Attachment 3- Exhibit B to attachment 1- Inisital Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration — Manteca City Council, January 10, 2023 (part 1 of 4)

FINAL

INITIAL STUDY AND

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FOR THE

GBXMANTECA PROJECT
OCTOBER 24, 2022
Prepared for:

City of Manteca – City Hall
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337
(209) 456-8000
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m ATTACHMENT 3
Exhibit B

FINAL

INITIAL STUDY AND

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FOR THE

GBXMANTECA PROJECT
OCTOBER 24, 2022
Prepared for:

City of Manteca – City Hall
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337
(209) 456-8000
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818

Proposed GBxManteca Project
Lead Agency:

City of Manteca
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337
Project Title: GBxManteca Project
Project Location: The 16.02-acre Project site is located at 2261 Operation Place (APN: 198-030-38). The Project site is within the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan area, is zoned ‘Master Plan’ (MP), and is designated as ‘Light Industrial (LI) in the General Plan. The Project site is the previously approved Container Yard developed and owned by CenterPoint Properties. The Project site is bound by a rail freight transfer station to the north, Crothall Healthcare, S. Airport Way and residences to the east, agricultural orchards and Lathrop Road to the south and a vacant lot to the west. The Project site is at approximately 23 feet above mean sea level (msl) and the topography is generally flat.

Project Description: The existing use is a Container Yard, which was approved, but was not fully constructed and is not operational. The future use is anticipated to be a beverage distribution facility that generates 280 employees, creating 132 truck trips per day, and 530 passenger vehicle trips per day. The parking area is designed with 251 car parking stalls, and 56 trailer stalls. The operational business will provide beverage products distribution to local area retailers. The facility will provide temporary warehousing of beverage products, office administration of warehouse on site, and truck maintenance on site. The facility will be a 295,176 sf-sf tilt up concrete building with 40 truck docks, and 3 bay truck maintenance facility. The building use is broken into 270,176 sf for warehouse space, and 25,000 sf for office space. The footprint of the building is 280,983-sf, with 14,193 sf of the second level.

There will be refrigerated space inside the building totaling 20,000 sf for a Keg Box that maintains a 38 degrees F temperature and CTW 10,000 sf 50 degrees F (cool air from Keg Box flows into this area via vents). Refrigerant used in roof mounted refrigeration equipment is CO2. The cold storage component of the proposed Project is specifically for Coors products, but it is noted that Coors allows a period of time between removal from a 38-degree cooler, trucking in a non-refrigerated truck to the warehouse and put back into a 38-degree cooler. Therefore, the refrigerated and non-refrigerated products will be delivered to stores in non-refrigerated trucks. Stormwater management at the Project site would comply with the requirements of the City of Manteca Municipal Code. The proposed Project is consistent with the light industrial design standards and guidelines established in the approved Northwest Airport Way Master Plan, and implements the small-scale light industrial uses that are encouraged within the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan. Furthermore, the environmental impacts of this proposed development have already been fully analyzed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the certified Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2010022024). Future tenants of the proposed Project would be required to comply with the uses that are permitted by right (and conditionally permitted with procurement of a Conditional Use Permit) within the Light Industrial Zoning District by the City of Manteca Zoning Code.

Findings:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Manteca has prepared an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration reflect the independent judgment of City of Manteca staff. On the basis of the Initial Study, the City of Manteca hereby finds:

Although the proposed project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, there will not be a significant adverse effect in this case because the project has incorporated specific provisions to reduce impacts to a less than significant level and/or the mitigation measures described herein have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has thus been prepared.

The Initial Study, which provides the basis and reasons for this determination, is attached and/or referenced herein and is hereby made a part of this document.

Signature Date
Proposed Mitigation Measures:

The following Mitigation Measures are extracted from the Initial Study. These measures are designed to avoid or minimize potentially significant impacts, and thereby reduce them to an insignificant level. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is an integral part of project implementation to ensure that mitigation is properly implemented by the City and the implementing agencies. The MMRP will describe actions required to implement the appropriate mitigation for each CEQA category including identifying the responsible agency, program timing, and program monitoring requirements. Based on the analysis and conclusions of the Initial Study, the impacts of proposed project would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of the mitigation measures presented below.

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
MM AG-1: At the time building permits are sought for any Master Plan contemplated use, the project applicant shall pay the required City of Manteca agricultural mitigation fee to help offset the conversion of Important Farmland pursuant to Manteca Municipal Code Chapter 13.42.

AIR QUALITY
MM AIR-1a: Prior to issuance of grading permits for each Master Plan use, the project applicant shall provide information to the City of Manteca describing the methods by which the following measures will be complied with:
• Off-road equipment used onsite shall achieve a fleet average emissions equal to or less than the Tier II emissions standard of 4.8 grams of NOx per horsepower hour. This can be achieved through any combination of uncontrolled engines and engines complying with Tier II and above engine standards. Tier II emission standards are set forth in Section 2423 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, and Part 89 of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations. • Construction equipment shall be properly maintained at an offsite location; maintenance shall include proper tuning and timing of engines. Equipment maintenance records and data sheets of equipment design specifications shall be kept on-site during construction.
• Onsite construction equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes in any one hour. • During the building phase, onsite electrical hook ups shall be provided for electric construction tools including saws, drills and compressors, to eliminate the need for diesel powered electric generators. • Construction workers shall be encouraged to carpool to and from the construction site to the greatest extent practical.

Workers shall be informed in writing and a letter shall be placed on file in the City office documenting efforts to carpool.

MM AIR-1b: 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.

MM AIR-1c: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan building, the project applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable requirements of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Rule 9510 via the submittal of a Rule 9510 Implementation Plan to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The implementation plan shall achieve a 33-percent reduction in NOx and a 45-percent reduction in PM10 over the first 10 years of operations through the use of onsite emissions reduction measures or through the payment of offsite mitigation fees to the SJVAPCD for purchase of emission reductions. The requirements of the approved implementation plan shall be incorporated into the proposed project.

MM AIR-1d: Prior to approval of the final site plan for each Master Plan building that would receive 10 more truck deliveries per week, the project applicant shall demonstrate that the following anti-idling measures would be implemented:
• Provide available electricity hookups for trucks in the loading dock areas. • Signs shall be posted in dock areas advising drivers that idling shall not occur for more than 3 minutes. • Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and the California Air Resources Board shall be posted on signs at truck entrances to report idling violations.

MM AIR-6: Prior to final site plan approval for any Master Plan use that includes food service (i.e., restaurants, cafeterias, etc.), the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with SJVAPCD Rules 4102 (Nuisance) and 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling) to the extent that these rules are applicable. Compliance may entail the installation of kitchen exhaust vents, exhaust filtration systems, or other odor-reduction measures in accordance with accepted engineering practice. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM BIO-1a: If ground clearing or vegetation removal activities occur during the nesting season (February 15 through August 31), then pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted in all area suitable for nesting that are located within 250 feet of the Master Plan area. Surveys shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance. If an active nest is located, a 250-foot buffer shall be delineated and maintained around the nest until a qualified biologist has determined that fledging has occurred. Alternatively, CDFG may be consulted to determine if the protective buffer can be reduced based upon individual species responses to disturbance. This mitigation measure does not apply if ground clearing or vegetation removal activities occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 through February 14).

MM BIO-1b: No more than 30 day prior to the beginning of ground disturbance, a pre-construction survey for burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in general accordance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium. Should the surveys be scheduled to occur during the period extending from February 1 through May 1, then surveys shall be conducted no more that 15 days prior to the start of ground disturbance. Surveys shall be conducted from 2 hours before sunset to 1 hour after sunset, or from 1 hour before sunrise to 2 hours after sunrise, and shall be conducted during weather conducive to observing owls outside of their burrows. No surveys shall occur during heavy rain, high winds, or dense fog. If occupied burrows are found, mitigation for potential impacts shall follow the guidelines outlined by the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines, including passive relocation.

MM BIO-6: Prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit for the Master Plan, the project applicant shall obtain coverage under the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan. Coverage shall consist of approval of the Master Plan-specific “Section 8.2.1 (10) Checklist for Unmapped SJMSCP Projects” by the San Joaquin Council of Governments Technical Advisory Committee. The applicant shall pay all required fees to the San Joaquin Council of Governments prior to the commencement of construction activities.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM CUL-1: If potentially significant historic resources are encountered during subsurface excavation activities for any Master Plan use, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the resource requires further study. The City shall require that the applicant include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined to be significant under CEQA, the City and a qualified archaeologist shall determine whether preservation in place is feasible. Such preservation in place is the preferred mitigation. If such preservation is infeasible, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the resource. The archaeologist shall also conduct appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive written report and file it with the appropriate information center (California Historical Resources Information System), and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials.

MM CUL-2: If potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during subsurface excavation activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the resource requires further study. The City shall require that the applicant include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined to be significant under CEQA, the City and a qualified archaeologist shall determine whether preservation in place is feasible. Such preservation in place is the preferred mitigation. If such preservation is infeasible, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the resource. The archaeologist shall also conduct appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive written report and file it with the appropriate information center (California Historical Resources Information System), and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials.

MM CUL-3: In the event that plant or animal fossils are discovered during subsurface excavation activities for the proposed project, all excavation within 50 feet of the fossil shall cease until a qualified paleontologist has determined the significance of the find and provides recommendations in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The paleontologist shall notify the City of Manteca to determine procedures to be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the find is determined to be significant and the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and implement a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Upon approval, the plan shall be incorporated into the project.

MM CUL-4: If previously unknown human remains are encountered during construction activities, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code applies, and the following procedures shall be followed: In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Public Resource Code Section 5097.98 must be followed. Once projectrelated ground disturbance begins and if there is accidental discovery of human remains, the following steps shall be taken:
• There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the San Joaquin County Coroner’s Office is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation into cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
MM GEO-1: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan use, the project applicant shall submit a designlevel geotechnical study and building plans to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The building plans shall demonstrate that they incorporate all applicable recommendations of the design-level geotechnical study and comply with all applicable requirements of the most recent version of the California Building Standards Code. A licensed professional engineer shall prepare the plans, including those that pertain to soil engineering, structural foundations, pipeline excavation, and installation. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. All onsite soil engineering activities shall be conducted under the supervision of a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MM HAZ-1a: Prior to grading activities for any Master Plan use in areas where total petroleum hydrocarbons of diesel (i.e. TPH-D) has been detected, the applicant shall conduct soil sampling to delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of the TPH-D in order to implement a soil remediation program. Soil remediation shall be conducted in accordance with California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) guidelines. Contaminated soil shall be excavated and disposed of at an approved disposal facility. Following excavation, confirmation sampling shall be conducted to confirm whether remaining soil meets acceptable applicable regulatory levels. The excavation shall be backfilled with clean soil.

MM HAZ-1b: Prior to grading activities for any Master Plan use, any onsite wells or septic systems intended to be removed shall be destroyed under permit and inspection with San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
MM HYD-1: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for each proposed activities within the Master Plan area, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City of Manteca that identifies specific actions and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent stormwater pollution during construction activities. The SWPPP shall identify a practical sequence for BMP implementation, monitoring, and maintenance; site restoration; contingency measures; responsible parties; and agency contacts. The SWPPP shall include but not be limited to the following elements:
• Temporary erosion control measures shall be employed for disturbed areas. • Specific measures shall be identified to protect the onsite open drainages during construction of the proposed resort. • Specific measures shall be identified to protect the French Camp Outlet Canal and Drain 3 during any construction activities.
• No disturbed surfaces shall be left without erosion control measures in place during the winter and spring months. • Sediment shall be retained onsite by a system of sediment basins, traps, or other appropriate measures. • The construction contractor shall prepare Standard Operating Procedures for the handling of hazardous materials on the construction site to eliminate or reduce discharge of materials to storm drains. • BMP performance and effectiveness shall be determined either by visual means where applicable (e.g., observation of above-normal sediment release), or by actual water sampling in cases where verification of contaminant reduction or elimination (such as inadvertent petroleum release) is required by the RWQCB to determine adequacy of the measure. • In the event of significant construction delays or delays in final landscape installation, native grasses or other appropriate vegetative cover shall be established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance, as an interim erosion control measure throughout the wet season.

NOISE
MM NOI-1: During construction activities for all Master Plan uses, the applicant shall require its construction contractors to adhere to the following noise attenuation requirements:
• Construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily. The City of Manteca Director of Public Works shall have the discretion to permit construction activities to occur outside of allowable hours if compelling circumstances warrant such an exception (e.g., weather conditions necessary to pour concrete). • All construction equipment shall use noise-reduction features (e.g., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are no less effective than those originally installed by the manufacturer. If no noise-reduction features were installed by the manufacturer, then the contractor shall require that at least a muffler be installed on the equipment. • Construction staging and heavy equipment maintenance activities shall be performed a minimum distance of 300 feet from the nearest residence, unless safety or technical factors take precedence (e.g., an equipment breakdown). • A 10-foot-high construction noise barrier shall be installed along the edge of the Master Plan area within 300 feet of any offsite residence prior to start of grading activities. The noise barrier shall either be constructed of a minimum 0.5-inch plywood or utilize acoustical blankets with a minimum Sound Transmission Class of 12. The barrier shall remain in place until noise intensive aspects of construction are completed.

