685 33.9875 0.1313
I ' I I I
8.5660 0.1834 8.7494 2.2946 0.1750 2.4696 13,715.32 13,715.32 0.3724 90 90
1.3571 14,129.06
01 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Percent
Reduction
3.0 Construction Detail
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
: Demolition : Demolition : 10/15/2022 : 11/11/2022 : 5: 20:
0.00 0.00 0.00
---····1-----·-······-··········=-----------------------1------------4------------4--------�--------�----·-··--·-··-···-····-- 2 :Site Preparation :Site Preparation :1111212022 :11/25/2022 : s: 10:
·······1··········-···-········-1------------ ----------1------------4------------�--------�--------4·-······················· 3 : Grading : Grading : 11/26/2022 : 1/13/2023 : 5: 35:
-·-····1··-···---------------- -1-----------------------1------------�------------4--------�--------�----·············-······- 4 :Building Construction :Building Construction :1/14/2023 :6/14/2024 : s: 370:
·······1···············-········1-----------------------1------------4------------4--------�--------4-························ 5 :Paving :Paving :6/15/2024 :111212024 : s: 20:
.. -. -.. - ... - --.. - ........ "' ....... -..... - - ....... :-----------------------4-------------· ----------- 1---------· --------· --. -. - - .. - - ...... - ..... - .. - .. - ... - 6 :Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating :7/13/2024 :8/9/2024 s: 20:
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 105
Acres of Paving: 13.04
0.00 Residential Indoor: O; Residential Outdoor: O; Non-Residential Indoor: 540,000; Non-Residential Outdoor: 180,000; Striped Parking Area:
34,081 (Architectural Coating - sqft)
Demolition :concrete/Industrial Saws : 1 j 8.00: 81: 0.73 -.. -.. -...... - ...... - .... -.. :----------------- ---------1-----------------;----. -- -----·I--·--·----·-------� -. - -.. - . - - - .. . Demolition •Excavators , 31 8.00• 1581 0.38 . -. -....... -................ i---------------------------�----------------J- -- .. --- . --. ·f···---·--··------� ............. .
Demolition •Rubber Tired Dozers , 21 8.00• 2471 0.40
- - · - · - · -- - - - - · - · - - · · · •.• · · · - - ; __ -------------------------�----------------4------ -------f···-··---··------: .. -.......... - Site Preparation :Rubber Tired Dozers : 3j a.oo:
247: 0.40
···························-�--------------------------+-----------------�------------�---------·---�---··········· Site Preparation :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4; 8.00; 97; 0.37
0.00 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Grading :Excavators 2; 8.00; 158; 0.38
G
radi
ng
__ ••••••••••••••••••• .[Graders
---------·----------1--------------- 1
f _______
8.0i ···
·-··--··---
187[ ••••••••••
0.41 Grading •Rubbe
r Tired Dozers , 11 8.00• 247' 0.40
............................ i---------------------------�----------------�--- - - - ---• ---�---·-··--··------� ............. .
Grading :Scrapers : 21 8.00: 3
6 7: 0
.
48 . -- ... -.... --.. --...... -.... :---------------------------1-----------------;-------------!------------··---� .. - -... - - - ... - Grading •Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes , 21 8.00• 9
7 ; 0.37
Bui
lding Construction
·· ··
·
·
···
··
·· :Cran es
----- • - •• ---- • - • --- -+---------------
1 i------· -·
7 .
0 o�··--··-·---
231
� • • • • • • • • • •
0.29 • I I I I
- ••.• - - ••• - . -- •••••••••••••• 1------------------- --------1-----------------;------------·!-··------··------� .... - ........ .
Building Construction :Forklifts : 31 8.00: 8
9 ! 0.20
····························=---------------------------1-----------------;--------·----1-------�-----�---········--- BuildingConstruction :Gen eratorSets : 11 8.00: 84: 0.74 Building
.
Construction·
··
··
···
·
·
··· !Tractors/Loaders/Backhoe
s··
···
· -r··-------------
3 i- • - • --- • -
7 .
00 �---··--
·
·----
9 7
� • • • • • • • • • •
0 .
37 • I I I I ••• - - •••••• - •••••.••••••••• • 1---------------------------1-----------------"· --- .. ------·!----· ·---·--··---�. - .. -- ... - ... -
Building Construction :Welders : 1 j 8.00: 46! 0.45
-. -..... --. -. ----. ----.. ---. :---------------------------1-----------------;-------------r--------·------�. -. -.. -------- Paving •Pavers , 21 8.00• 1301 0.42
Pavi
ng
·
··········
·
·· · ········ �
Pavi
ng E
q
uipme
n
t
------------+---------------
2 +------·-
8 .
0o
�··--··--··---1
3 )· • •• • • • • • •
0.36 Ii t l I I ---······················---�--------------------------1-----------------;-------------1--------------�---··········· Paving •Rollers • 21 8.00• so: 0.38
............................ �--------------------------+------------------L------------.... -------------�---··········· Architectural Coating :Air Compressors • 1: 6.00: 78: 0.48 Trips and VMT
D emolition : s: 15.oo: 0.001 o.oo: 10.ao: 7.30: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix lHHDT · · · · • • • · · · · · · • · ·l---------------1-----------l· · · · • · · · · • �------- • • -1-----------,-----------1-- --------1------------__ ,_ --· ------.j. ••• • - •••• - Site Preparation : 7: 18.oo: O.OOI o.oo: 10.80l 7.30: 20. 00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix :HHDT
· · - · · · · · · · · · · · · -:---------------1-----------1-· · · · · · · · · �-- --- - - - - -!-----------,----------�- · ----- -- -1-- -- - ---------1- · · · -- · - · · .j. • • • • • • • • • - Grading : a: 20.00! O.OOl 0.00; 10.80l 7.30: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix :HHDT · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·=---------------1-----------1-· · · · · · · · · �-· ---· ----1-----------1----------�-- · - · ---· -1--------------1-· --· ----- -l. • • • • • - • • • • Building Construction : 9
[ 389.00: 152.00l O.oo: 10.80l 7
.
30: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix lHHDT
...... - ... -- ... -1---------------1-----------1-- ..... - .. �----------1----··------1-----------I-- --------1--------------1-. ------ - . .j. •• --- ••••• Paving : s: 15.oo: 0.001 o.oo: 10.00: 7.30: 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix lHHDT ················�--------------+-----------�----------l----------�-----------1-----------l----------+--------------+-----------l------ ----- Architectural Coating : 1: 78.00; 0.00; 0.00; 10.80; 7.30; 20.00;LD_Mix ;HDT_Mix ;HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Clean Paved Roads
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Demolition - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Total 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 3,746.781 3,746.781 1.0524 2 2
3,773.092
0 Hauling :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ........... :-------�
-------.:-------� ------�-------.:-------i ------�------�-------�-------l -------�------�-------�-------.:-------4-------
Vendor :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I
a1 l I I I I I I I I il I I I I I
·-········-� ------�-------,-------...-------,-------,-------,-------..-------�-------�-------······· -.-------�-------�-------...-------�----- -- Worker •• 0.0533 , 0.0300 : 0.4190 • 1.�4g3
oe- ; 0.1232 : 6.3ggJe- ; 0.1239 • 0.0327 ; 5.aggJe- ; 0.0333 i ; 115.4571 ; 115.4571 ; 3.�g�e- : 3.oggfe- : 116.4447 Total
•• I I I I I I I I I I
0.0533 0.0300 0.4190 1.1400e• 0.1232 6.3000e- 0.1239 0.0327 5.80008· 0.0333 115.4571 115.4571 3.3400e· 3.0300e· 116.4447 003 004 004 003 003
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMF AC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.2 Demolition - 2022
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Off-Road 2.6392
Total 2.6392
25.7194 20.5941
25.7194 20.5941
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553
0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553
1.1553 0.0000
1.1553 0.0000
' 3,746.781 I 3,746.781 I
: 2 : 2 :
. ' '
3,746.781 3,746.781
2 2
1.0524
1.0524
• 3,773.092
: 0
J
3,773.092
0 Hauling :; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •t I I I I I I I I I j I I I I I
.•......... : ------.:-------�-------� ------�-------�-------� ------�-------�-------�-------�---·---:-------..:-------..:..------�-------�---···· Vendor :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 t : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 I 1 I I I I J I I I I I I I t
•1 I I l I I I I I I ' • I I I I
•• • ••••••••n-------.,-------,-------...,-------�-------�-------�-------�-------.,-------�----�--••• •••• •1-------.,-------,-------.,-------T•• •• •• • Worker :; 0.0533 : o.0300 , 0.4190 : 1�4Jl1e-: 0.1136 : 6.3 0 ogfe- : 0.1142 , 0.0303 : 5.�gfe- : o.0309 f ; 115.4571 : 115.4571 : 3.3 04g1e-: 3.ogg3oe- : 116.4447
Total
•• I I I I I I I I I I I •
0.0533 0.0300 0.4190 1.1400e• 0.1136 6.3000e· 0.1142
003 004
0.0303 5.8000e- 0.0309
004
115.4571 115.4571 3.3400e- 3.0300e- 116.4447
003 003
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Fugitive Dusi :: : 19.6570 : 0.0000 : 19.6570 : 10.1025 : 0.0000 : 10.1025 t : 0.0000 ! mi I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I
0.0000
Off-Road ::- 3.1701 7" 33.0835 i 19.6978 i 0.0380 i "!'" 1.6126 7" 1.6126 i i 1.4836 -:- 1.4836 1 !"'3 686.061i3 686.061 i 1.1922 i ';' 3 715.865 •• : : I I I I I I I f I
1 9 I 1
9 I : I 1
5 Total 3.1701
I I ' I
33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 19.6570 1.6126 21.2696 10.1025 1.4836 11.5860 3,686.061 3,686.061 1.1922 9 9
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3,715.865
5 Hauling :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 f ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 a1 l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
a1 I I I I 1 I I I I ' I I I I J ·········· ·�-------� ------.,-------...-------,--------,-------,-------...-------,-------,--------•· ···· · ·r------�-------,-------�-------�· -····· Vendor :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 t : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •I I I I I I I I I t l I I I I I
....... -... ::-------.:-------� ------.:-------�-------�-------.:-------�-------.:-------�-------! ....... - -:-------..:-------�-------�-------.:.. ...... .
Worker •• 0.0639 • 0.0360 • 0.5028 • 1.3700e- • 0.1479 • 7.5000e- • 0.1486 • 0.0392 • 6.9000e- • 0.0399 t 1 138.5485 • 138.5485 • 4.0000e- • 3.6400e- • 139.7337 : I I 003 : I 004 I 004 : I I I : 003 : 003 I
Total 0.0639
I I l ' I '
0.0360 0.5028 1.3700e- 0.1479 7.SOOOe• 0.1486
003 004
0.0392 6.9000e- 0.0399
004
138.5485 138.5485 4.0000e- 3.6400e- 139.7337
003 003
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North- San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Fugitive Dust :; ; 19.6570 ! 0.0000 ; 19.6570 ! 10.1025 ; 0.0000 ; 10.1025 t : 0.0000 : ! 0.0000 •• I I t I I I I f f ' • I I f t
········ ···..-------�-------�-------�-------,-------�-------,-------�-------,-------�-------•········-------,-------,-------,-------�· ······ Off-Road •• 3.1701 : 33.0835 • 19.6978 ; 0.0380 : : 1.6126 , 1.6126 : , 1.4836 1.4836 f 0.0000 ; 3,68� .061 ! 3,6�
.061: 1.1922 , : 3,71;
.865
Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380
I I ' I I I I
19.6570 1.6126 21.2696 10.1025 1.4836 11.5860 0.0000 3,686.061 3,686.061 1.1922 9 9
3,715.865
5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
:: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 •• I I I I I I I I I I
a1 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
···········n-------,-------,-------...-------,-------�-------..-------...-------,-------�-------�- --·····-------,-------�-------�-------�- -····· Vendor :; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 t ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 WI t I I f t I I I t j I t I I I
···········fl-------�-------�-------�-------�-------�--------,-------�-------�-------�-------·········-------,-------�-------�-------�---···· Worker :: 0.0639 • 0.0360 • 0.5028 : 1.3cig�e- : 0.1363 : 7.sgg4 0e- : 0.1371 : 0.0364 : 6.9gg4
oe- : 0.0371 t : 138.5485 : 138.5485 : 4.ogg�e- : 3.6
0 ��e- : 139.7337
Total 0.0639 0.0360
I I & I
0.5028 1.3700e- 0.1363 7.SOOOe- 0.1371
003 004
0.0364 6.9000e- 0.0371
004
138.5485 138.5485 4.0000e- 3.6400e- 139.7337
003 003
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Grading • 2022
Unmitigated Construction On.Site
Fugitive Dust :: ; 9.2036 : 0.0000 : 9.2036 : 3.6538 : 0.0000 ; 3.6538 t ; 0.0000 : : 0.0000 •1 I I I I I I I t I I
•• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Off-Road :: 3.6248 � 38.8435 � 29.0415 � 0.0621 � � 1.6349 � 1.6349 � � 1.5041 ; 1.5041 l : 6,011.410 � 6,011.410 i 1.9442 i -; 6,060.015 I I I ! I : I I
j : 5 : fi : : 8
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621
I I 1', I I I I
9.2036 1.6349 10.8385 3.6538 1.5041 5.1579 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442 5 5
6,060.015
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Hauling :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 t : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• I I I I I I I I I A I I I • I
•• I I I I I t I I I I I I I I J
·· ········ -�--------,-------..-------� ------�-------�-------.,-------�-------�-------.,..-------�···· ·· -�------�-------� ------� ------�·-··· -- Vendor :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 1 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 •1 I I I I I I l I I A I I I I I
•1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Worker :! 0.0710 � 0.0400 � 0.5586 � 1.5200e- � 0.1643 � 8.3000e- i 0.1651 " 0.0436 � 7.7000e-; 0.0444 1 ;153.9427 � 153.9427 � 4.4500e- � 4.0500e- "; 155.2596 I I : 003 I I 004 I : 004 I I : : : 003 I 003 I
Total 0.0710 0.0400
I I A I I I
0.5586 1.5200e- 0.1643 8.3000e· 0.1651 0.0436 7.7000e· 0.0444 153.9427 153.9427 4.4500e• 4.0500e· 155.2596 003 004 004 003 003
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Grading - 2022
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Fugitive Oust :: : 9.2036 : 0.0000 : 9.2036 : 3.6538 : 0.0000 : 3.6538 j : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 •1 I I I I I I I I I I
............. ::-------..:------.:-------.:-------�-------.:-------.: ------�------�-------.;.. _______ J. •••••• -:-------�-------.:-------�------� ......... .
Off-Road
.,
3.6248 , 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 : 1.6349 : 1.6349 : : 1.5041 : 1.5041 t 0.0000 ! 6,01 �
.410 : 6,01�
.410 ! 1.9442 : ! 6,06�
.015
I I I I J I
Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
9.2036 1.6349 10.8385 3.6538 1.5041 5.1579
Hauling :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 •1 I I I I I I I I t I
0.0000 6,011.410 6,011.410 1.9442
5 5
6,060.015
8 .... - ........ ::-------.:-------..:-------.:-------�-------� ... ------�-------�-------.:-------�-------� .... -. -:-------�-------.:-------�------ -=- -. "' .... ..