MM NOI-4: During Master Plan operations, the use of street sweepers and mechanical landscape maintenance equipment (lawnmowers, leaf blowers, etc.) shall be prohibited between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

PUBLIC SERVICES
MM PSU-1: Prior to issuance of building permits for any Master Plan uses, the project applicant shall provide the City of Manteca will all applicable fire protection development fees in accordance with the latest adopted fee schedule.

TRANSPORTATION
MM TRANS-1: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan use, the applicant shall pay all transportationrelated fees in accordance with the latest adopted fee schedule at the time permits are sought. Such fees shall include, but not be limited to, the City of Manteca Public Facilities Implementation Plan fee and the San Joaquin County Regional Transportation Impact Fee.

MM TRANS-4a: Prior to site plan review for each Master Plan use, the applicant shall consult with the City of Manteca Community Development Department about appropriate frontage improvements. All necessary frontage improvements shall be depicted on the final site plan and implemented as part of site development.

MM TRANS-6a: Prior to site plan review for each Master Plan light industrial use, the applicant shall consult with the City of Manteca Community Development Department, Manteca Transit, and the San Joaquin Regional Transit District about the inclusion of appropriate transit facilities (turnouts, shelters, etc.) or services (e.g., an employee shuttle). If transit facilities are deemed to be necessary, they shall be provided on the final site plan. If transit services are deemed to be necessary, the applicant shall prepare a service plan and submit it to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The approved plan shall be incorporated into the project. To the extent feasible, transit facilities and services shall be coordinated among Master Plan uses to maximize efficiency and effectiveness.

MM TRANS-6b: Prior to site plan review for each Master Plan light industrial use, the applicant shall consult with the City of Manteca Community Development Department about the inclusion of appropriate bicycle facilities (racks, lockers, etc.). If bicycle facilities are deemed to be necessary, such facilities shall be provided on the final site plan.

MM TRANS-6c: Prior to site plan review for each Master Plan light industrial use, the applicant shall consult with the City of Manteca Community Development Department about the inclusion of appropriate pedestrian facilities. If pedestrian facilities are deemed to be necessary, such facilities shall be provided on the final site plan.

MM TRANS-7: Prior to issuance of grading permits for each Master Plan use, the applicant shall submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The plan shall identify the timing and routing of all major construction equipment and trucking to avoid potential traffic congestion and delays on the local street network. The plan shall encourage the use of Interstate 5 (I-5), Roth Road, Airport Way, and Lathrop Road wherever practical. Anticipated temporary road closures should be identified, along with safety measures and detours. If necessary, construction equipment and materials deliveries shall be limited to off-peak hours to avoid conflicts with local traffic circulation. The plan shall also identify suitable locations for construction worker parking.

UTILITIES
MM PSU-3a: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan use, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Manteca for review and approval identifying a non-potable irrigation system that is separate from the potable water systems. The non-potable irrigation system shall use non-potable well water until recycled water is available, at which point it shall be converted to use recycled water.

MM PSU-3b: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan use, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Manteca for review and approval identifying that all appropriate and feasible water conservation measures are incorporated into the proposed use(s). The approved measures shall be incorporated into the final development plans. Examples of water conservation measures include but are not limited to:
• Drought-tolerant landscaping or xeriscaping
• Water efficient irrigation systems (drip irrigation, bubbler/soaker systems, hydrozones, evapotranspiration controllers, etc.)
• Sensor-activated low-flow fixtures (e.g., faucets, urinals, and toilets) MM PSU-6a: Prior to issuance of building permits for any building developed pursuant to the Master Plan, the project applicant shall retain a qualified contractor to perform construction and demolition debris recycling. Following the completion of construction activities, the project applicant shall provide documentation to the satisfaction of the City of Manteca demonstrating that construction and demolition debris was recycled.

MM PSU-6b: Prior to issuance of building permits for each building developed pursuant to the Master Plan, the project applicant shall provide information to the City of Manteca describing the methods by which recycling and waste diversion activities shall be achieved. This information shall include but is not limited to the type and location of facilities necessary to collect and store recyclable materials, contractors who would pick-up recyclable and reusable materials, and how recycling and waste diversion activities would be integrated into operational practices. To the extent feasible, centralized recycling facilities are encouraged to enhance the ease and efficiency of such practices. The approved facilities and practices shall be incorporated into the uses envisioned by the Master Plan.

This page left intentionally blank.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Initial Study Checklist ..................................................................................................................................3 Project Title................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Lead Agency Name and Address .......................................................................................................................... 3 Contact Person and Phone Number .................................................................................................................... 3 Project Location and Setting .................................................................................................................................. 3 Project Description .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Background.................................................................................................................................................... 4 General Plan and Zoning Designations ............................................................................................................12 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................... 25 Determination.............................................................................................................................................. 25 Evaluation Instructions ............................................................................................................................ 26 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 27 Environmental Checklist.......................................................................................................................... 28 I. AESTHETICS...........................................................................................................................................................................28 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .......................................................................................................31 III. AIR QUALITY.......................................................................................................................................................................32 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................................................39 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................................47 VI. ENERGY.................................................................................................................................................................................49 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ....................................................................................................................................................51 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS...............................................................................................................................59 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.............................................................................................................64 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.........................................................................................................................68 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING..........................................................................................................................................79 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES..................................................................................................................................................80 XIII. NOISE ..................................................................................................................................................................................81 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING...................................................................................................................................98 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES............................................................................................................................................................99 XVI. RECREATION................................................................................................................................................................. 105 XVII. TRANSPORTATION................................................................................................................................................... 106 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................... 118 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.................................................................................................................... 119

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 2
XX. WILDFIRE.........................................................................................................................................................................125 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE...................................................................................................127 References................................................................................................................................................................................130 Appendix A: CalEEMod Results.......................................................................................................................................133 Appendix B: Air Toxics Screening Assessment.........................................................................................................134 Appendix C: MMRP for the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan...................................................................135 Appendix D: Noise Study....................................................................................................................................................136 Appendix E: Traffic Impact Analysis............................................................................................................................137 Appendix F: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment...........................................................................................138 Appendix G: Manteca Commercial Projects List.....................................................................................................139 Appendix H: Response to Comments............................................................................................................................140

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 3

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

PROJECT TITLE
GBxManteca Project

LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Manteca – City Hall
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337
(209) 456-8000

CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Victoria Seidler
Ryan Companies
4275 Executive Square, Suite 370
La Jolla, CA 92037
(c) 442/303-8491
[email protected]

PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The 16.02-acre Project site is located at 2261 Operation Place (APN: 198-030-38). Figure 1 and 2 illustrate the regional location and project vicinity. The Project site is within the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan area, is zoned ‘Master Plan’ (MP), and is designated as ‘Light Industrial (LI) in the General Plan.

The Project site is the previously approved Container Yard developed and owned by CenterPoint Properties. The Project site is bound by a rail freight transfer station to the north, Crothall Healthcare, S. Airport Way and residences to the east, agricultural orchards and Lathrop Road to the south and a vacant lot to the west. The Project site is at approximately 23 feet above mean sea level (msl) and the topography is generally flat. The current uses of the adjoining properties include:
• North of the Site: an irrigation drainage canal, an inactive cheese facility, and a rail freight transfer station along the northeast boundary;
• East of the Site: Crothall Healthcare office, S. Airport Way and residential housing; • South of the Site: agricultural orchards; and
• West of the Site: a vacant lot.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The existing use is a Container Yard, which was approved, but was not fully constructed and is not operational. The future use is anticipated to be a beverage distribution facility that generates 132 truck trips per day, and 530 passenger vehicle trips per day. The parking area is designed with 251 car parking stalls, and 56 trailer stalls. Figure 3a provides a site plan and Figure 3b provides elevations of the buildings.

The operational business will provide beverage products distribution to local area retailers. The facility will provide temporary warehousing of beverage products, office administration of

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 4
warehouse on site, and truck maintenance on site. The facility will be a 295,176-sf tilt up concrete building with 40 truck docks, and 3 bay truck maintenance facility. The building use is broken into 270,176 sf for warehouse space, and 25,000 sf for office space. The footprint of the building is 280,983-sf, with 14,193 sf of the second level.

Stormwater management at the Project site would comply with the requirements of the City of Manteca Municipal Code.

The proposed Project is consistent with the light industrial design standards and guidelines established in the approved Northwest Airport Way Master Plan, and implements the small-scale light industrial uses that are encouraged within the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan.

Furthermore, the environmental impacts of this proposed development have already been fully analyzed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the certified Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2010022024). Future tenants of the proposed Project would be required to comply with the uses that are permitted by right (and conditionally permitted with procurement of a Conditional Use Permit) within the Light Industrial Zoning District by the City of Manteca Zoning Code.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
The proposed Project is located within the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan area (Master Plan area), which is a master plan area that guides the development of industrial uses, community commercial uses, and associated site improvements on 390 acres. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan area (State Clearinghouse # 2010022024) in 2010 (Master Plan EIR). Several EIR Addendums and Mitigated Negative Declarations have been completed for projects within the Master Plan area.

Tiering
According to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, subdivision (c)(5), “[a] program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with later activities if it provides a description of planned activities that would implement the program and deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible.” Later environmental documents (EIRs, mitigated negative declarations, or negative declarations) can incorporate by reference materials from the program EIR regarding regional influences, secondary impacts, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[d][2]). These later documents need only focus on new impacts that have not been considered before (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[d][3]).

Section 15168(c), entitled “Use with Later Activities,” provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Later activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared:

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 5

1. If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration.

That later analysis may tier from the program EIR as provided in Section 15152.

2. If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Factors that an agency may consider in making that determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure, as described in the program EIR.

3. An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into later activities in the program.

4. Where the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR.

Generally, when a property owner submits applications for site-specific approvals (i.e., tentative maps, conditional use permits, or other discretionary entitlements), the City staff will review the applications for consistency with the higher tier document. This consistency review ultimately determines whether the application for site specific approval is consistent with the higher tier document, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures, and whether it is consistent with what was anticipated and analyzed in the program EIR. Often a City will conclude that most, or all, components of the site-specific application can be developed with no new analysis of environmental effects, or a focused analysis limited to the environmental effects that could not be reasonably foreseen at the time the certified EIR was prepared.

These site-specific approvals may be narrowed pursuant to the rules for tiering set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. “‘[T]iering is a process by which agencies can adopt programs, plans, policies, or ordinances with EIRs focusing on ‘the big picture,’ and can then use streamlined CEQA review for individual projects that are consistent with such…[first tier decisions] and are…consistent with local agencies’ governing general plans and zoning.’” (Koster v. County of San Joaquin (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 29, 36.) Section 15152 provides that, where a first-tier EIR has “adequately addressed” the subject of cumulative impacts, such impacts need not be revisited in second- and third-tier documents. Furthermore, second- and third-tier documents may limit the examination of impacts to those that “were not examined as significant effects” in the prior EIR or “[a]re susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means.” In general, significant environmental effects have been “adequately addressed” if the lead agency determines that:
a. they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior environmental impact report and findings adopted in connection with that prior environmental impact report; or b. they have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior environmental impact report to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 6
imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project.

Where a site-specific approval within the City warrants additional environmental review, there are several paths forward. This includes an EIR Addendum, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or some form of Environmental Impact Report. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is a form of CEQA review that is commonly prepared for small projects built out under a Master Plan with a certified EIR. Based on the characteristics of the proposed Project, the City of Manteca has determined it is appropriate to develop an IS/MND for the proposed Project, using the tiering concept. Therefore, this IS/MND tiers from the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR and the Addendum to the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR. These documents can be found at the City of Manteca website at the following location:

1. https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/CommunityDevelopment/Planning%20Division/Pages/Planni ng-Division-Documents.aspx;
Mitigation Measures
Table PD-1, below, identifies the mitigation measures from the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR that are applicable to the proposed Project. It should be noted that these mitigation measures, which are directly from the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR, have been included throughout this IS/MND. It should also be noted that the mitigation measure lettering and numbering scheme for the mitigation measures in this IS/MND is consistent with the lettering and numbering scheme from the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR, for the sake of consistency between the two documents.

Table PD-1: Applicable Mitigation Measures from the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR Environmental
Topic
Mitigation Measure Adopted by the City
Agricultural and
Forestry Resources
MM AG-1: At the time building permits are sought for any Master Plan contemplated use, the Project applicant shall pay the required City of Manteca agricultural mitigation fee to help offset the conversion of Important Farmland pursuant to Manteca Municipal Code Chapter 13.42.

Air Quality &
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
MM AIR-1a: Prior to issuance of grading permits for each Master Plan use, the Project applicant shall provide information to the City of Manteca describing the methods by which the following measures will be complied with:
• Off-road equipment used onsite shall achieve a fleet average emissions equal to or less than the Tier II emissions standard of 4.8 grams of NOx per horsepower hour.

This can be achieved through any combination of uncontrolled engines and engines complying with Tier II and above engine standards. Tier II emission standards are set forth in Section 2423 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, and Part 89 of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations. • Construction equipment shall be properly maintained at an offsite location; maintenance shall include proper tuning and timing of engines. Equipment maintenance records and data sheets of equipment design specifications shall be kept on-site during construction.
• Onsite construction equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes in any one hour.
• During the building phase, onsite electrical hook ups shall be provided for electric construction tools including saws, drills and compressors, to eliminate the need for diesel powered electric generators.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 7
Environmental
Topic
Mitigation Measure Adopted by the City
• Construction workers shall be encouraged to carpool to and from the construction site to the greatest extent practical. Workers shall be informed in writing and a letter shall be placed on file in the City office documenting efforts to carpool.