Vendor :; 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• I I I I t I I I I Ii I I I I I
Worker � 0.0710 ., 0.0400 .... 0.5586 � 1.5200e- � 0.1514 � 8.3000e- i 0.1523 ..- 0.0404 ., 7.7000e-; 0.0412 1 , : 153.9427 � 153.9427 � 4.4500e- i4.0500e- � 155.2596 :: : 003 : I 004 I 004 I
'
I : : 003 I 003 I
Total
ar I t ' I I
0.0710 0.0400 0.5586 1.52008• 0.1514 8.3000e- 0.1523 0.0404 7.70008• 0.0412 153.9427 153.9427 4.450De· 4.0500e- 155.2596 003 004 004 003 003
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Grading • 2023
Unmitigated Construction On.Site
Fugttive Dust ; 9.2036 ; 0.0000 ; 9.2036 : 3.6538 ; 0.0000 ; 3.6538 + ........... ::-------4-------� ------4-------�
-------� -------i
--------i--------i
-------�-------1 ....... :..------�------� ------�-------�---···· Off-Road •• 3.3217 34.5156 28.0512 0.0621 , 1.4245 • 1.4245 • • 1.3105 • 1.3105 + • 6,011.477 • 6,011.477 • 1.9442 • • 6,060.083 al I : i : 7 : 7 : : 6
a1 J ' I I I I
Total 3.3217 34.5156 28.0512 0.0621 9.2036 1.4245 10.6281 3.6538 1.3105 4.9643 Unmitigated Construction Off.Site
Hauling 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ! al I I I I I I I I l
6,011.477 6,011.477 1.9442
7 7
a1 I I I I J I I I I l I I I I I
6,060.083
6 ··· ···· ····et-------�-------,-------�------�-------.,-------..-------,-------�-------�-------•· ·- ·· ···-------..-------�-------� ------�·-····· Vendor :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 l ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 •1 I I I I I I I I I j I 1 I I I
......... -... =--------..:-------�-------..: ------..:-------..:-------�-------.:-------..:-------.:.-------! .......... -:-------�-------�-------�-------.:. ..... - ..
Worker •• 0.0651 • 0.0349 • 0.5092 1 1.4700e- • 0.1643 • 7.9000e- 1 0.1651 • 0.0436 • 7.2000e- 1 0.0443 I • 148.9370 1 148.9370 1 3.9700e- • 3.7100e- 1 150.1429 •• : 003 I
I 004 : : 004 l t
l I I 003 I 003 I
Total 0.0651 0.0349 0.5092 1.4700e- 0.1643 7.9000e- 0.1651 003 004
0.0436 7.20008•
004
0.0443 148.9370 148.9370 3.9700e- 3.71009- 150.1429
003 003
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.4 Grading • 2023
Mitigated Construction On-Sjte
,;Cate�ry
;ii:f-•\\·5
Fugitive Oust :: ! 0.0000 : 3.6538 I
! 0.0000
•1 I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
Off-Road :: 3.3217-: 34.5156
.,
28.0512 � 0.0021 � -: 1.4245 � 1.4245 � � 1.3105 i 1.3105 1 0.0000 !a,011.477�6.011.477-: 1.9442 � -:"a,oao.os3 : I I : I t
I : 7 : 7 : : 6
Total 3.3217
I I 1 I I I I
34.5156 28.0512 0.0621 9.2036 1.4245 10.6281 3.6538 1.3105 4.9643 0.0000 6,011.477 6,011.477 1.9442 7 7
6,060.083
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
Hauling :
: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 I : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 I I I I I I t f I l t I I I I
•• I I I I I I I 1 I ' I I I I I
·········· ·�-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------r-------�- --·····-------,--------,-------..-------�· -····· Vendor :
: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 I : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •1 I I I I I I I I I 6 I I I I I
•• I I I I I I I I t � I I I I I
Worner :: 0.0651 i 0.0349 .,.. 0.5092 i 1.4700e- � 0.1514 i7.9000e- i 0.1522 i 0.0404 i 7.2000e- i 0.0412 1 ,
: 148.9370 i 148.9370 i3.9700e- � 3.7100e--:" 150.1429
I : 003 I : 004 I I I 004 I
' : : : 003 : 003 I
Total 0.0651 0.0349
1 I l f I I I
0.5092 1.4700e- 0.1514 7.9000e- 0.1522
003 004
0.0404 7.2000e004
0.0412 148.9370 148.9370 3.9700e- 3.7100e- 150.1429
003 003
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehlcle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Building Construction • 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Off-Road 1.5728
Total 1.5728
14.3849 16.2440 0.0269
14.3849 16.2440 0.0269
0.6997
0.6997
0.699 7
0.6997
0.6584 0.6584
0.6584 0.6584
' 2,555.209 I 2,555.209 I 0.6079
: 9 : 9 :
I I
2,555.209 2,555.209 0.6079
9 9
I 2,570.406
: 1
2,570.406
1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Hauling 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 t •1 I I I I I t I I I j I
a1 I I I I I I I I I j I I I I I
···· ····· · -..-------,-------�-------�-------�-------�------�-------..-------...-------�-------•· ·-----�------..-------�-------.,-------�···· ··· Vendor :: 0.1655 ; 6.4387 : 1.9499 : 0.0305 ; 1.0301 : 0.0429 : 1.0730 : 0.2966 : 0.0411 : 0.3377 f : 3,22�.629: 3,22�.629 : 0.0161 : 0.4874 : 3,37i 286
•• I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
·····---�- -..-------�-------�-------..-------�-------.,-------� ------...-------..-------�-------•· ···- --.--------,-------�-------.,-------�······· Worker 1.2666 • 0.6784 • 9.9029 : 0.0287 : 3.1955 0.0153 : 3.2108 , 0.8476 ; 0.0141 • 0.8617 f : 2,8� .823: 2,89�
.823
: 0.0771 : 0.0722 : 2,92�.279
Total 1.4321 7.1171
t I I I I I I I I
11.8528 0.0592 4.2256 0.0582 4.2839 1.1442 0.0551 1.1993 6,122.453 6,122.453 0.0932 6 6
0.5597 6,291.566
0 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Off-Road
Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269
0.6997 0.6997
0.6997 0.6997
0.6584 0.0000
0.6584 0.6584 0.0000
o 2,555.209 0 2,555.209 I
: 9 � 9 :
I I I
2,555.209 2,555.209
9 9
0.6079
0.6079
I 2,570.406
: 1
2,570.406
1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
Hauling :: 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 t 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• I I I I J I I • I I ' I I I
--
•• I I ' t I I I I I ' I t I I I
---------ft-------,-------�-------�-------�-------�-------...-------�-------�-------..--------•----- --·-------�-------,-------�-------�------ · Vendor :: 0.1655 : 6.4387 : 1.9499 : 0.0305 : 0.9641 : 0.0429 : 1.0070 : 0.2804 : 0.0411 ! 0.3215 ! : 3,22� .629: 3,22�
.629
: 0.0161 : 0.4874 : 3,37+
.286
•I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·· · ·· · ··· ·-..-------.,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,-------.,-------�-------�-------•·· ·· ···r------...-------.,-------�-------•······· Worl<er 1.2666 : 0.6784 : 9.9029 • 0.0287 : 2.9456 : 0.0153 • 2.9609 : 0.7863 • 0.0141 ; 0.8003 i : 2,8� .823
; 2,89�
.823: 0.0771 • 0.0722 : 2,92
�
.279
Total 1.4321
I I I I I i1j I I I t
7.1171 11.8528 0.0592 3.9097 0.0582 3.9679 1.0667 0.0551 1.1218 6,122.453 6,122.453 0.0932 6 6
0.5597 6,291.566
0 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 30 Date: 11/1/202210:54AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On..Sjte
Total 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668
0.61 33
0.0270 0.6133
0.6133 0.5769
0.6133 0.5769 0.5769
• 2,555,698 I 2,555.698 I 0.6044
: 9 : 9 :
o I I
2,555.698 2,555.698 0.6044
9 9
I 2,570.807
: 7
I
2,570.807
7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Hauling :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i ···········=-------�
-------� ------�
-------�
-------L.-------L------.:
-------l.------L-------l ....... i
-------� ------l
.------�
-------l ...... .