MM AIR-1b: 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.

MM AIR-1c: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan building, the Project applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable requirements of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Rule 9510 via the submittal of a Rule 9510 Implementation Plan to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The implementation plan shall achieve a 33-percent reduction in NOx and a 45-percent reduction in PM10 over the first 10 years of operations through the use of onsite emissions reduction measures or through the payment of offsite mitigation fees to the SJVAPCD for purchase of emission reductions. The requirements of the approved implementation plan shall be incorporated into the proposed Project.

MM AIR-1d: Prior to approval of the final site plan for each Master Plan building that would receive 10 more truck deliveries per week, the Project applicant shall demonstrate that the following anti-idling measures would be implemented:
• Provide available electricity hookups for trucks in the loading dock areas. • Signs shall be posted in dock areas advising drivers that idling shall not occur for more than 3 minutes.
• Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and the California Air Resources Board shall be posted on signs at truck entrances to report idling violations.

Biological
Resources
MM BIO-1a: If ground clearing or vegetation removal activities occur during the nesting season (February 15 through August 31), then pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted in all area suitable for nesting that are located within 250 feet of the Master Plan area. Surveys shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance. If an active nest is located, a 250-foot buffer shall be delineated and maintained around the nest until a qualified biologist has determined that fledging has occurred. Alternatively, CDFG may be consulted to determine if the protective buffer can be reduced based upon individual species responses to disturbance. This mitigation measure does not apply if ground clearing or vegetation removal activities occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 through February 14).

MM BIO-1b: No more than 30 day prior to the beginning of ground disturbance, a preconstruction survey for burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in general accordance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium. Should the surveys be scheduled to occur during the period extending from February 1 through May 1, then surveys shall be conducted no more that 15 days prior to the start of ground disturbance. Surveys shall be conducted from 2 hours before sunset to 1 hour after sunset, or from 1 hour before sunrise to 2 hours after sunrise, and shall be conducted during weather conducive to observing owls outside of their burrows. No surveys shall occur during heavy rain, high winds, or dense fog. If occupied burrows are found, mitigation for potential impacts shall follow the guidelines outlined by the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines, including passive relocation.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 8
Environmental
Topic
Mitigation Measure Adopted by the City
Cultural & Tribal
Resources
MM CUL-1: If potentially significant historic resources are encountered during subsurface excavation activities for any Master Plan use, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the resource requires further study. The City shall require that the applicant include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined to be significant under CEQA, the City and a qualified archaeologist shall determine whether preservation in place is feasible. Such preservation in place is the preferred mitigation. If such preservation is infeasible, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the resource. The archaeologist shall also conduct appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive written report and file it with the appropriate information center (California Historical Resources Information System), and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials.

Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act criteria by a qualified archaeologist.

Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined to be significant under CEQA, the City and a qualified archaeologist shall determine whether preservation in place is feasible. Such preservation in place is the preferred mitigation. If such preservation is infeasible, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the resource. The archaeologist shall also conduct appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive written report and file it with the appropriate information center (California Historical Resources Information System), and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials.

MM CUL-3: In the event that plant or animal fossils are discovered during subsurface excavation activities for the proposed Project, all excavation within 50 feet of the fossil shall cease until a qualified paleontologist has determined the significance of the find and provides recommendations in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The paleontologist shall notify the City of Manteca to determine procedures to be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the find is determined to be significant and the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and implement a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

Upon approval, the plan shall be incorporated into the project.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 9
Environmental
Topic
Mitigation Measure Adopted by the City
• There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the San Joaquin County Coroner’s Office is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation into cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

Geology and Soils MM GEO-1: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan use, the Project applicant shall submit a design-level geotechnical study and building plans to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The building plans shall demonstrate that they incorporate all applicable recommendations of the design-level geotechnical study and comply with all applicable requirements of the most recent version of the California Building Standards Code.

A licensed professional engineer shall prepare the plans, including those that pertain to soil engineering, structural foundations, pipeline excavation, and installation. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed Project. All onsite soil engineering activities shall be conducted under the supervision of a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist.

Hydrology and
Water Quality
MM HYD-1: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for each proposed activities within the Master Plan area, the Project applicant shall prepare and submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City of Manteca that identifies specific actions and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent stormwater pollution during construction activities. The SWPPP shall identify a practical sequence for BMP implementation, monitoring, and maintenance; site restoration; contingency measures; responsible parties; and agency contacts. The SWPPP shall include but not be limited to the following elements:
• Temporary erosion control measures shall be employed for disturbed areas. • Specific measures shall be identified to protect the onsite open drainages during construction of the proposed resort.
• Specific measures shall be identified to protect the French Camp Outlet Canal and Drain 3 during any construction activities.
• No disturbed surfaces shall be left without erosion control measures in place during the winter and spring months.
• Sediment shall be retained onsite by a system of sediment basins, traps, or other appropriate measures.
• The construction contractor shall prepare Standard Operating Procedures for the handling of hazardous materials on the construction site to eliminate or reduce discharge of materials to storm drains.
• BMP performance and effectiveness shall be determined either by visual means where applicable (e.g., observation of above-normal sediment release), or by actual water sampling in cases where verification of contaminant reduction or elimination (such as inadvertent petroleum release) is required by the RWQCB to determine adequacy of the measure.
• In the event of significant construction delays or delays in final landscape installation, native grasses or other appropriate vegetative cover shall be established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance, as an interim erosion control measure throughout the wet season.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 10
Environmental
Topic
Mitigation Measure Adopted by the City
MM HYD-2: Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for any development activities that occur pursuant to the Master Plan, the Project applicant shall submit a stormwater quality control plan to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The plan shall include a detailed drainage plan and identify expected site-specific pollutants and required measures to treat those pollutants before they reach the regional detention basins and, ultimately, the French Camp Outlet Canal and San Joaquin River. The approved measures shall be incorporated into the proposed Project. The plan will describe monitoring and performance measures and standards required in order to ensure water quality is adequately protected during operation of all proposed sites within the project area. Examples of stormwater pollution prevention measures and practices to be incorporated into the plan include but are not limited to:
• Strategically placed bioswales and landscaped areas that promote percolation of runoff
• Pervious pavement
• Roof drains that discharge to landscaped areas
• Trash enclosures with screen walls and roofs
• Stenciling on storm drains
• Curb cuts in parking areas to allow runoff to enter landscaped areas • Rock-lined areas along landscaped areas in parking lots • Catch basins
• Oil/water separators
• Regular sweeping of parking areas and cleaning of storm drainage facilities • Employee training to inform maintenance personnel of stormwater pollution prevention measures
MM HYD-4: Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for the proposed Project, the Project applicant shall submit a stormwater quality control plan for the project as a whole to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The plan shall include a detailed drainage plan that demonstrates attainment of pre-project runoff requirements prior to release at the outlet canal and describes the volume reduction measures and treatment controls used to reach attainment. The drainage plan shall identify all expected flows from the project area and the location, size, and type of facilities used to retain and treat the runoff volumes and peak flows to meet pre-project conditions. The approved drainage plan shall be incorporated into the proposed Project.

Noise MM NOI-1: During construction activities for all Master Plan uses, the applicant shall require its construction contractors to adhere to the following noise attenuation requirements:
• Construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily.

The City of Manteca Director of Public Works shall have the discretion to permit construction activities to occur outside of allowable hours if compelling circumstances warrant such an exception (e.g., weather conditions necessary to pour concrete).
• All construction equipment shall use noise-reduction features (e.g., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are no less effective than those originally installed by the manufacturer. If no noise-reduction features were installed by the manufacturer, then the contractor shall require that at least a muffler be installed on the equipment.
• Construction staging and heavy equipment maintenance activities shall be performed a minimum distance of 300 feet from the nearest residence, unless safety or technical factors take precedence (e.g., an equipment breakdown).

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 11
Environmental
Topic
Mitigation Measure Adopted by the City
• A 10-foot-high construction noise barrier shall be installed along the edge of the Master Plan area within 300 feet of any offsite residence prior to start of grading activities. The noise barrier shall either be constructed of a minimum 0.5-inch plywood or utilize acoustical blankets with a minimum Sound Transmission Class of 12. The barrier shall remain in place until noise intensive aspects of construction are completed.

Public Services MM PSU-1: Prior to issuance of building permits for any Master Plan uses, the Project applicant shall provide the City of Manteca will all applicable fire protection development fees in accordance with the latest adopted fee schedule.

Transportation MM TRANS-1: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan use, the applicant shall pay all transportation-related fees in accordance with the latest adopted fee schedule at the time permits are sought. Such fees shall include, but not be limited to, the City of Manteca Public Facilities Implementation Plan fee and the San Joaquin County Regional Transportation Impact Fee.

If transit facilities are deemed to be necessary, they shall be provided on the final site plan. If transit services are deemed to be necessary, the applicant shall prepare a service plan and submit it to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The approved plan shall be incorporated into the project. To the extent feasible, transit facilities and services shall be coordinated among Master Plan uses to maximize efficiency and effectiveness.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 12
Environmental
Topic
Mitigation Measure Adopted by the City
Utilities MM PSU-3a: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan use, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Manteca for review and approval identifying a non-potable irrigation system that is separate from the potable water systems.

The non-potable irrigation system shall use non-potable well water until recycled water is available, at which point it shall be converted to use recycled water.

MM PSU-3b: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan use, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Manteca for review and approval identifying that all appropriate and feasible water conservation measures are incorporated into the proposed use(s). The approved measures shall be incorporated into the final development plans. Examples of water conservation measures include but are not limited to:
• Drought-tolerant landscaping or xeriscaping
• Water efficient irrigation systems (drip irrigation, bubbler/soaker systems, hydrozones, evapotranspiration controllers, etc.)
• Sensor-activated low-flow fixtures (e.g., faucets, urinals, and toilets) MM PSU-6a: Prior to issuance of building permits for any building developed pursuant to the Master Plan, the Project applicant shall retain a qualified contractor to perform construction and demolition debris recycling. Following the completion of construction activities, the Project applicant shall provide documentation to the satisfaction of the City of Manteca demonstrating that construction and demolition debris was recycled.

MM PSU-6b: Prior to issuance of building permits for each building developed pursuant to the Master Plan, the Project applicant shall provide information to the City of Manteca describing the methods by which recycling and waste diversion activities shall be achieved.

This information shall include but is not limited to the type and location of facilities necessary to collect and store recyclable materials, contractors who would pick-up recyclable and reusable materials, and how recycling and waste diversion activities would be integrated into operational practices. To the extent feasible, centralized recycling facilities are encouraged to enhance the ease and efficiency of such practices. The approved facilities and practices shall be incorporated into the uses envisioned by the Master Plan.

SOURCE: NORTHWEST AIRPORT WAY MASTER PLAN DRAFT AND FINAL EIRS

GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
The Project site is designated Industrial (LI) by the Manteca General Plan Land Use Map.

According to the City of Manteca 2023 General Plan, the LI designation provides for industrial parks, warehouses, distribution centers, light manufacturing, public and quasi-public uses and similar and compatible uses.

The Project site is zoned MP – Master Plan for the City of Manteca Zoning Map. The purpose of the MP - Master Plan Zoning District is to establish a process for the consideration and regulation of areas suitable for proposed comprehensive development with detailed development plans and of those areas that require special planning.

The existing General Plan land uses and the zoning designations are shown on Figure 4. No General Plan amendment or zoning change is required for the proposed Project.

REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS AND OTHER APPROVALS
The City of Manteca is the Lead Agency for the proposed Project, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines , Section 15050.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 13
This document will be used by the City of Manteca to take the following actions:
• Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND); • Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; • City review and approval of the proposed Grading and Improvement Plans; and • City Site Plan & Design Review (SPC).

The following agencies may be required to issue permits or approve certain aspects of the proposed Project:
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) – Construction activities would be required to be covered under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES);
• RWQCB – The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required to be approved prior to construction activities pursuant to the Clean Water Act; • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) – Approval of constructionrelated air quality permits; • San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) – Review of project application to determine consistency with the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat, Conservation, and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP).

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 14
This page left intentionally blank.

C A L A V

S A N J O A Q U I N S A N J O A Q U I N

C O U N T Y C O U N T Y

S T A N I S L A U

S T A N I S L A U
UV160
UV26
UV99
UV99
UV4
UV219
UV33
UV12
UV120 UV120
UV132
UV99
UV88
UV108
UV12
UV4
UV132
UV12
UV26
§¨¦205
Pardee Res.

Commanche Res.

A L A M E D A A L A M E D A

C O U N T Y C O U N T Y

C O N T R A C O N T R A

C O S T A C O S T A

C O U N T Y C O U N T Y

S O L A N O S O L A N O

C O U N T Y C O U N T Y

S T A N I S L A U S S T A N I S L A U S

C O U N T Y C O U N T Y

S A C R A M E N T O C O U N T Y S A C R A M E N T O C O U N T Y A M A D O R C O U N T Y A M A D O R C O U N T Y

C A L A V E R A S C A L A V E R A S

C O U N T Y C O U N T Y

SACRAME NTO R

TUOLUMNE R

STANISLAUS R

CALAVERAS R SA N JOAQUINR

SANJOAQUIN R

MOKELUMNE R
GBxMANTECA PROJECT

MANTECA, CALIFORNIA
Figure 1. Regional Location Map
^_
Project Location

L E G E N D
^_ Project Location
Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Sources: California State Geoportal. Map date: December 17, 2021. 0 2½ 5
Miles
Don Pedro
Reservoir
Clifton
Court
Forebay
Franks
Tract
Woodward
Reservoir
Farmington
Flood Control
Basin
O

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 16
This page left intentionally blank.
"&YStation 244
Chadwick
Square Park
Doxey Park
St.