Vendor :: 0.1617 ! 6.4426 : 1.9115 : 0.0300 ; 1.0301 ! 0.0433 ! 1.0734 : 0.2966 : 0.0414 : 0.3380 i ! 3,1 7 �
.503; 3,17�
.503: 0.01 54 : 0.4793 ; 3,31 :
.726
at I I I I I I I I I ' I I I f I
.. - ........ --------.-------.. -------...-------,-------.,-.------...-------...-------.,-------.,.-------· ...... - ·,-------...-------�------.,-------"'f" -. -.. - -- Worker •• 1.1664 , 0.5959 , 9.1318 • 0.0277 • 3.1955 • 0.0144 : 3.2099 : 0.8476 , 0.0133 , 0.8609 i ; 2,79� .752: 2,79
�
.752: 0.0690 • 0.0667 : 2,81
�
.352
Total
a1 I I & I I l I
1.3281 7.0385 11.0434 0.0577 4.2256 0.0577 4.2834 1.1442 0.0547 1.1989 5,971.255 5,971.255 0.0843 9 9
0.5460 6,136.079
4 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasollne Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
Mitigated Construction On-Sjte
Total 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
hiqate9l)�T,
,{. ·���.:- .·: -: .. (,,.�� ·_ .
0.6133
0.6133
0.6133 0.5769 0.5769
0.6133 0.5769 0.5769
0.0000
0.0000
' 2,555.698 I 2,555.698 I
: 9 : 9 :
' I O
2,555.698 2,555.698
9 9
0.6044
0.6044
• 2,570.807
: 7
2,570.807
7 Hauling :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I
............. ::-------..:-------.:-------�-------..:-------.:-------�-------.:-------.:-------..:..-------! ...... -:-------.:-------�-------�-------..:. ....... .
Vendor :: 0.1617 : 6.4426 : 1.9115 : 0.0300 : 0.9641 ! 0.0433 : 1.0074 : 0.2804 : 0.041 4 : 0.3218 t : 3, 17� 503: 3, 17�
.503: 0.0154 ! 0.4793 : 3,31 :
.726
•• t I t I I I I I I ' I I 1 I l
............... -------,-------.. -------91-------.,-------... -------,-------.,-------.,-------�-------......... ·--------,-------�-------.,-------.. - ...... -. Worker :: 1.1664 , 0.5959 9.131 8 : 0.0277 ; 2.9456 • 0.0144 , 2.9600 • 0.7863 : 0.0133 : 0.7995 i : 2,79� 752: 2, 79�_752: 0.0690 : 0.0667 ; 2,81�.352 Total 1.3281 7.0385
t I I r � I I I I
11.0434 0.0577 3.9097 0.0577 3.9674 1.0667 0.0547 1.1213 5,971.255 5,971.255 0.0843 9 9
0.5460 6,136.079
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Paving � 2024
Unmitigated Construction On.Site
Off-Road :: 0.9882 : 9.5246 ! 14.6258 : 0.0228 : : 0.4685 : 0.4685 : : 0.4310 : 0.4310 ! : 2,20?47 : 2,20?47; 0.7140 : : 2, 22� .396
•1 I I I t I I I I I il I I I I I ····· -·-· ·-..-------.,-------,-------�-------�-------�-------,-------.,-------�-------�-------•········-------,-----=--t-------.,-------�······· Paving •• 1.7082 : : : : : 0.0000 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 l : 0.0000 : : : 0.0000 Total 2.6964 9.5246 14.6258
Unmitigated Construction Off.Site
0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310
l '
l '
2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140
2 2
2,225.396
3 Hauling :
: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 f : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• I I I I I I I I I A, I I I I
a1 I I I I I I I I I iii I I I I 1
•• ••••••••·..-------, ------,-------,-------,-------� ------.,--------,-------,-------T-------•• •• ••••1--=-=--,-----=-,-------,-------�·· �· ••• Vendor :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 f : 0.0000 : 0. 0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•• I I I I I t I I I ii I I I I I
··-·-····· ·--------...-------�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------,-------.,-------�-------�------ -.-------�-------...-------,-------�----·· Worker •• 0.0450 0.0230 • 0.3521 : 1.0
6 gie- : 0.1232 : 5.6ggie- : 0.1 238 : 0.0327 : 5.1gg1e- : 0.0332 f : 107.8054 : 107.8054: 2.�g�e- : 2.s6 g�e- : 108.6383
Total 0.0450 0.0230
I I t I j I
0.3521 1.0700e- 0.1232 5.6000e• 0.1238
003 004
0.0327 5.1DOOe004
0.0332 107.8054 107.8054 2.6600e- 2.5700e• 108.6383
003 003
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.6 Paving -2024
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Off-Road :: 0.9882 : 9.5246 ; 14.6258 : 0.0228 : : 0.4685 : 0.4685 : : 0.4310 : 0.4310 i 0.0000 : 2,207.547 : 2,207.547 ; 0.7140 :
....... -. --� ------J-------l-------�------�-------l-------l-------l-------� -------i-------�. -. -.. -:--- 2 --�--- 2 --J-------L------l · .. 3 ••• Paving •• 1.7082 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 : 0.0000 ; • : 0.0000 Total 2.6964 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
0.4685
I I I l I
I I I ' I
0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2,207.547 0.7140
2 2
Hauling :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i 2,225.396
3 ··----�----::-------.:-------.:-------�-------�-------�-------.:-------�-------�-------�-------l---··-·:-------.:-------..:-------�-------�----·-· Vendor :; 0.0000 : 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ! : 0.0000 ! 00000 ! 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 ........... :-------+-------�-------�-------�-------�-------.:-------�-------�-------�-------l-------:-------..:-------�-------.:-------�---···· Worker :
: 0.0450 : 0.0230 : 0.3521 : 1.°o7
0 o
�
e- : 0.1136 : 5.6gg4
oe- : 0.1141 : 0.0303 ! s.1ggJe- : 0.0308 t ; 107.8054 : 107.8054 : 2.6:�e- : 2.5Jg�e- : 108.6383 Total 0.0450
I I I I I I & t I
0.0230 0.3521 1.0700e• 0.1136 5.6000e· 0.1141
003 004
0.0303 5.10008• 0.0308
004
107.8054 107.8054 2.6600e• 2.5700e• 108.6383
003 003
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.7 Architectural Coating -2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Archit. Coating :: 26 2.1374 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 •1 I I I I I I 6 I I I
•t I I I I I I I I I j I t I I I ••••••••• � •..-------.,-------�-------� ------.,-------� -------,-------�-------,-------T-------�•••••••.-------..-------�------..-------�•••••• Off-Road :: 0,1808 ; 1.2188 : 1.8101 : 2.9cig�e- : 0.0609 0.0609 : 0.0609 : 0.0609 i : 281.4481 : 281.4481 0.015 9 : : 281.8443 Total 262.3182 1.2188
I I I
1.8101 2.9700e003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Hauling :: 0.0000 ! 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 z : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000
I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
•1 I I I I 1 I I I I ' I I I t I •• •••• •••••�-------�-------�-------.,-------,-------,-------,-------�-------..-------T-------••••••••.-------,-------.,-------,-------�•••-••• Vendor :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 •• I I I I I I I I r A • I I I I
•• I I I I I I I I I & I I I I I ••••• •• ••• •�-------,-------�-------,-------�-------,-------..-------�-------�------T-------•••••• •••-------,-------.,-------�------••• • •••• • Work.er :: 0.2339 : 0.119 5 ; 1.8311 : 5.5 0 5
0 o
3 oe- : 0.6 408 : 2.8
0 9
0 o
3 oe- : 0.6436 : 0.1700 : 2.66
00 0
3 00- ; 0.1726 i : 56 0.5879 : 56 0. 5879 : 0.0138 ; 0.01 34 : 56 4.9190 Total
I I I t I ' I I I
•• I I I I I ' I I I
0.2339 0.1195 1.8311 5.55008• 0.6408 2.89008• 0.6436
003 003
0.1700 2.6600e- 0.1726
003
560.5879 560.5879 0.0138 0.0134 564.9190
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 30 Date: 11/1/202210:54AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
Mitigated Construction On-Site
: 0.0000 ! 0.0000 i
Off-Road � 0.1808 � 1.2188 f- 1.8101 f-2.9700e- � "!- 0.0609 � 0.0609 f- � 0.0609 + 0.0609 ! 0.0000 ! 281.4481 f-281.4481 � 0.0159 � f 281.8443 :: I I I QQJ : I !
I I I
I
, : I : I
Total
al I J I I
262.3182 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
281.8443
Hauling :: 0.0000 : 0.0000 ! O 0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ··········-:-------�-------,:_------..:-------�-------�-------..:-------�-------..;..------.;..-------!----··-�------�------�-------�-------�---···· Vendor :; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 f : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 t I t I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
........... ::-------.:-------..;-------.:-------..:-------..:-------�------�-------�-------..:..-------l - -.... -:-------.:-------�-------�-------.:. ........ ..
Worker •• o.2339 , 0.1195 1.8311 : s.sig�e- : 0.5906 : 2.� 9 g
i
e- : 0.5935 , 0.1577 : 2.6
0 6
0 o
i
e- ; 0.1603 t : 560.5879: 560.5879: 0.0138 : 0.0134 : 564.9190 Total 0.2339 0.1195 1.8311 5.55008• 0.5906 2.8900e- 0.5935 003 003
0.1577 2.6600e•
003
0.1603
I I
560.5879 560.5879 0.0138 0.0134 564.9190
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
4.0 Operational Detail • Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
:: 3.7480 : 18.7181 ! 33.8235 ! 0.1304 ! 8.5660 : 0.1719 : 8.7379 ! 22946 ! 0.1634 ! 2.4580 j : 13,5 ?t23 ! 13,5
?l.23: 0.3687 : 1.3538
a1 I I I I I I I I I ' I I t I
Unmitigated "" 3.7480 ..,. 18.7181
..,.
33.8235
..,.
0.1304 ..,. 8.5660 "-:" 0.1719 "-:" 8.7379 .... 2.2946 .... 0.1634 .... 2.4580 • �13,535.23-:"13,535.23"-:" 0.3687 ..,. 1.3538 ; 12 ; 12 :
•1 I I I
4.2 Trip Summary Information
: : : : :: : : ::::���f�i��t:::::::::::: t:::����::t===��===i:::: �:��:::: i:::::::::::::::::::::::: t::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail • 1,358.00 , 1,358.00 1 1358.00 • 3,964,696 • 3,964,696 Total 1,358.00 1,358.00 1,358.00 3,964,696 3,964,696
4.3 Trip Type Information
General Office Building : 9.50
••••••• P;;ki;
g
· L�t
· ••.••. T---g�so··-
• R;f�ig�;at;d S,Vir;h��s·e
�N�' •• • • • 9�50 · - -
7.30 7.30
7.30 7.30
7.30 7.30
33.0Q I 48.00 I 19.QO
I ---------r I - ....... ·r •.•..•.•••.
0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00
I I
.. 59.00 ....... ·o.oo .. •r ••• 41 .
·oo· ...
77 0
92 19
0 5
4 0
3 13,947.88
73 13,947.88
73 Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10 :54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
4.4 Fleet Mix
General Office Building : 0.536987: 0.052416: 0.169237: 0.150872: 0.026159: 0.006241: 0.012518: 0.016886: 0.000471: 0.000325: 0.023246: 0.001119: 0.003522 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • -c---------1------- __ ,_ --------1---------1---------1--- • -----1---------1---------1-------- -1---------1---------� · • · · • · · · Parking Lot • 0.536987• 0.052416• 0.169237• 0.150872• 0.026159• 0.006241 • 0.012518• 0.016886• 0.000471 • 0.000325• 0.023246• 0.001119• 0.003522 ...•..........•...•..... ; - •. -...• .;. ________ .;.. ________ .;.. ________ .;.. ________ .;.. ________ .j_ ________ .;.. ________ .;.. ________ .;..___ ----.l..--------.i...--------� ....... .
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail: 0.439290: 0042880: 0.138447: 0.123423: 0.021400: 0.005106: 0.008735: 0.198822: 0000000: 0.000000: 0.019017; 0.000000: 0.002881
5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
NaturalGas •• 0.0165 • 0.1500 • 0.1260 • 9.0000e- • : 0.0114 : 0.0114 : : 0.0114 : 0.0114 z :
,
180.0161
1 : 180.0161 :
,
3.4 00
50 3
0e- :
,
3.3 0
o
0 o
3 oe- •
1 , 181.0859
Mitigated :: : ; : 004 : , , , , , ,
.. - . -.. -... ::.------..:..------�------..:.------...:.------..:.------4-------:.------..:.------...:.-------l-. - - - · -:.------4------..:.-------:..------� .. -. - ...
NaturalGas •
• 0.0165 • 0.1500 0.1260 • 9.0000e- • • 0.0114 0.0114 • • 0.0114 • 0.0114 • 180.0161 • 180.0161 • 3.4500e- • 3.3 000e- • 181.0859 Unmitigated •• : ' 004 ' ' ' ' : : ' 003 ' 003 :
al I I
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.2 Energy by Land Use • NaturalGas
Unmitigated
Gen
;���:
ice : 446.575 i: 4.Bto°le- : 0.
0438 : 0.
036 8 : 2.sggJe· : : 3.3a3oo1
e- : 3.3gg3
oe- : : 3.3ggte· : 3.3gg1e- I : 52.5383 : 52.5383 : 1.o;g�e- : 9.eggJe- : 52.8505
I A1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
··· ·· ····· ·�------�-------,-------�-------�-------.,-------..-------�-------�-------..-------�-------�········-------�-------�-------�-------�·-··· · · Parking Lot • O 1: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 1 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 11 I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I
I 11 I I I I I I I I I 6 I I I I I
• R�irig�r�t�d -
-
:-1cia-3�sit:--o.0111-ro.1oa2·T-o.os92-TsAoocie: r·--·-· ra:-0100e:Ts.01ocie:r·---·Ta:-01ooe:T ·8�01ooe":. · :--- . - - -� 121�411aT121�ii11a T2.«ocie:T2:-a4ooe: 112a.2i54- ware
house
-No : :: : l : 004 : l 003 : 003 l l 003 l 003 : : l l 003 l 003 :
Rail , •• 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • , 1 1 , 1
Total 0.0165 0.1500 0.1260 9.0000e- 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 180.0161 180.0161 3.4500e· 3.3000e- 181.0859 004 003 003
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
5.2 Energy by Land Use • NaturalGas
Mitigated
General Office , 0.446575 1, 4.8200e- • 0.0438 • 0.0368 , 2.6000e- • • 3.3300e- • 3.3300e- • • 3.3300e- • 3.3300e- ' • 52.5383 • 52.5383 • 1.0100e- • 9.6000e- 1 52.8505 Building : !; 003 : : : 004 : : 003 : 003 : : 003 : 003 i : : : 003 : 004 :
I 61 I 1 I I I I I I I I I S I I I
Par11ing Lot ; O f: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 1 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : :: : : : : : : : : : t : : : : :
- R�fiig�r;t�d .. :-1.oe3se-::- -o.0111· ro.1oa2 · ro.os92-T s.4oooe": T------Tio1ooe: T's�o1ooe:r-----Ts:01oae: T ·a�o1iioe":.-: · - .... -� 121�411s T 121�411s T 2::i4ooe: T z.34oae: 1' 12a.2a54.