Francis
Primavera Park
Park Monte
Bello Park
Liberty Park
Del Webb
Community
Stonebridge Center
Park
McParland
Elementary
School
McParland
Elementary School
(Annex)
Manteca
Adult
School

FILLMORE ST

PARK ST

SPRAGUE ST

NORTHGATE DR

IVY WAY

CLAREMONT DR

EXETER DR

PICADILLY WAY

MISONE ST

ABBY PL

LINDEN W AY

NANA PL

LATHROP RD

SHADOW BERRY DR

WINDGATEDR

HASTINGS DR

DAISYWOOD DR

MADISON GROVE DR

PASADO AVE

NI COL WAY

MAPLE VALLEY ST

LANDRETH LN

VESUVIO ST

PIEDMONT DR

SALLIE O DR

LONDON AVE

GENOA DR

BOLTON LN

GLENOAKS ST

ORME LN

ARBOR BROOK DR

QUINCY AVE

SYRACUSE LN

MCKINLEY AVE

W NI DSOR PL

ALG HERO DR

STEEP EL RU N LN

GLEN ECH OLN

SEVENTH ST

LAURITSON LN

HIGTON ST

DEVONSHIRE AVE

CHESTNUT HILLDR

PEPPER TR EE LN

BELLE GLADE LN

BELLCHASE DR

PRIMAVERA AVE

HYDE PARK LN

KOMENI CH DR
ZOE LN

COBBLECREEK ST

INTERMODAL WAY

GRAPPA ST

AIRPORT WAY

TACTICAL WAY

GIANNA LN

TERR ACINACIR
GBxMANTECA PROJECT

MANTECA, CALIFORNIA
O Figure 2. Project Location 0 500 1,000
Feet
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS; ArcGIS Online World Imagery Map Service 5/4/2020; Google Maps. Map date: December 17, 2021.

Legend
Project Area
Manteca City Boundary
Lathrop City Boundary
"&Y Fire Station
School
Park
C i t y
o f
L a t h r o p
Union
Pacific
Rail
Yard
UP RR

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 18
This page left intentionally blank.

GBxMANTECA PROJECT

MANTECA, CALIFORNIA
Figure 3a. Conceptual Site Plan O 0 50 100
Feet
Source: RYAN, GBxMANTECA Conceptual Site
Plan V1.4, 5/31/2021. Map date: December 18, 2021.

UP RR

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 20
This page left intentionally blank.
-------48'-0"

EAST ELEVATION

SOUTH ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION

NORTH ELEVATION
---50'-0"------46'-0"
------------------41'-0"
----48'-0"
------48'-0"
------28'-0"
GBxMANTECA PROJECT

MANTECA, CALIFORNIA
Figure 3b. Building Elevations
Source: RYAN, GBxMANTECA Concept Design V2.0, 8-12-2021.

Map date: December 22, 2021.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 22
This page left intentionally blank.

LI
PQP
LI
GC
HI
NC
LDR
NC
OS
P
HI
MDR
LDR
HDR
PQP
LI

DAISYWOOD DR

HASTINGS DR

PICADILLY WAY
PASADO
AVE

LANDRETH LN

BOLTON LN

LATHROP RD

AIRPORT WAY

TERRACINACIR
GBxMANTECA PROJECT

MANTECA, CALIFORNIA
Sources: City of Manteca; San Joaquin County. Map date: December 17, 2021.

Legend
Project Area
Manteca City Limits
Manteca Sphere of Influence
Assessor Parcel Boundary

DAISYWOOD DR

SHADY OAK ST

RMODAL WAY

HASTINGS DR

PICADILLY WAY

BOLTON LN
PASADO
AVE

LANDRETH LN

LATHROP RD INTERMODAL WAY

AIRPORT WAY
TERRAC

AIN C RI
CN
M2
R1
MP
PD
SP
AU-20
I-L
AG-40
AG-40
General Plan Land
Use Designation
NC -
Neighborhood
Commercial
GC - General
Commercial
LDR: Low
Density
Residential
PQP: Public/
Quasi-Public
MDR - Medium
Density
Residential
HDR - High
Density
Residential
LI: Light
Industrial
HI: Heavy
Industrial
OS: Open Space
P: Park
City of Manteca
Zoning
CN:

Neighborhood
Commercial
M2: Heavy
Industrial
MP: Center
Pointe Master
Plan
PD: Planned
Development
R1: One-Family
Dwelling
SP: Union Ranch
Specific Plan
San Joaquin County
Zoning
AG-40: General
Agriculture
AU-20:

Agriculture
Urban Reserve
I-L: Limited
Industrial
O Figure 4. General Plan and Zoning Designations 0 500 1,000 Feet

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 24
This page left intentionally blank.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 25

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
None of the environmental factors listed below would have potentially significant impacts as a result of development of this project, as described on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gasses Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service
Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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

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

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

I find that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 26

EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sitespecific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 27

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
In each area of potential impact listed in this section, there are one or more questions which assess the degree of potential environmental effect. A response is provided to each question using one of the four impact evaluation criteria described below. A discussion of the response is also included.
• Potentially Significant Impact. This response is appropriate when there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries, upon completion of the Initial Study, an EIR is required. • Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. This response applies when the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact". The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
• Less than Significant Impact. A less than significant impact is one which is deemed to have little or no adverse effect on the environment. Mitigation measures are, therefore, not necessary, although they may be recommended to further reduce a minor impact. • No Impact. These issues were either identified as having no impact on the environment, or they are not relevant to the project.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 28

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This section of the Initial Study incorporates the most current Appendix "G" Environmental Checklist Form contained in the CEQA Guidelines. Impact questions and responses are included in both tabular and narrative formats for each of the 21 environmental topic areas.

I. AESTHETICS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), c): The City of Manteca General Plan does not specifically designate any scenic viewsheds within the city. The existing Manteca General Plan does, however, note Manteca's scenic environmental resources including the San Joaquin River environment, and scenic vistas of the Coast Range and the Sierra.

For analysis purposes, a scenic vista can be discussed in terms of a foreground, middleground, and background viewshed. The middleground and background viewshed is often referred to as the broad viewshed. Examples of scenic vistas can include mountain ranges, valleys, ridgelines, or water bodies from a focal point of the forefront of the broad viewshed, such as visually important trees, rocks, or historic buildings. An impact would generally occur if a project would change the view to the middle ground or background elements of the broad viewshed, or remove the visually important trees, rocks, or historic buildings in the foreground.

The Project site itself does not provide any visual resources that would be considered a scenic vista because it primarily consists of a Container Yard, which was approved, but was not fully constructed and is not operational. The views of the site are not unique to the surrounding visual setting. The proposed Project does not contain resources that are exemplary of the history of the area (such as historic structures or landmarks). Views of the Project site are not unique in the region.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 29
The Project site is generally flat with unobstructed view of the surrounding agricultural lands, the Lathrop Intermodal Terminal, and residential developments. Neither the Project site nor any of the surrounding land uses contains features typically associated with scenic vistas (e.g., ridgelines, peaks, overlooks). Therefore, little opportunity exists for project activities to obscure views of scenic vistas that may be located within the immediate area of the Project site.

More distant views of the Coast Ranges (including Mt. Diablo) and the Sierra Nevada Mountains would largely be unaffected by the development of the Project site because of the distance and limited visibility of these features. Furthermore, the City of Manteca does not identify views of these features to be “protected” and, therefore, any obstruction that does occur would not be significant.

Chapter 9, Design Standards and Guidelines of the Master Plan specifically identifies City design expectations in the context of new industrial and commercial developments within the Project site. Design standards are required of all developments. Design guidelines are recommended measures that help ensure quality design. Together, the standards and guidelines address the placement and appearance of buildings, circulation, parking and loading, landscape design, fencing and screening, signage, exterior lighting, and sustainable design practices.

The design standards from the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan are to be applied to the proposed Project in conjunction with the development standards listed in the Manteca Municipal Code. Where differences occur between the design standards of the Master Plan and the Manteca Municipal Code, the design standards of the Master Plan shall prevail. The design standards and guidelines are to be used by applicants and their consultants in the formulation of specific development proposals. The standards and guidelines will also be used by City of Manteca staff in the review of development proposals.

Upon build-out, the proposed Project would be of similar visual character to nearby and adjacent developments (such as existing light industrial and commercial uses nearby). For motorists travelling along nearby roadways, the proposed Project would blend into existing and future development and would not present unexpected or otherwise unpleasant aesthetic values within the general project vicinity. Furthermore, the proposed Project would also be consistent with the applicable design standards and development standards. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to these topics.

Response b): The Project site is not located within view of a state scenic highway. Only one highway section in San Joaquin County is listed as a Designated Scenic Highway by the Caltrans Scenic Highway Mapping System; the segment of Interstate 580 from Interstate 5 to State Route 205. The City of Manteca is not visible from this roadway segment. Therefore, the proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact relative to this topic.

Response d): The Project site contains existing sources of light and glare associated with the Container Yard. Additionally, nearby land uses, such as the light industrial uses located to the north of the Project site, include outdoor lighting. The Union Pacific Railroad Lathrop Intermodal Terminal, the Sharpe Army Depot, scattered rural residential development, and Union Ranch also include outdoor lighting. Other nearby sources of light include the streetlights at the intersections of Airport Way and Roth Road, Airport Way and Daisywood Drive, and Airport Way and Lathrop Road, as well as vehicles traveling along Airport Way, Roth Road, Lathrop Road, Daisywood Drive, and Lovelace Road.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 30
The proposed Project would include the installation of freestanding and building-mounted lighting associated with the light industrial uses. Such lighting would include lighting in parking lots, along pathways, and mounted on buildings for safety and security reasons. As such, the proposed Project may create a source of nighttime light, which may affect nighttime views in the surrounding area.

The Northwest Airport Way Master Plan includes Design Standards and Guidelines to minimize light impacts. Specifically, all lighting in the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan area (which includes the Project site) must comply with candle foot standards established in the Manteca Municipal Code. Night lighting in the Master Plan area shall be limited to that necessary for operations, security, safety, and identification, and it shall be screened from adjacent residential areas and not be directed in an upward manner or beyond the boundaries of the parcel on which the buildings are located. Specific design standards also apply to signage in the Master Plan area that requires signs to be illuminated only by backlighting of raised letters, internally illuminated individual letters, or by low-intensity spotlights that are screened from direct view. Internally illuminated box or can signs are prohibited in the Master Plan area. Signs are to be glare-free and light fixtures must be screened from view. Additional best management practices to minimize light trespass are described in the design guidelines and include the following recommended measures:
• Light bulbs or tubes should not be exposed.
• Light shields should reduce the spillage of light onto adjacent properties. • Lighting should be adequate but not overly bright.
• Security lighting may be indirect or diffused and should be shielded or directed away from a residential district.

As the Project site is included in the Master Plan area, it will be required to comply with the above standards.

In addition, all street lighting would have to comply with the City of Manteca lighting standards.

Section 17.50.060 of the Manteca Municipal Code identifies general lighting standards for light shielding, illumination levels, and nuisance prevention.

In summary, existing standards, including the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Design Standards and Guidelines, establish a comprehensive and robust set of standards to ensure that the proposed Project does not introduce substantial sources of light and glare to the project vicinity. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 31
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 1222(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 4526)?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): The Project site is a developed Container Yard, which involved a previous conversion of Prime Farmland to a developed use. The proposed Project does not involve any conversion of Prime Farmland. Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact relative to this issue.

Response b): The Project site does not include any land in a Williamson Act contract. The Project site is designated as LI by the Manteca General Plan Land Use Map and is zoned MP. The proposed Project does not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact relative to this issue.

Response c): The Project site is not forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 1222(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526). The proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland.

Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact relative to this issue.

Response d): The Project site is not forest land. The proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact relative to this issue.

Response e): The Project site does not contain forest land, and there is no forest land in the vicinity of the Project site. The Project site is included in the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan area and is designated LI and is zoned MP. The proposed Project does not involve any other changes in the existing environment not disclosed under the previous responses which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use, or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact relative to this issue.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 32
III. AIR QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
Existing Setting
The Project site is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

This agency is responsible for monitoring air pollution levels and ensuring compliance with federal and state air quality regulations within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and has jurisdiction over most air quality matters within its borders.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): Air quality emissions would be generated during operation and construction of the proposed Project. Because of the region’s non-attainment status for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, if project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOx), PM10, or PM2.5 would exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds, then the proposed Project uses would be considered to conflict with the attainment plans. Discussion of construction and operational-related air quality impacts is provided below.

Separately, if the proposed Project uses would result in a change in land use and corresponding increases in vehicle miles traveled, they may result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled that is unaccounted for in regional emissions inventories contained in regional air quality control plans. The proposed Project neither includes a change in land use, nor does it increase vehicle miles traveled compared to what had previously been planned for within the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR (see section XVII. Transportation for further detail on project VMT).

Construction
PM10 emitted during construction can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the equipment being operated, local soils, weather conditions, and other factors, making quantification difficult. Despite this variability in emissions, experience has shown that there are a number of feasible control measures that can be reasonably implemented to significantly reduce PM10 emissions from construction activities.