Warehouse-No ' :: l l l 004 l l 003 : 003 l l 003 l 003 • : l l 003 l 003 l Rail •• , , , , , , , , , • , 1 , ,
Total 0.0165 0.1500 0.1260 9.0000e- 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 180.0161 180.0161 3.4500e- 3.3000e· 181.0859
6.0 Area Detail
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
004 003 003
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied : 1.4g0
oie
- : 1.��ie
- : : 1
.�ogJe
-
: 1.�
0 0
o
4 o
e- i
: 0.0816 : 0.0816 : 2.1ggJe- : ; 0.0870
........... ::.------...:.------� ------..:..------4------..:..------..:.-------:.------..:.------.:.-------: • .. - •. -:.------� ------.:.------..:.------..:.. ...... .
Unmitigated •• 9.3451 • 3.5000e- • 0.0380 , 0.0000 , , 1.4000e- , 1.4000e- , , 1.4000e- , 1.4000e- 0.0816 0.0816 , 2.1000e -
, 0.0870
•• I 004 O 004 004 1 004 o 004 O 004 l
6.2 Area by Subcategory
Unmitigated
Ar��=:�
al :: 1.4364 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 j ; 0.0000 : : 0.0000 a1 I I I t I I I I I ' I I I I I •••••••••••n ------� ------,-------� -�----.,-------�-------,-------,-------,-------T--•-•--•• •• ••••1-------,-------,--------,-------�•• ••••• Consumer •• 7.9052 • , , • • 0.0000 , 0.0000 , , 0.0000 , 0.0000 I , , 0.0000 , • , 0.0000 Products :: : ! : : : : : 1 , : : ! :
•1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Landscaping :: 3.5100e-: 3.5000e-: 0.0380 : 0.0000 : :1.4000e-: 1.4000e·: : 1.4000e-: 1.4000e- 1 : 0.0816 f 0.0816 : 2.1000e-: : 0.0870 a, 003 ,004 , 1 1 ,004 , 004 , , 004 ,004 1 o I , 004 , I Total
•• I I I I I I I I I l l I I I I
9.3451 3.SOOOe· 0.0380
004
0.0000 1.4000e- 1.4000e004 004
1.4000e- 1.4000e004 004
0.0816 0.0816 2.1000e004
0.0870
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
6.2 Area by Subcategory
Mitigated
Ar��t=:�al :: 1
.4364 : ; 0.0000 0.0000 i : 0.0000 : •• I I I I I I f I ' I I ' I I t
0.0000
·········· ·�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------�-------•···-· ··,-------�-------�-------..-------�·- ···· c�r�����r :: 7
.
9 052 : !
:
: 0.0000 : 0.0000 : ! 0.0000 ! 0.0000 f : 0.0000 ! 1
: 0.0000
•1 I I I I I I j f I I I I I I I
• Landscaping.·::-3.5100e- �-3.5000e- �- 0.0380-� 0.0000--:-------�-1.4000e- �-1.4000e- i--------:-1.4000e- ";"° 1.4000e- r · ---. ·:- 0.0816 _i_ 0.0816 -i-2.1000e- -;-------;. 0 .0870
:: 003 ! 004 : : !
: 004 : 004 : : 004 : 004 I : : : 004 : ! Total 9.3"51 3.5000e· 0.0380 004
7 .0 Water Detail
7 .1 Mitigation Measures Water
0.0000 1.4000e- 1.4000e004 004
1.4000e- 1.4000e004 004
0.0816 0.0816 2.1000e004
0.0870
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
8.0 Waste Detail
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
9.0 Operational Offroad
10.0 Stationary Equipment
User Defined Equipment
11.0 Vegetation
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
2022
Annual Emissions (tons/year) L::4§il
Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.242191781
Construction Duration (days) 78
Total DPM (lbs) 18.8909589
Total DPM (g) 8568.938959
Start Date I 10/1sr2� End Date c-;1172023
Construction Days 78
2023
Annual Emissions (tons/year) [_.2_..!@
Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.558356164
Construction Duration (days) 365
Total DPM (lbs) 203.8
Total DPM (g) 92443.68
Start Date
··-
1/1/2� End Date 1/1/2024
Construction Days 365
2024
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.04561
Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.249863014
Construction Duration (days) 221
Total DPM (lbs) 55.21972603
Total DPM (g) 25047.667'73
Start Date Fl/1
/2�
End Date
'"s/iho24
Construction Days 221
Construction
Total OPM (lbs)
Total DPM (g)
Emission Rate (g/s)
Release Height (meters)
Tota I Acreage
Max Horizontal (meters)
Min Horizontal (meters)
Total
Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)
Setting
Population
Start Date
End Date
Total Construction Days
Total Years of Construction
Total Years of Operation
2 77. 9106849
126060.2867
0.002197336 l
c---. - 2�
415.21
207.60
1.5 F-- - -·
10/15/2022
-£;j
[ _____ _J!{9/2024J
664
1.82 28.18
Operation
Emission Rate
Annual Emissions (tons/year} L
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
Total OPM (lbs)
Emission Rate (g/s)
Release Height (meters)
Total Acreage
Ma� Horizontal (meters)
Min Horizontal (meters)
Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)
Setting
Population
Attachment B
____ o_.o@
0.218082192
79.6 0.001144932 !
21.3 415.21
207.60
15 Urban
85,792
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112
TITLE: Airport Business Centre, Operations
10/21/22
11:24:15
Attachment C
****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** SOURCE EMISSION RATE:
AREA EMISSION RATE:
AREA HEIGHT:
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE:
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE:
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION:
RURAL OR URBAN:
POPULATION:
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE =
0.114E-02 g/s
0.133E-07 g/(s-m2)
3.00 meters
415.21 meters
207.60 meters
1.50 meters
URBAN
85792
5000. meters
0.909E-02 lb/hr
0.105E-06 lb/(hr-m2)
9.84 feet
1362. 24 feet
681.10 feet
4.92 feet
16404. feet
*********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS **********************
BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON-POINT SOURCES
************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters - 5000. meters
MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR
Zo
SECTOR
SURFACE 1-HR CONC
ROUGHNESS (ug/m3)
1 * 1.000 0.6325
* = worst case diagonal
RADIAL DIST
(deg) (m)
0 200.0
TEMPORAL
PERIOD
WIN
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************* MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO: 0.35
BOWEN RATIO: 1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED
METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT
YR MO DY JDY HR
10 01 10 10 01
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN 20 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999.
HT REF TA HT
10.0 310.0 2.0
21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50
************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES **********************
OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
DIST
(m)
1.00 MAXIMUM
1-HR CONC
(ug/m3)
0.4874
DIST
(m)
2525.00
MAXIMUM
1-HR CONC
(ug/m3)
0.2465E-01
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
25.00 0.5104 2550.00 0.2433E-01
50.00 0.5324 2575.00 0.2402E-01
75.00 0.5524 2600.00 0.2371E-01
100.00 0.5710 2625.00 0.2341E-01
125.00 0.5881 2650.00 0.2311E-01
150.00 0.6039 2675.00 0.2282E-01
175.00 0.6187 2700.00 0.2253E-01
200.00 0.6325 2725.00 0.2226E-01
225.00 0.6291 2750.00 0.2198E-01
250.00 0.4915 2775.00 0.2172E-01
275.01 0.4038 2800.00 0.2145E-01
300.00 0.3543 2825.00 0.2120E-01
325.00 0.3193 2850.00 0.2095E-01
350.00 0.2921 2875.00 0.2070E-01
375.00 0.2708 2900.00 0.2046E-01
400.00 0.2521 2925.00 0.2023E-01
425.00 0.2355 2950.00 0.2000E-01
450.00 0.2207 2975.00 0.1977E-01
475.00 0.2075 3000.00 0.1955E-01
500.00 0.1954 3025.00 0.1933E-01
525.00 0.1845 3050.00 0.1912E-01
550.00 0.1747 3075.00 0.1891E-01
575.00 0.1657 3100.00 0.1870E-01
600.00 0.1574 3125.00 0.1850E-01
625.00 0.1498 3150.00 0.1831E-01
650.00 0.1429 3175.00 0.1811E-01
675.00 0.1364 3200.00 0.1792E-01
700.00 0.1304 3225.00 0.1773E-01
725.00 0.1249 3250.00 0.1755E-01
750.00 0.1197 3275.00 0.1737E-01
775.00 0.1149 3300.00 0.1719E-01
800.00 0.1105 3325.00 0.1702E-01
825.00 0.1063 3350.00 0.1685E-01
850.00 0.1024 3375.00 0.1668E-01
875.00 0.9868E-01 3400.00 0.1652E-01
900.00 0.9524E-01 3425.00 0.1635E-01
925.00 0.9199E-01 3450.00 0.1620E-01
950.00 0.8890E-01 3475.00 0.1604E-01
975.00 0.8600E-01 3500.00 0.1589E-01
1000.00 0.8327E-01 3525.00 0.1573E-01
1025.00 0.8070E-01 3550.00 0.1559E-01
1050.00 0.7825E-01 3575.00 0.1544E-01
1075.00 0.7591E-01 3600.00 0.1530E-01
1100.00 0.7367E-01 3625.00 0.1515E-01
1125.00 0.7155E-01 3650.00 0.1501E-01
1150.00 0.6954E-01 3675.00 0.1488E-01
1175.00 0.6764E-01 3700.00 0.1474E-01
1200.00 0.6583E-01 3725. 00 0.1461E-01
1225.00 0.6410E-01 3750.00 0.1448E-01
1250.00 0.6246E-01 3775. 00 0.1435E-01
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
1275.00 0.6088E-01 3800.00 0.1422E-01
1300.00 0.5936E-01 3825.00 0.1410E-01
1325.00 0.5789E-01 3850.00 0.1416E-01
1350.00 0.5648E-01 3875.00 0.1404E-01
1375.00 0.5513E-01 3900.00 0.1392E-01
1400.00 0.5385E-01 3925.00 0.1379E-01
1425.00 0.5261E-01 3950.00 0.1368E-01
1450.00 0.5143E-01 3975.00 0.1356E-01
1475.00 0.5029E-01 4000.00 0.1344E-01
1500.00 0.4920E-01 4025.00 0.1333E-01
1525.00 0.4815E-01 4050.00 0.1322E-01
1550.00 0.4714E-01 4075.00 0.1310E-01
1575.00 0.4615E-01 4100.00 0.1300E-01
1600.00 0.4520E-01 4125.00 0.1289E-01
1625.00 0.4428E-01 4150.00 0.1278E-01
1650.00 0.4340E-01 4175.00 0.1268E-01
1675.00 0.4255E-01 4200.00 0.1257E-01
1700.00 0.4173E-01 4225.00 0.1247E-01
1725.00 0.4093E-01 4250.00 0.1237E-01
1750.00 0.4016E-01 4275.00 0.1227E-01
1775.00 0.3941E-01 4300.00 0.1218E-01
1800.00 0.3868E-01 4325.00 0.1208E-01
1825.00 0.3798E-01 4350.00 0.1198E-01
1850.00 0.3730E-01 4375.00 0.1189E-01
1875.00 0.3665E-01 4400.00 0.1180E-01
1900.00 0.3601E-01 4425.00 0.1171E-01
1925.00 0.3539E-01 4450.00 0.1162E-01
1950.00 0.3479E-01 4475.00 0.1153E-01
1975.00 0.3421E-01 4500.00 0.1144E-01
2000.00 0.3364E-01 4525.00 0.1136E-01
2025.00 0.3308E-01 4550.00 0.1127E-01
2050.00 0.3255E-01 4575.00 0.1119E-01
2075.00 0.3202E-01 4600.00 0.1110E-01
2100.00 0.3152E-01 4625.00 0.1102E-01
2125.00 0.3102E-01 4650.00 0.1094E-01
2150.00 0.3054E-01 4675.00 0.1086E-01
2175.00 0.3008E-01 4700.00 0.1078E-01
2200.00 0.2962E-01 4725.00 0.1070E-01
2225.00 0.2918E-01 4750.00 0.1063E-01
2250.00 0.2875E-01 4775.00 0.1055E-01
2275.00 0.2833E-01 4800.00 0.1048E-01
2300.00 0.2792E-01 4825.00 0.1040E-01
2325.00 0.2752E-01 4850.00 0.1033E-01
2350.00 0.2713E-01 4875.00 0.1026E-01
2375.00 0.2676E-01 4900.00 0.1018E-01
2400.00 0.2639E-01 4925.00 0.1011E-01
2425.00 0.2602E-01 4950.00 0.1004E-01
2450.00 0.2567E-01 4975.00 0.9974E-02
2475.00 0.2532E-01 5000.00 0.9906E-02
2500.00 0.2498E-01
Attachment2
ExhibitA
Exhibit "A"
********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY ********************* 3-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1-hour concentration as referenced in
SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA-454/R-92-019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance
MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED
1-HOUR 3-HOUR 8-HOUR
CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC
PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3)
SCALED
24-HOUR
CONC
(ug/m3)
SCALED
ANNUAL
CONC
(ug/m3)
--------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- FLAT TERRAIN 0.6367
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE
IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.4874
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE
0.6367
208.00 meters
0.4874
1.00 meters
0.6367 0.6367 N/A
0.4874 0.4874 N/A
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112
TITLE: Airport Business Centre, Construction
10/21/22
11:11:57
****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** SOURCE EMISSION RATE:
AREA EMISSION RATE:
AREA HEIGHT:
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE:
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE:
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION:
RURAL OR URBAN:
POPULATION:
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE =
0.220E-02 g/s
0.255E-07 g/(s-m2)
3.00 meters
415.21 meters
207.60 meters
1.50 meters
URBAN
85792
5000. meters
0.174E-01 lb/hr
0.202E-06 lb/(hr-m2)
9.84 feet
1362. 24 feet
681.10 feet
4.92 feet
16404. feet
*********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS **********************
BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON-POINT SOURCES
************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters - 5000. meters
MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR
Zo
SECTOR
SURFACE 1-HR CONC
ROUGHNESS {ug/m3)
1* 1.000 1.214
* =worst case diagonal
RADIAL
(deg)
DIST
(m)
0 200.0
TEMPORAL
PERIOD
WIN
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************* MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE:
MINIMUM WIND SPEED:
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT:
250.0 / 310.0 (K)
0.5 m/s
10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO:
BOWEN RATIO:
ROUGHNESS LENGTH:
0.35 1.50
1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED
METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT
YR MO DY JOY HR
10 01 10 10 01
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN 20 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999.