Construction would result in numerous activities that would generate dust. The fine, silty soils on the Project site and often strong afternoon winds exacerbate the potential for dust, particularly in the summer months. Impacts would be localized and variable. Construction impacts would last for a period of approximately one year. The initial phase of project construction would involve grading and site preparation activities, followed by paving, building

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 33
construction, and architectural coatings. Construction activities that could generate dust and vehicle emissions are primarily related to grading, soil excavation, and other ground-preparation activities. The construction schedule was modeled within CalEEMod consistent with the construction phase lengths provided by the Project applicant (as follows), as provided in further detail in Appendix A:
1 • Site prep: 5 days
• Demolition: 15 days
• Grading: 20 days
• Building Construction: 200 days
• Paving: 10 days
• Architectural Coatings (paint exterior): 40 days
Control measures are required and enforced by the SJVAPCD under Regulation VIII. The SJVAPCD considers construction-related emissions from all projects in this region to be mitigated to a less than significant level if SJVAPCD-recommended PM10 fugitive dust rules and equipment exhaust emissions controls are implemented. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable measures from SJVAPCD Regulation VIII. In addition, Table AIR-1 (below) provides the results of the construction-related emissions modeling results from CalEEMod.

Table AIR-1: Project Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions (tons/year) Emissions Type Proposed Project Emissions SJVAPCD Threshold Above Threshold in Proposed Project?
ROG 2.3598 10 N
NOx 1.6207 10 N
CO 2.0384 100 N
PM10 0.3124 15 N
PM2.5 0.1259 15 N
Notes: Construction is scheduled for 2022 and 2023. The numbers above reflect 2023, which is the worst annual emissions of the two years.

Source: CalEEMod, v.2020.4.0
In addition, the proposed Project would also implement construction-related mitigation measures, in accordance with the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR (i.e. Mitigation Measures AIR-1a and AIR-1b, which are provided below). However, it should be noted that, for the sake of a conservative estimate, as well as due to modeling limitations, not all of the measures contained in the construction-related mitigation measures list were modeled to reflect the fully mitigated scenario. Nevertheless, even without modeling some of the required measures that would further reduce construction-related emissions beyond what is provided in Table AIR-1, the proposed Project construction activities would not exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants.

Operational
Operational-related criteria pollutant emissions would be generated primarily from passenger (employee) vehicle, delivery van, and heavy-duty truck travel generated by the proposed Project, as well as electricity and other energy usage on-site. Table AIR-1, below, provides the results of the operational-related emissions modeling results from CalEEMod. It should be noted that the 1 As provided by Vickey Seidler, Senior Manager (Ryan Companies) in an email dated January 4, 2022.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 34
heavy-duty truck modeling was modeled separately from the rest of the Project modeling, to be able to model the heavy-duty truck trip estimate of 50 miles per heavy-duty truck trip (consistent with the SJVAPCD’s heavy-duty truck trip distance assumption utilized under their Rule 9510 analysis). It also should be noted that, for the sake of a conservative estimate, as well as due to modeling limitations, not all of the operational-related mitigation measures were modeled.

Nevertheless, as provided in Table AIR-2, even with the assumption of an average 50-mile truck trip distance for the Project’s heavy-duty trucks, and even without modeling some of the required measures that would further reduce operational-related emissions beyond those shown in Table AIR-2, below, the proposed Project operational phase would not exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants.

Table AIR-2: Project Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions (tons/year) Emissions Type Proposed Project Emissions SJVAPCD Threshold Above Threshold in Proposed Project?
ROG 2.8516 10 N
NOx 7.4221 10 N
CO 3.7026 100 N
PM10 1.6892 15 N
PM2.5 0.5215 15 N
Notes: The above numbers reflect the total Area, Energy, and Mobile Sources of emissions on an annual basis.

Source: CalEEMod, v.2020.4.0
As shown above, the proposed Project would not exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds associated with operational emissions. Nevertheless, the proposed Project would be required to implement the additional mitigation measures for the operational phase of the project (i.e.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1c, AIR-1d, and through AIR-6), in accordance with the applicable mitigation measures provided in the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR.

Therefore, with implementation of the following mitigation measures, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact related to the potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, or to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Mitigation Adopted by the City
Mitigation Measure AIR-1a: Prior to issuance of grading permits, as applicable, the Project applicant shall provide information to the City of Manteca describing the methods by which the following measures will be complied with:
• Off-road equipment used onsite shall achieve a fleet-average emissions equal to or less than the Tier II emissions standard of 4.8 grams of NOx per horsepower hour. This can be achieved through any combination of uncontrolled engines and engines complying with Tier II and above engine standards. Tier II emission standards are set forth in Section 2423 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, and Part 89 of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations.
• Construction equipment shall be properly maintained at an offsite location; maintenance shall include proper tuning and timing of engines. Equipment maintenance records and data sheets of equipment design specifications shall be kept on-site during construction. • Onsite construction equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes in any one hour.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 35
• During the building phase, onsite electrical hook ups shall be provided for electric construction tools including saws, drills and compressors, to eliminate the need for diesel powered electric generators.
• Construction workers shall be encouraged to carpool to and from the construction site to the greatest extent practical. Workers shall be informed in writing and a letter shall be placed on file in the City office documenting efforts to carpool.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1b: During the architectural coating phase, paints with a volatile organic compound content less than 10 grams per liter shall be used.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1c: Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable requirements of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Rule 9510 via the submittal of a Rule 9510 Implementation Plan to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The implementation plan shall achieve a 33-percent reduction in NOx and a 45-percent reduction in PM10 over the first 10 years of operations through the use of onsite emissions reduction measures or through the payment of offsite mitigation fees to the SJVAPCD for purchase of emission reductions. The requirements of the approved implementation plan shall be incorporated into the proposed Project.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1d: Prior to approval of the final site plan, the Project applicant shall demonstrate that the following anti-idling measures would be implemented:
• Provide available electricity hookups for trucks in the loading dock areas. • Signs shall be posted in dock areas advising drivers that idling shall not occur for more than 3 minutes.
• Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and the California Air Resources Board shall be posted on signs at truck entrances to report idling violations.

Mitigation Measure AIR-6: Prior to final site plan approval for any use that includes food service (i.e., restaurants, cafeterias, etc.), the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with SJVAPCD Rules 4102 (Nuisance) and 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling) to the extent that these rules are applicable.

Compliance may entail the installation of kitchen exhaust vents, exhaust filtration systems, or other odor-reduction measures in accordance with accepted engineering practice. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed Project.

Response c): Sensitive receptors are those individuals within the population that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptors include children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality, and sensitive receptor locations include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care center, nursing homes, hospitals, and residences. The closest sensitive receptors are the rural residential properties located to the east of the Project site, west of Airport Way, approximately 130 meters east of the Project site. Additionally, an existing age-restricted “55+” residential community is located approximately 0.12 miles (or approximately 175 meters) east of the Project site. Based on these residential community’s characteristics, the communities contain sensitive receptors.

A toxic air contaminant (TAC) is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air. However, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. In general, for those TACs

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 36
that may cause cancer, there is no concentration that does not present some risk. This contrasts with the criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the state and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards.

Construction-Related Impacts on Sensitive Receptors: The construction phase of the project would be temporary and short-term, and the implementation of all State, Federal, and SJVAPCD requirements would greatly reduce pollution concentrations generated during construction activities. As shown in Table AIR-1, the proposed Project’s construction-related criteria pollutant emissions would not exceed the applicable thresholds. Therefore, dust from construction of the proposed Project would be reduced and would be consistent with SJVAPCD guidance on this topic. Impacts to sensitive receptors during construction would be negligible and this is a less than significant impact.

Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts on Sensitive Receptors: The proposed Project has the potential to impact nearby sensitive receptors during the proposed Project’s construction and operational phases. Specifically, the proposed Project has the potential to generate diesel particulate matter (DPM) from on- and off-road construction vehicles, during the Project’ construction phase. In addition, the proposed Project has the potential to impact nearby sensitive receptors during Project operation, due to the proposed Project’s generation of trips by heavy-duty diesel trucks, which are also an emitter of DPM. In particular, DPM during Project operation is emitted from on-site heavy-duty truck vehicle circulation and idling, and off-site mobile travel. It is noted that the proposed Project does not use refrigerated trucks to deliver the beverages, including those that are stored in the cold storage portion of the warehouse. However, the CalEEMod modeling reflects the 20,000 sf of refrigerated space, which carries through the model with an accurate energy usage calculation for the refrigerated portion of the building; and an overestimate of mobile source emissions because truck refrigeration units (TRUs) will not be utilized.

Based on the area of refrigerated warehouse (approximately 7.4%), it was assumed that 7.4% of heavy-duty trucks would utilize TRUs and emissions from these units would generate DPM via on-site idling. Combined, these (both construction and operational) sources of DPM have the potential to generate substantial TACs on nearby sensitive receptors, including those located nearest to the Project site. The SJVAPCD has established a screening calculator entitled the “Prioritization Calculator”. An estimate of DPM emissions generated by the heavy-duty trucks and delivery vans associated with the proposed Project during Project operation was calculated for on-site mobile and idling (including TRU idling) emissions, and off-site mobile emissions 0.25 miles from the Project site, combined with the exhaust DPM emissions from both on- and off-road vehicles during the Project’s construction phase, amortized over 70 years, in accordance with the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance, as recommended by the SJVAPCD. The estimate of DPM emissions were based on the data provided in the Transportation Analysis for the proposed Project, and with diesel particulate matter mobile emission rates from CARB’s EMFAC2021 database (for year 2022, San Joaquin County; emission rates for DPM; 10 MPH for on-site truck travel and 55 MPH for off-site truck travel), and from standard heavy-duty truck idling emission rates from CARB.

The results of the screening analysis show that the cancer and non-cancer risks associated with the proposed Project are below the SJVAPCD screening thresholds contained within their Prioritization Calculator. Specifically, the Prioritization Calculator estimates that the prioritization score associated with total cancer risk from proposed project DPM would be approximately 1.95, after accounting for the nearest distance to sensitive receptors (approximately 130 meters at the closest location), which is well below the SJVAPCD threshold of 10 that would require development of air toxics Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that includes

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 37
air dispersion modeling. Additionally, non-cancer (i.e. chronic and acute risks) associated with project DPM would also be well below the applicable thresholds for the Maximally Exposed Individual (i.e. greater than or equal to the Hazard Index level of 1). Therefore, the complex air dispersion modeling using software such as AERMOD is not required. See Appendix B for further detail.

Overall, as described, the proposed Project would not exceed the maximum risk values established by the SJVAPCD for TACs, as described above. All receptor types would be below the applicable SJVAPCD significance thresholds. In addition, criteria pollutant emission would be below the applicable SJVAPCD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, as described under Impacts a) and b). Impacts to sensitive receptors from substantial pollutant concentrations would be a less than significant impact.

CO Hotspots: Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of CO called hotspots. These pockets have the potential to exceed the state one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Hotspots are typically produced at intersections, where traffic congestion is highest because vehicles queue for longer periods and are subject to reduced speeds.

Although the SJVAPCD has not established a specific numerical screening threshold for CO impacts, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has established that, under existing and future vehicle emissions rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix (i.e., bridges and tunnels)—in order to generate a substantial CO impact. As described in Section XVII: Transportation, the proposed Project would generate a maximum of approximately 67 AM peak hour trips and 67 PM peak hour trips, which would be significantly less than the volumes cited above. Thus, the proposed Project would not have the potential to substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections in the vicinity of the Project site, and impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The construction phase of the proposed Project would be temporary and short-term. The proposed Project would not generate significant concentrations of air emissions during construction.

TAC screening using the SJVAPCD’s Prioritization Calculator showed that the proposed Project would not exceed the maximum risk values established by the SJVAPCD for TACs. All receptor types would be below the applicable SJVAPCD significance thresholds.

Under existing and future vehicle emissions rates, a project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix (i.e., bridges and tunnels)—in order to generate a substantial CO impact. The proposed Project would generate much fewer than such peak hour trips, which would be significantly lower than the thresholds for causing a significant CO impact.

Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a significant increased exposure of sensitive receptors to localized concentrations of TACs, or create a CO hotspot. This project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 38
Response d): The proposed Project would not generate objectionable odors that would adversely affect substantial numbers of people. People in the immediate vicinity of construction activities may be subject to temporary odors typically associated with construction activities (diesel exhaust, hot asphalt, etc.). However, any odors generated by construction activities would be minor and would be short and temporary in duration.

Examples of facilities that are known producers of operational odors include: Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Chemical Manufacturing, Sanitary Landfill, Fiberglass Manufacturing, Transfer Station, Painting/Coating Operations (e.g. auto body shops), Composting Facility, Food Processing Facility, Petroleum Refinery, Feed Lot/Dairy, Asphalt Batch Plant, and Rendering Plant. The proposed Project would not contain any of these land uses. If a project would locate receptors and known odor sources in proximity to each other further analysis may be warranted; however, if a project would not locate receptors and known odor sources in proximity to each other, then further analysis is not warranted.

The proposed Project does not include any of the aforementioned uses. Additionally, construction activities would be temporary and minor. Lastly, other emissions are evaluated in responses ac), as provided above. As such, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1a, AIR-1b, AIRc, AIR-1d, and AIR-6, implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 39
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
X
Regional Setting
The City of Manteca is located in the western portion of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province of California. The Great Valley Province is a broad structural trough bounded by the tilted block of the Sierra Nevada on the east and the complexly folded and faulted Coast Ranges on the west. The San Joaquin River is located just south and west of the City. This major river drains the Great Valley Province into the San Joaquin Delta to the north, ultimately discharging into the San Francisco Bay to the northwest.