HT REF TA HT
10.0 310.0 2.0
21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50
************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES **********************
OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
DIST
(m)
1.00 MAXIMUM
1-HR CONC
(ug/m3)
0.9356
DIST
(m)
2525.00
MAXIMUM
1-HR CONC
(ug/m3)
0.4732E-01
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
25.00 0.9797 2550.00 0.4670E-01
50.00 1.022 2575.00 0.4610E-01
75.00 1.060 2600.00 0.4550E-01
100.00 1.096 2625.00 0.4493E-01
125.00 1.129 2650.00 0.4436E-01
150.00 1.159 2675.00 0.4380E-01
175.00 1.188 2700.00 0.4325E-01
200.00 1.214 2725.00 0.4272E-01
225.00 1.207 2750.00 0.4219E-01
250.00 0.9435 2775.00 0.4168E-01
275.01 0.7751 2800.00 0.4118E-01
300.00 0.6801 2825.00 0.4069E-01
325.00 0.6128 2850.00 0.4021E-01
350.00 0.5606 2875.00 0.3974E-01
375.00 0.5198 2900.00 0.3928E-01
400.00 0.4839 2925.00 0.3882E-01
425.00 0.4520 2950.00 0.3838E-01
450.00 0.4236 2975.00 0.3795E-01
475.00 0.3982 3000.00 0.3752E-01
500.00 0.3751 3025.00 0.3711E-01
525.00 0.3542 3050.00 0.3670E-01
550.00 0.3353 3075.00 0.3630E-01
575.00 0.3180 3100.00 0.3590E-01
600.00 0.3021 3125.00 0.3552E-01
625.00 0.2875 3150.00 0.3514E-01
650.00 0.2742 3175.00 0.3476E-01
675.00 0.2618 3200.00 0.3440E-01
700.00 0.2504 3225.00 0.3404E-01
725.00 0.2397 3250.00 0.3369E-01
750.00 0.2298 3275.00 0.3334E-01
775 .00 0.2206 3300.00 0.3300E-01
800.00 0.2121 3325.00 0.3267E-01
825.00 0.2041 3350.00 0.3234E-01
850.00 0.1965 3375.00 0.3202E-01
875.00 0.1894 3400.00 0.3170E-01
900.00 0.1828 3425.00 0.3139E-01
925.00 0.1766 3450.00 0.3109E-01
950.00 0.1706 3475.00 0.3079E-01
975.00 0.1651 3500.00 0.3049E-01
1000.00 0.1598 3525.00 0.3020E-01
1025.00 0.1549 3550.00 0.2992E-01
1050.00 0.1502 3575.00 0.2963E-01
1075.00 0.1457 3600.00 0.2936E-01
1100.00 0.1414 3625.00 0.2909E-01
1125.00 0.1373 3650.00 0.2882E-01
1150.00 0.1335 3675.00 0.2856E-01
1175.00 0.1298 3700.00 0.2830E-01
1200.00 0.1264 3725. 00 0.2804E-01
1225.00 0.1230 3750.00 0.2779E-01
1250.00 0.1199 3775.00 0.2754E-01
Attachment2
ExhibitA
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.
Hydrogeology:
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
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 hydro geologic 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:
• Ad vised 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 EPA'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
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 wherehe taughtfrom2010 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
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 Ground water 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
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 W a t e r 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 Ground water 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 rization 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
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
Exhibit "A"
jswAPEj Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Principal Environmental Chemist
Education
Attachment E
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years' experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SW APE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
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 H20 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 USPS, 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, RA., 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 Aermod 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 qf Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Jndusny, 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 Fonner 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 Jndusny. 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
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 Former 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 Enviromnent. 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 l.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9}, 171-1 78.
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 B.iosolids 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), 247-262.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
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. (1.991). 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 Conferences 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
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 23n1 Annual International Coriferences 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, P AH, 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 - DIOXIN2006. 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 Coriference. 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 Sociery 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 Ground-water Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Coriference.
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
Exhibit "A"
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of t
r
ibal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
D,ycleaner 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 1n Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Co71.ference 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 Coriference. 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 CUP A 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 Ojj' 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 Society Annual Co,iference. 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. Lectw·e 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
Exhibit "A"
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Bio/est. 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. Henry, 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 l, 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 ofhigh 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 ofbiosolids 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
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. Oi9-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. l 7-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: 17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner 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 Jackson 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:l 7-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division MIT 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. Inc. 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.: 1:16-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 Cl2-01481
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. Oi9-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 l: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
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 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG1471 l 115
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 Fort 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., Plaintiffe, 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
Exhibit "A"
.
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
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 Rezone/Prezone
D Development Agreement
-
D Specific Plan/ Amendment
D Master Plan/ Amendment
-
D Planned Development/ Amendment
IX! Appeal
Type of Application
D Municipal Code Amendment
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
Project Name Airport Business Centre North Site Plan Review SPC22-45 D Subdivision Map
D Parcel Map
D Lot Line Adjustment
D Tentative Map Extension
D Minor Use Permit
D Conditional Use Permit
D Sewer Allocation/Point Rating
- -
Project Address: 3045, 3123 & 3157 N. Airport Way
Project Description:
APN: 198-200-13, 198-200-06, 198-200-09
See attached appeal letter dated December 21 , 2022
Property Owner: Applicant
Name: Name: City of Lathrop
Contact: Contact: Mark Meissner
Address: Address: 390 Towne Centre Drive
City: City: Lathrop
State, Zip: State, Zip: CA, 95336
Phone: Phone: (209} 941-7266
E-mail: 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:
File Number/s: _____________________ _
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
City of Manteca Community Development Application Page 2 of 4 Other Contact Information ( e.g., Architect, Engineer)
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
Address: Address:
City: City:
State, Zip: State, Zip: ------------------
Phone: Phone:
E-mail: E-mail:
Fax: Fax:
Miscellaneous
General Plan Designation: Proposed General Plan Designation:
Zoning: Proposed Zoning:
General Property Dimensions:
Acres/Square Feet:
Land Use: Undeveloped/Vacant D Developed D
Hazardous Waste Affidavit
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. )if. The project site is not in an area listed as a Hazardous Waste or Substance Sile.
I aeclare under pen f er' a e laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Applicant Signature:. Date: _1_2�/2�1�/=20.c....2=2 ____________ _ reement and Representations of Applicant
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
Exhibit "A"
City of Manteca Community Development Application Page 3 of 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. MM (Initial)
4. Applicant(s) agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Manteca ( 11City") and its agents, officers,
consultants, independent contractors and employees (
11City'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 11Claim"). 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.
MM (Initial)
5. This Application will be a public record. __ MM ____ (lnitial)
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. MM (initial)
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 Dec. 21, 2022
Date
Date
Date
UPDATED 09/28/2015
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Cityof �-=,Qn_ �.
�
Community Development Department
Planning Division
December 21, 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 Airport Business Centre North (SPC 22-45), Planning Commission Resolution No's. 1616 and 1617 Pursuant to Manteca Municipal Code Section 17.08.070, the City of Lathrop ("Lathrop") hereby appeals the Manteca Planning Commission's decision on December 15, 2022 to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") and Site Plan Design Review Application for Airport Business Centre North (SPC 22-45) ("Project"), Planning Commission Resolution No's. 1616 and 1617, 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 December 15, 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 Traffic COA #1 and Traffic COA #2 which requires all truck traffic to use Intermodal Drive to Roth Road and Interstate 5. 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 distribution of these trips will have impacts unaddressed by the Master Plan EIR and its llPage
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
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.
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 Traffic COA #1 and Traffic COA #2 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. 1617 is additionally flawed because the Project, as conditioned, is inconsistent with the Master Plan.
21Pagc
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
CONCLUSION
Lathrop requests the City Council grant its appeal, order Planning Commission Resolution No's. 1616 and 1617, 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
Salvador Navarrete, City Attorney
Brad Taylor, City Engineer
Rick Caguiat, Assistant Director, Community Development Encl: Trip Distribution Map (Exhibit 3.12-4)
3 Ip i.l g C
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
� Vehicle Trip Distribution
Project Location
Source: Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants (2010). ���� �� [l[l�[I �OD Not to Scale
Michael Brandman Associates
24820003 • 07/201 O I 3.12-4_ Trip_Dist_MP _Buildout.ai I'
Exhibit 3.12-4
Trip Distribution -
Master Plan Buildout Conditions
CIT Y OF MANTECA• NORTHWEST AIRPORT WAY MASTER PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "A"
@CITY OF MANTECA
COMMUNITY DMLOPMENT
MANTECA,
1001 W. aNTER ST CA 95337
��g�VED C. I TV OF LATH P-Of
N� 2803
DATE l'k/ 'J,O /29 2,?...._
$1� .. 08�. 0 ol •
��---�-----------�-� DOLLARS
OCASH
FOR :i\\A:� 1\-\ov�"° !16.'-l.,.'< ,,»� MIO oo[too r70tlA-t'l.J'8 ��6�K
D CREDIT
AMOUNT OF ACCOUNT __ $ ___ _
AMOUNT PAID ____ $ '51
oC). CO
BALANCE DUE $ Q • Q 0
ma�k SJoul
BY -PYE:
CARD
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
Exhibit "A"