The City of Manteca is located within the San Joaquin Valley Bioregion, which is comprised of Kings County, most of Fresno, Kern, Merced, and Stanislaus counties, and portions of Madera, San Luis Obispo, and Tulare counties. The San Joaquin Valley Bioregion is the third most populous out of ten bioregions in the state, with an estimated 2 million people. The largest cities are Fresno, Bakersfield, Modesto, and Stockton. Interstate 5 and State Route 99 are the major north-south roads that run the entire length of the bioregion. Habitat in the bioregion includes vernal pools, valley sink scrub and saltbush, freshwater marsh, grasslands, arid plains, orchards, and oak savannah. Historically, millions of acres of wetlands flourished in the bioregion, but stream diversions for irrigation dried all but about five percent. Remnants of the wetland habitats are

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 40
protected in this bioregion in publicly owned parks, reserves, and wildlife areas. The bioregion is considered the state's top agricultural producing region with the abundance of fertile soil.

The region has a Mediterranean climate that is subject to cool, wet winters (often blanketed with fog) and hot, dry summers. The average annual precipitation is approximately 13.81 inches.

Precipitation occurs as rain most of which falls between the months of November through April, peaking in January at 2.85 inches. The average temperatures range from December lows of 37.5 F to July highs of 94.3 F.

The Project site is generally flat and is developed with a Container Yard. There is no vegetation or habitat existing on the project site.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): The following discussion is based on a background search of special-status species that are documented in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the field survey conducted by Biologist Steve McMurtry. The Project site is a developed Container Yard and has no habitat value. No special status species were identified by during the field survey conducted by Steve McMurtry.

Figure 5 shows the results of the CNDDB background search within a 1-mile radius of the Project site, and Figure 6 shows the results of the CNDDB background search within a 9-quad area of the Project site (i.e. approximately 630 square miles). The 9-quad background search was regional in scope and focused on the documented occurrences within 9-quad of the Project site.

No special-status species are expected to be affected by the proposed Project due to the lack of habitat, absence of special status species during field surveys, and lack of any recorded occurrences of these species within databases. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and BIO-1b are in place and require mitigation to protect nesting birds and burrowing owls through pre-construction surveys; if active nests and/or occupied burrows are found, further mitigation (such as establishing buffers) according to these mitigation measures is then required. Given the lack of habitat, implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact relative to this topic.

Mitigation Adopted by the City
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: If ground clearing or vegetation removal activities occur during the nesting season (February 15 through August 31), then pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted in all area suitable for nesting that are located within 250 feet of the Master Plan area. Surveys shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance.

If an active nest is located, a 250-foot buffer shall be delineated and maintained around the nest until a qualified biologist has determined that fledging has occurred. Alternatively, CDFG may be consulted to determine if the protective buffer can be reduced based upon individual species responses to disturbance. This mitigation measure does not apply if ground clearing or vegetation removal activities occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 through February 14).

Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: No more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance, a pre-construction survey for burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in general accordance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium. Should the surveys be scheduled to occur during the period extending from February 1 through May 1, then surveys shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the start of ground disturbance. Surveys shall be conducted from 2 hours before sunset to 1 hour after sunset, or from 1 hour before sunrise to 2 hours after sunrise, and shall be conducted during weather

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 41
conducive to observing owls outside of their burrows. No surveys shall occur during heavy rain, high winds, or dense fog. If occupied burrows are found, mitigation for potential impacts shall follow the guidelines outlined by the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines, including passive relocation.

Response b): There is no riparian habitat on the Project site. The CNDDB record search revealed documented occurrences of five sensitive habitats within the 9-quad area of the Project site including: Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh, Elderberry Savanna, Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest, Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest, Great Valley Oak Riparian Forest. None of these sensitive natural communities are recorded in the CNDDB as occurring on the Project site, and a field survey performed by Steve McMurtry verified that these habitats are absent from the Project site. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 was adopted as part of the Master Plan EIR to ensure protections to jurisdictional facilities and/or riparian habitat; however, this mitigation measure is not applicable to the proposed Project because such habitat is absent from the Project site.

Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact relative to this topic.

Response c): The Project site does not contain protected wetlands or other jurisdictional areas and there is no need for permitting associated with the federal or state Clean Water Acts. Absent any wetlands or jurisdictional waters, implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact relative to this topic.

Response d): The CNDDB record search did not reveal any documented wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites on or adjacent to the Project site. The field survey did not reveal any evidence of a wildlife corridor or nursery site. Special status fish species documented within the region include: Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), Hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus), Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Central Valley fall- /late fall-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys). The closest major natural movement corridor for native fish that are documented in the region is the San Joaquin River, located to the west of the Project site. The land uses within the Project site would not have any direct disturbance to the San Joaquin River or its tributaries, and therefore, would not have any direct disturbance to the movement corridor or habitat. Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact relative to this topic.

Response e): The Resource Conservation Element of the General Plan establishes numerous policies and implementation measures related to biological resources. As discussesd throughout this chapter of the Initial Study, the Project site does not contain biological resources given that it has been fully developed. Functionally, the proposed Project is a redevelopment or intensification of an existing development. The proposed Project would not conflict with any of these policies and implementation measures, nor would it conflict with any ordinances contained in the Manteca Municipal Code. Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact relative to this topic.

Response f): The proposed Project was subject to the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) when it was developed as a Container Yard. The fees were paid and coverage was provided. Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact relative to this topic.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 42
This page left intentionally blank.

GBxMANTECA PROJECT

MANTECA, CALIFORNIA
Figure 5. California Natural Diversity O Database 1-mile Search 0 500 1,000 CNDDB version 12/7/2021. Please Note: the occurrences shown on this map represent the known locations Feet of the species listed here as of the date of this version. There may be additional occurrences or additional species within this area which have not been surveyed and/or mapped. Lack of information in the CNDDB about a species or an area can never be used as proof that no special status species occur in an area.

Basemap: USA Topo Map. Map date: December 18, 2021.

Legend
Project Area
1-mile Radius of Project Area
Plant (circular)
Animal (80m)
Animal (non-specific)
Animal (circular)

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 44
This page left intentionally blank.

HOLT

STOCKTON WEST STOCKTON EAST

UNION ISLAND LATHROP MANTECA

TRACY VERNALIS RIPON
GBxMANTECA PROJECT

MANTECA, CALIFORNIA
Figure 6. California Natural Diversity O Database 9-quad Search 0 1 2 CNDDB version 12/7/2021. Please Note: the occurrences shown on this map represent the known locations Miles of the species listed here as of the date of this version. There may be additional occurrences or additional species within this area which have not been surveyed and/or mapped. Lack of information in the CNDDB about a species or an area can never be used as proof that no special status species occur in an area.

Basemap: USA Topo Map. Map date: December 18, 2021.

Legend
Plant (80m)
Plant (specific)
Plant (non-specific)
Plant (circular)
Animal (80m)
Animal (specific)
Animal (non-specific)
Animal (circular)
Terrestrial Community (specific)
Terrestrial Community (circular)
Multiple (non-specific)
Multiple (circular)

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 46
This page left intentionally blank.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 47
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a), b): As provided in the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR, the record search showed that there are no historic or archaeological resources that have been previously recorded within the Master Plan area. In addition, during the course of the pedestrian survey, no historic or archaeological resources were discovered within the Master Plan area. However, there is always the possibility that ground-disturbing activities during project development could potentially impact previously unknown historic resources. As such, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires standard inadvertent discovery procedures to be implemented in the event that subsurface historical or archaeological resources are encountered during construction. With the implementation of mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant.

Mitigation Adopted by the City
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If potentially significant historic resources are encountered during subsurface excavation activities for any Master Plan use, all construction activities within a 100- foot radius of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the resource requires further study. The City shall require that the applicant include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined to be significant under CEQA, the City and a qualified archaeologist shall determine whether preservation in place is feasible. Such preservation in place is the preferred mitigation. If such preservation is infeasible, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the resource. The archaeologist shall also conduct appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive written report and file it with the appropriate information center (California Historical Resources Information System), and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: If potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during subsurface excavation activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the resource requires further study. The City shall require that the applicant include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 48
Quality Act criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined to be significant under CEQA, the City and a qualified archaeologist shall determine whether preservation in place is feasible. Such preservation in place is the preferred mitigation. If such preservation is infeasible, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the resource. The archaeologist shall also conduct appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive written report and file it with the appropriate information center (California Historical Resources Information System), and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials.

Response c): There are no known burial sites within the Master Plan project area. The pedestrian survey conducted for the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR did not find any evidence of human remains or burial goods within the Project site. In addition, none of the previous surveys that included the Master Plan project area or were within a 0.25-mile radius reported finding any human remains. Nonetheless, the possibility exists that subsurface construction activities may encounter previously undiscovered human remains. Accordingly, this is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure CUL-4 requires standard inadvertent discovery procedures to be implemented in the event that subsurface cultural resources are encountered during construction. With the implementation of mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant.

Mitigation Adopted by the City
Mitigation Measure CUL-4: If previously unknown human remains are encountered during construction activities, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code applies, and the following procedures shall be followed: In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Public Resource Code Section 5097.98 must be followed. Once project-related ground disturbance begins and if there is accidental discovery of human remains, the following steps shall be taken:
• There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the San Joaquin County Coroner’s Office is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation into cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 49
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of the potentially significant energy implications of a project. CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce “wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary” energy usage (Public Resources Code Section 21100, subdivision [b][3]). According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing overall energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In particular, the proposed Project would be considered “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary” if it were to violate state and federal energy standards and/or result in significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy inefficiencies, energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity, fail to comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources, or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation, including the City of Manteca CAP.2 The amount of energy used at the Project site would directly correlate to the energy consumption (including fuel) used by vehicle trips generated during project construction, fuel used by off-road construction vehicles during construction, fuel used by vehicles during project operation, and electricity and other energy usage during project operation. The CalEEMod modeling results for the proposed Project estimate annual operational electricity usage at approximately 1,895,026 kWh/year, and annual natural gas usage at 1,513,560 kBTU/year (see Appendix A for further detail).

Conclusion
The proposed Project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations regulating energy usage. For example statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g. the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard) are improving vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.

As a result, the proposed Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy use inefficiencies, and/or the energy intensiveness of materials by amount and fuel type for each stage of the proposed Project including construction, operations, maintenance, and/or removal. PG&E, the electricity and natural gas provider to the site, maintains sufficient capacity to serve the proposed Project. In addition, PG&E is on its way 2 See Section VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions for a comparison of the project’s consistency with relevant CAP reduction measures.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 50
to achieving the statewide requirement of 50% of total energy mix generated by eligible renewables by hear 2030. As of 2018, PG&E generated approximately 38% of its energy from eligible renewables (PG&E, 2019). The proposed Project would comply with all existing energy standards, including the statewide Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, and would not result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources during construction and operation, nor conflict with or construct with a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This is a less than significant impact.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 51
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

X
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a.i), a.ii), a.iv): Figure 7 shows the earthquake faults in the vicinity of the Project site.

As shown in the figure, the site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and known surface expression of active faults does not exist within the site. However, the site is located within a seismically active region. The U.S. Geological Survey identifies potential seismic sources within approximately 20 miles of the Project site. Two of the closest known faults classified as active by the U.S. Geological Survey are an unnamed fault east of the City of Tracy, located approximately 8 miles to the west, and the San Joaquin fault, located approximately 16 miles to the southwest. The Midway fault is located approximately 20 miles to

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 52
the west. Other faults that could potentially affect the proposed Projectinclude the Corral HollowCarnegie fault, the Greenville fault, the Antioch fault, and the Los Positas fault.

Geologic Hazards
Potential seismic hazards resulting from a nearby moderate to major earthquake could generally be classified as primary and secondary. The primary seismic hazard is ground rupture, also called surface faulting. The common secondary seismic hazards include ground shaking and ground lurching.

Ground Rupture
Because the property does not have known active faults crossing the site, and the site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Special Study Zone, ground rupture is unlikely at the subject property.

Ground Shaking
According to the California Geological Survey’s Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment Program, Manteca is considered to be within an area that is predicted to have a 10 percent probability that a seismic event would produce horizontal ground shaking of 10 to 20 percent within a 50-year period. This level of ground shaking correlates to a Modified Mercalli intensity of V to VII, light to strong. As a result of these factors the California Geological Survey has defined the entire county as a seismic hazard zone. There will always be a potential for groundshaking caused by seismic activity anywhere in California, including the Project site.

Landslides
The proposed Project site is not susceptible to landslides because the area is essentially flat. This is a less than significant impact.

Conclusion
In order to minimize potential damage to the proposed site improvements, all construction in California is required to be designed in accordance with the latest seismic design standards of the California Building Standards Code. Design in accordance with these standards would reduce any potential impact to a less than significant level. Because all development in the Project site must be designed in conformance with these State standards, any potential impact would be considered less than significant.

Responses a.iii), c), d): Liquefaction normally occurs when sites underlain by saturated, loose to medium dense, granular soils are subjected to relatively high ground shaking. During an earthquake, ground shaking may cause certain types of soil deposits to lose shear strength, resulting in ground settlement, oscillation, loss of bearing capacity, landsliding, and the buoyant rise of buried structures. The majority of liquefaction hazards are associated with sandy soils, silty soils of low plasticity, and some gravelly soils. Cohesive soils are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction. In general, liquefaction hazards are most severe within the upper 50 feet of the surface, except where slope faces or deep foundations are present.

Expansive soils are those that undergo volume changes as moisture content fluctuates; swelling substantially when wet or shrinking when dry. Soil expansion can damage structures by cracking foundations, causing settlement and distorting structural elements. Expansion is a typical

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 53
characteristic of clay-type soils. Expansive soils shrink and swell in volume during changes in moisture content, such as a result of seasonal rain events, and can cause damage to foundations, concrete slabs, roadway improvements, and pavement sections.

Soil expansion is dependent on many factors. The more clayey, critically expansive surface soil and fill materials will be subjected to volume changes during seasonal fluctuations in moisture content. Figure 8 shows the soils within the Project site. There are no expansive (i.e. shrink-swell) soils within the Project site. The soils encountered at the Project site consist of Veritas fine sandy loam, and Tinnin loamy course sand.

Future development of the proposed Project could expose people or structures to adverse effects associated with liquefaction and/or soil expansion. Construction of the proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan policies related to geologic and seismic hazards. For example, Policy S-P-2 provides that the City will require new development to mitigate the potential impacts of geologic hazards through building review, and Policy S-P-3 provides that the City will require new development to mitigate the potential impacts of seismicinduced settlement of uncompacted fill and liquefaction due to the presence of a high-water table . To that end, General Plan Policy S-P-1 requires that all proposed development prepare geological reports and/or geological engineering reports for projects located in areas of potentially significant geological hazards, including potential subsidence (collapsible surface soils) due to groundwater extraction. Moreover, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that the Project applicant will submit a design-level geotechnical study and buildings plans to the City of Manteca for review and approval.

Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1,this potential impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Adopted by the City
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project applicant shall submit a design-level geotechnical study and building plans to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The building plans shall demonstrate that they incorporate all applicable recommendations of the design-level geotechnical study and comply with all applicable requirements of the most recent version of the California Building Standards Code. A licensed professional engineer shall prepare the plans, including those that pertain to soil engineering, structural foundations, pipeline excavation, and installation. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed Project. All onsite soil engineering activities shall be conducted under the supervision of a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist.

Response b): The majority of the Project site is already impervious, and drainage flows to the basin that was built as part of the Container Yard project. The proposed Project is not anticipated to create any new impervious surface areas or ground disturbance of top soil. Nevertheless, without implementation of appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to prevention of soil erosion during construction, development of the proposed Project could result in a potentially significant impact with respect to soil erosion. Mitigation Measure HYD-1 requires the Project applicant to prepare and submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan identifying specific actions and BMPs to prevent stormwater pollution during construction activities. The SWPPP shall include, among other things, temporary erosion control measures to be employed for disturbed areas. Implementation of the following mitigation measure, therefore, would ensure the impact is less than significant.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 54
Response e): No septic systems will be used or developed as part of the proposed Project.

Therefore, no impact would occur related to soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks.

Response f): There are no paleontological resources or unique sites located on the Project site.

In the event that plant or animal fossils are discovered during subsurface excavation activities, Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would all excavation within 50 feet of the fossil to cease until a paleontologist has determined the significance of the find and provided recommendations in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. If the find is determined to be significant and the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist would design and implement a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards, to be submitted to the City for review and approval. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3, impacts to paleontological resources or unique geologic features are not expected. This is a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Adopted by the City
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: In the event that plant or animal fossils are discovered during subsurface excavation activities for the proposed Project, all excavation within 50 feet of the fossil shall cease until a qualified paleontologist has determined the significance of the find and provides recommendations in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The paleontologist shall notify the City of Manteca to determine procedures to be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the find is determined to be significant and the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and implement a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Upon approval, the plan shall be incorporated into the project.
^_
Corral Hollow-Carnegie Fault Zone
UV99
UV132
UV219
UV12
UV99
UV104
UV33
UV84
UV12
UV205 UV108
UV120
UV UV4 4
UV580
UV160
UV12
UV26
UV88
§¨¦5
UV99
A l a m e d a
C o u n t y
A m a d o r
C o u n t y
C a l a v e r a s
C o u n t y
C o n t r a
C o s t a
C o u n t y
S a c r a m e n t o
C o u n t y
S a n J o a q u i n C o u n t y
S o l a n o
C o u n t y
S t a n i s l a u s
C o u n t y
Oakley
Brentwood
Rio Vista
Lathrop
Riverbank
Galt
Isleton
Escalon
Ripon
Manteca
Tracy
Stockton
Lodi
Oakdale
Modesto
Ceres Hughson
GBxMANTECA PROJECT

MANTECA, CALIFORNIA
O Figure 7. Earthquake Fault Map
0 2½ 5
Miles
Legend
Quaternary Fault
Alquist Priolo Fault Zone
Incorporated Area
County Boundary
Source: San Joaquin County GIS; USGS;
California State GeoPortal. Map date: December 17, 2021.

Foothills Fault System
Midway Fault
Black Butte Fault
San Joaquin Fault
Midland
Fault Zone
Greenville Fault Zone
Vernalis Fault
Great Valley Thrust Fault System
Project Location

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 56
This page left intentionally blank.

HASTINGS DR

DEGROOT LN
BOLTO
N LN

AIRPORT WAY

SHADY OAK ST
PASADO
AVE

ABERCORN ST

AUTUMN OAKS ST
LA
N

DRETH LN

LATHROP RD

DAISYWOOD DR

PASSAGES ST

APPLELEAF LN

NUSHAKE WAY

AIRPORT WAY

LATHROP RD
266
260
255
266
254
254
GBxMANTECA PROJECT

MANTECA, CALIFORNIA
O Figure 8. Soils Map 0 250 500
Feet
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS; NRCS Web Soil Survey: ArcGIS Online World Imagery Map Service 5/4/2020. Map date: December 17, 2021.

Legend
Project Area
Manteca City Boundary
Lathrop City Boundary
NRCS Soil Description
254: Timor loamy sand
255: Tinnnin loamy coarse sand
260: Urban land
266: Veritas fine sandy loam
C i t y
o f
L a t h r o p
C i t y o f M a n t e c a

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 58
This page left intentionally blank.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 59
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gasses?
X
Existing Setting
Various gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth’s atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation.

Naturally occurring GHGs include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also GHGs, but they are, for the most part, solely a product of industrial activities. Although the direct GHGs, including CO2, CH4, and N2O, occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have changed their atmospheric concentrations. From the preindustrial era (i.e., ending about 1750) to 2011, concentrations of these three GHGs have increased globally by 40, 150, and 20 percent, respectively (IPCC, 2013).

Greenhouse gases, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2018, accounting for 41% of total GHG emissions in the state. This category was followed by the industrial sector (24%), the electricity generation sector (including both in-state and out of-state sources) (15%) and the agriculture and forestry sector (8%) (California Energy Commission, 2016).

As the name implies, global climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern, respectively. California produced approximately 425 million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2e) in 2018 (California Energy Commission, 2021). Given that the U.S. EPA estimates that worldwide emissions from human activities totaled nearly 46 billion gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (BMTCO2e) in 2010, California’s incremental contribution to global GHGs is approximately 2% (U.S. EPA, 2014).

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 60
Carbon dioxide equivalents are a measurement used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. This potential, known as the global warming potential of a GHG, is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): Existing science is inadequate to support quantification of impacts that project specific GHG emissions have on global climatic change. This is readily understood when one considers that global climatic change is the result of the sum total of GHG emissions, both manmade and natural that occurred in the past; that is occurring now; and will occur in the future.

The effects of project specific GHG emissions are cumulative, and unless reduced or mitigated, their incremental contribution to global climatic change could be considered significant.

The SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVAPCD, 2015) provides an approach to assessing a project’s impacts on greenhouse gas emissions by evaluating the project’s emissions to the “reduction targets” established in ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan. For instance, the SJVACD’s guidance recommends that projects should demonstrate that “project specific GHG emissions would be reduced or mitigated by at least 29%, compared to Business as Usual (BAU), including GHG emission reductions achieved since the 2002-2004 baseline period, consistent with GHG emission reduction targets established in ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan. Projects achieving at least a 29% GHG emission reduction compared to BAU would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG.” Subsequent to the SJVAPCD’s approval of the Final Draft Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVAPCD 2015), the California Supreme Court issued an opinion that affects the conclusions that should/should not be drawn from a GHG emissions analysis that is based on consistency with the AB 32 Scoping Plan. More specifically, in Center for Biological Diversity v.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Court ruled that showing a “project-level reduction” that meets or exceeds the Scoping Plan’s overall statewide GHG reduction goal is not necessarily sufficient to show that the project’s GHG impacts will be adequately mitigated: “the Scoping Plan nowhere related that statewide level of reduction effort to the percentage of reduction that would or should be required from individual projects...” According to the Court, the lead agency cannot simply assume that the overall level of effort required to achieve the statewide goal for emissions reductions will suffice for a specific project.

Given this Court decision, reliance on a 29 percent GHG emissions reduction from projected BAU levels compared to the project’s estimated 2020 levels as recommended in the SJVAPCD’s guidance documents is not an appropriate basis for an impact conclusion in the MND. Given that the SJVAPCD staff has concluded that “existing science is inadequate to support quantification of impacts that project specific GHG emissions have on global climatic change,” this MND instead relies on consistency with the local reduction strategies contained within the existing City of Manteca Climate Action Plan (CAP) (2013) for this analysis.

The City of Manteca adopted its CAP in October 2013. The purpose of the CAP is to: 1) outline a course of action for the City government and the community of Manteca to reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions by amounts required to show consistency with AB 32 goals and adapt to effects of climate change, and 2) provide clear guidance to City staff regarding when and how to implement key provisions of the CAP, and 3) provide a streamlined mechanism for projects

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 61
that are consistent with the CAP to demonstrate that they would not contribute significant greenhouse gas impacts.

The GHG Plan is considered a “Qualified Plan,” according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.2.

The approach still relies on the Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines thresholds which indicate that climate change-related impacts are considered significant if implementation of the proposed Project would do any of the following:

1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

These two CEQA Appendix G threshold questions are provided within the Initial Study checklist and are the thresholds used for the subsequent analysis. The focus of the analysis is on the project’s consistency with the CAP. The CAP contains an inventory of GHG emissions, reduction strategies, and a means to implement, monitor, and fund the Plan. The purpose of the CAP is to outline a course of action for the City government and the community of Manteca to reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions by amounts required to show consistency with AB 32 goals for the year 2020, and to adapt to effects of climate change. The CAP also provides clear guidance to City staff regarding when and how to implement key provisions of the CAP. Lastly, the CAP provides a streamlined mechanism for projects that are consistent with the CAP to demonstrate that they would not contribute significant greenhouse gas impacts. The analysis provided herein includes quantitative modeling to show the construction and operational emissions of GHGs as a result of the project, however, the conclusions are based on the fact that the project is consistent with the reduction strategies contained within the CAP.

Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed project would generate GHGs during the construction and operational phases of the proposed project. The primary source of construction-related GHGs from the proposed project would result from emissions of CO2 associated with the construction of the proposed project, and worker vehicle trips. The proposed project would require limited grading, and would also include site preparation, building construction, architectural coating, and paving phases.

Sources of GHGs during project operation would include CO2 associated with operational vehicle trips and on-site energy usage (e.g. electricity). Other sources of GHG emissions would be minimal.

Table GHG-1 provides the estimated GHG emissions that would be generated during project construction and operation.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 62
Table GHG-1: Project Mitigated Construction and Operational GHG Emissions (metric tons/year) Year CO2e
Construction
2022 260.5
2023 528.2
Operation
Annual 1,075.6
Source: CalEEMod, v.2020.4.0
Project Consistency with the Manteca CAP
Table GHG-2, below provides a consistency analysis of the relevant Manteca CAP policies in comparison to the proposed project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consistent: The City would notify the
developer of the project regarding the
potential for employing more than 100
persons at a single work site with
information on end-of-trip facilities
ENB-1
The City shall require developers to exceed Title 24
energy efficiency standards by at least 10 percent. The City recognizes that it may not be feasible for all
buildings and structures to exceed Title 24 by this
amount because of the form or function of the building.

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

Consistent: The project developer would
be required to develop building plans
consistent with this measure. Specifically,
the proposed Project anticipates
installation of and 800 kW solar facility.

Based on CAP measure ENB-1, the proposed Project would be required to exceed the Title 24 energy efficiency requirements by at least 10 percent, if feasible, or (if not feasible), require implementation of solar panels or other non-building related energy efficiency measures such as exterior or water savings. The proposed Project anticipates installation of an 800 kW solar facility, which will provide significant energy savings and would be consistent with the requirements of the State law, local regulations, and the City of Manteca’s recommendations related to climate action planning.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 63
Project Consistency with SJCOG’s RTP/SCS
In addition, the proposed project would not conflict with the implementation of regional transportation-related GHG targets outlined in San Joaquin Council of Governments’ (SJCOG) 2018 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (2018 RTP/SCS). The 2018 RTP/SCS includes the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan in their population and employment projections, and VMT increases associated with buildout of the City of Manteca.

Conclusion
Overall, the proposed project would be consistent with the strategies as described in the City of Manteca CAP and it functions as an implementation project toward achieving the City’s Climate Action Plan. Since the proposed project would not conflict with the Manteca CAP (including consistency with the growth projections generated by the Manteca CAP or SJCOG’s RTP/SCS, the proposed project would not generate a significant cumulative impact to GHGs.

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

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 64
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): The Project site is a developed Container Yard. Since the proposed Project does not include demolition, risks associated with demolition of buildings that may contain potential hazards (such as lead and/or asbestos associated with building demolition) are not further discussed herein.

Short-Term Impacts
Project construction activities may involve the use and transport of hazardous materials. These materials may include fuels, oils, mechanical fluids, and other chemicals used during construction. However, under normal conditions, human health and the environment would not exposed to hazardous materials. In addition, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 requires the Project applicant to implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan during construction activities to prevent contaminated runoff from leaving the Project site.

Long-Term Impacts

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 65
Typically, light industrial/warehouse and commercial/retail land uses do not generate, store, or dispose of significant quantities of hazardous materials. Such uses also do not normally involve dangerous activities that could expose persons onsite or in the surrounding areas to large quantities of hazardous materials. While the specific tenants for this project are not known, general landscaping and maintenance will include the use of pest control, herbicide, and janitorial products such as commercial cleaners.

Small quantities of hazardous materials would be used onsite, including cleaning solvents (such as degreasers, paint thinners, and aerosol propellants), paints (both latex- and oil-based), acids and bases (such as many cleaners), disinfectants, and fertilizers. These substances would be stored in secure areas. The potential risks posed by the use and storage of these hazardous materials are primarily limited to the immediate vicinity of the materials. Transport of these materials would be performed by commercial vendors who would be required to comply with various federal and state laws regarding hazardous materials transportation.

Overall, with implementation the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to these issues.

Response c): The Project site is not located within ¼ mile of an existing school. The nearest school (George McParland Elementary School) is located approximately 0.73 miles to the southeast of the Project site, at its closest point. East Union High School, located east of the Project site, is also approximately 1.19 miles from the Project site. Joseph Widmer Elementary, located west of the Project site, is also approximately 1.18 miles from the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Response d): A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the Master Plan EIR, and it concluded that there were no Recognized Environmental Concerns (REC)s within the Master Plan area. Subsequently, a Phase I ESA was prepared specifically for the Project site. This subsequent Phase I ESA also concluded that there were no RECs. The most recent Phase I ESA is included in Appendix F of this Initial Study.

According the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) there are no Federal Superfund Sites, State Response Sites, or Voluntary Cleanup Sites on, or in the near vicinity of the Project site. The Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5. The nearest sites identified within these databases are located approximately 0.70 and 0.88 miles to the west and north of the Project site:
• Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin – Sharpe Site (site CA8210020832): This site is a hazardous waste facility, which has a current status of Undergoing Closure. Operations at DDRW-Sharpe generate various types of hazardous wastes which are stored in containers on-site in Building 605. When a sufficient quantity of hazardous waste has accumulated, a contractor transfers the waste off-site to an approved treatment and/or disposal facility.
• Sharpe Army Depot (39970002): This site was previously known as Sharpe Army Depot and was operated by the U.S. Army. Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin California (DDJC)-Sharpe was established in 1941 and consists of 727 acres. The Sharpe facility was listed on the federal National Priorities List in July 1987. On July 19, 1989, the U.S. Army, U.S.EPA, the RWQCB, and DTSC entered into a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) for Sharpe. Past disposal sites include burial areas, burn pits, fire training areas, and leaking

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 66
underground storage tanks. Soil and groundwater contamination by volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primarily trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE), has been found at the site. Presently, two offsite TCE plumes can be found west of the Central Area as well as in the North Balloon. Elevated arsenic concentrations have also been detected in the soils and groundwater at Sharpe. Lead and chromium contamination has also been found in the soil. DDJC--Sharpe completed its Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Five-Year Review in July of 2020.

Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact relative to this environmental topic.

Response e): The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) establishes distances of ground clearance for take-off and landing safety based on such items as the type of aircraft using the airport. The Project site is not located within two miles of a private airstrip or public airport, or within an airport land use plan. The closest airport or airstrip is the Stockton Metropolitan Airport, located approximately 4 miles north of the Project site. Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with regards to this environmental issue.

Response f): The Office of Emergency Services (OES) maintains an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) that serves as the official Emergency Plan for San Joaquin County. It includes planned operational functions and overall responsibilities of County Departments during an emergency situation. The Emergency Plan also contains a threat summary for San Joaquin County, which addresses the potential for natural, technological and human-caused disasters (County Code, Title 4-3007).

The County OES also prepared a Hazardous Materials Area Plan (§2720 H&S, 2008) that describes the hazardous materials response system developed to protect public health, prevent environmental damage and ensure proper use and disposal of hazardous materials. The plan establishes effective response capabilities to contain and control releases, establishes oversight of long-term cleanup and mitigation of residual releases, and integrates multi-jurisdiction and agency coordination. This plan is now implemented by the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department.

The San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department maintains a Hazardous Materials Management Plan/ Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMMP/HMBP). The HMMP/HMBP describes agency roles, strategies and processes for responding to emergencies involving hazardous materials. The Environmental Health Department maintains a Hazardous Materials Database and Risk and Flood Maps available to the public on its website.

In San Joaquin County, all major roads are available for evacuation, depending on the location and type of emergency that arises. The proposed Project does not include any actions that would impair or physically interfere with any of San Joaquin County’s emergency plans or evacuation routes. Construction activities are not expected to result in any unknown significant road closures, traffic detours, or congestion that could hinder the emergency vehicle access or evacuation in the event of an emergency. Operational traffic generated by the Project site would not be significant relative to emergency access.

The Project site would provide adequate emergency vehicular access via driveway connections with adjoining roadways and an internal circulation network. All driveways and internal roadways would be designed to accommodate large emergency vehicles such as fire engines.

These improvements would contribute to effective emergency response and evacuation, and they

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 67
would promote efficient circulation in the Project vicinity. Furthermore, the proposed Project does not propose any permanent road closures, lane reductions, or other adverse circulation conditions that may adversely affect emergency response or evacuation in the Project vicinity.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with regards to this environmental issue.

Response g): The risk of wildfire is related to a variety of parameters, including fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents), and topography (degree of slope). Steep slopes contribute to fire hazard by intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult. Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point, while fuels such as trees have a lower surface area to mass ratio and require more heat to reach the ignition point.

The city has areas with an abundance of flashy fuels (i.e., grassland) in the outlying residential parcels and open lands that, when combined with warm and dry summers with temperatures often exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit, create a situation that results in higher risk of wildland fires. Most wildland fires are human caused, so areas with easy human access to land with the appropriate fire parameters generally result in an increased risk of fire.

According to CalFire, the City of Manteca contains areas with “moderate” and “non-wildland fuel” ranks. The areas warranting “moderate” fuel ranks possess combustible material in sufficient quantities combined with topographic characteristics that pose a wildfire risk. CalFire data for the areas immediately surrounding the Project site also include “moderate” and “non-wildland fuel” ranks. Areas west of Interstate 5, approximately 15 miles or further southwest of the Project site, are designated as “moderate” and “high” fuel ranks.

The Project site is located in an area with a “Local Responsibility Zone (LRA) Unzoned” rank. The site is not located on a steep slope, and is essentially flat. The Project site is also located in an area with existing agricultural and/or urban development, with existing or future agricultural and/or urban development located on all sides. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 68
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; X (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite;
X
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), c.i), c.ii), c.iii), e):

Construction
Construction activities including grading could temporarily increase soil erosion rates during and shortly after project construction. Construction-related erosion could result in the loss of soil and could adversely affect water quality in nearby surface waters.

Temporary stockpiles of sediment or other materials also have the potential to erode and be carried into the stormwater system and waterways. Construction activities will likely involve the use of gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles and equipment that pose a potential risk of accidental fuel and related chemical releases that could enter the drainage system and degrade water quality. As described below, BMPs would be implemented and maintained just before and during any project construction activities to protect surface water in the drainages and the San Joaquin River during all earthwork activities.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 69
The RWQCB requires a project-specific SWPPP to be prepared for each project that disturbs an area one acre or larger, which includes the Project site. The SWPPP is required to include project specific BMPs that are designed to control drainage and erosion. Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would require the preparation of a SWPPP to ensure that the proposed Project prepares and implements a SWPPP throughout the construction phase of the proposed Project. By implementing and maintaining proper BMPs, the potential for short-term sediment introduction should be minimized. The SWPPP (Mitigation Measure HYD-1) would reduce the potential for the proposed Project to violate water quality standards during construction.

Operation
The infiltration and runoff process is altered when a site is developed. Buildings, sidewalks, roads, and parking lots introduce asphalt, concrete, and roofing materials to the landscape. These materials are relatively impervious, which means that they absorb less rainwater. As impervious surfaces are added to the ground conditions, the natural infiltration process is reduced. As a result, the volume and rate of storm water runoff increases. The increased volumes and rates of storm water runoff can result in flooding if adequate storm drainage facilities are not provided.

There are no rivers, streams, or water courses located on or immediately adjacent to the Project site. As such, there is low potential for the proposed Project to alter a water course, which could lead to on or offsite flooding. Drainage improvements associated with the Project site would be located on the Project site, and the proposed Project would not alter or adversely impact offsite drainage facilities.

The proposed Project would not generate new or altered stormwater discharge into streams.

Existing streams/crossings would be maintained, and no new crossings are proposed as part of the proposed Project.

The proposed Project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.28 of the Manteca Municipal Code – Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. The purpose of these requirements is to “establish minimum storm water management requirements and controls to protect and safeguard the general health, safety and welfare of the public residing in watersheds within the City of Manteca.” These requirements are intended to assist in the protection and enhancement of the water quality of watercourses, water bodies, and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act, 33 USC Section 1251 et seq.), Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Permit No. CAS000004, as such permit is amended and/or renewed.

Additionally, mitigation is proposed that would require the Project applicant to prepare and submit a stormwater quality control plan for the proposed Project as a whole to the City of Manteca for review and approval that would demonstrate adequate water quality protection prior to issuance of building or grading permits. The plan would be required to document the expected target pollutants and types of treatments that would be required of the building site to address those pollutants during operation. The expected polluted runoff from the paved internal roadways and proposed treatment must be included in the plan. The plan would also describe any monitoring effort and performance measures required and what entity would provide oversight to ensure that stormwater quality is sufficiently treated so as not to impede downstream detention basin performance or degrade water quality downstream.

Mitigation Measure HYD-2 requires a drainage plan that demonstrates attainment of pre-project runoff volumes and peak flows prior to release at the outlet canal. As required under Mitigation

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 70
Measure HYD-4, the drainage plan must also describe the volume reduction measures and treatment controls used to reach attainment. With implementation of the following mitigation measures, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this environmental topic.

Mitigation Adopted by the City
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for each proposed activity within the Master Plan area, the Project applicant shall prepare and submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City of Manteca for approval that identifies specific actions and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent stormwater pollution during construction activities. The SWPPP shall identify a practical sequence for BMP implementation, monitoring, and maintenance; site restoration; contingency measures; responsible parties; and agency contacts. The SWPPP shall include but not be limited to the following elements:
• Temporary erosion control measures shall be employed for disturbed areas. • Specific measures shall be identified to protect the onsite open drainages during construction of the proposed resort.
• Specific measures shall be identified to protect the French Camp Outlet Canal and Drain 3 during any construction activities.
• No disturbed surfaces shall be left without erosion control measures in place during the winter and spring months.
• Sediment shall be retained onsite by a system of sediment basins, traps, or other appropriate measures.
• The construction contractor shall prepare Standard Operating Procedures for the handling of hazardous materials on the construction site to eliminate or reduce discharge of materials to storm drains.
• BMP performance and effectiveness shall be determined either by visual means where applicable (e.g., observation of above-normal sediment release), or by actual water sampling in cases where verification of contaminant reduction or elimination (such as inadvertent petroleum release) is required by the RWQCB to determine adequacy of the measure. • In the event of significant construction delays or delays in final landscape installation, native grasses or other appropriate vegetative cover shall be established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance, as an interim erosion control measure throughout the wet season.

Mitigation Measure HYD-2: Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for any development activities that occur pursuant to the Master Plan, the Project applicant shall submit a stormwater quality control plan to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The plan shall include a detailed drainage plan and identify expected site-specific pollutants and required measures to treat those pollutants before they reach the regional detention basins and, ultimately, the French Camp Outlet Canal and San Joaquin River. The approved measures shall be incorporated into the proposed Project. The plan will describe monitoring and performance measures and standards required in order to ensure water quality is adequately protected during operation of all proposed sites within the Project site. Examples of stormwater pollution prevention measures and practices to be incorporated into the plan include but are not limited to:
• Strategically placed bioswales and landscaped areas that promote percolation of runoff

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 71
• Pervious pavement
• Roof drains that discharge to landscaped areas
• Trash enclosures with screen walls and roofs
• Stenciling on storm drains
• Curb cuts in parking areas to allow runoff to enter landscaped areas • Rock-lined areas along landscaped areas in parking lots • Catch basins
• Oil/water separators
• Regular sweeping of parking areas and cleaning of storm drainage facilities • Employee training to inform maintenance personnel of stormwater pollution prevention measures
Mitigation Measure HYD-4: Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for the proposed Project, the Project applicant shall submit a stormwater quality control plan for the project as a whole to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The plan shall include a detailed drainage plan that demonstrates attainment of pre-project runoff requirements prior to release at the outlet canal and describes the volume reduction measures and treatment controls used to reach attainment. The drainage plan shall identify all expected flows from the Project site and the location, size, and type of facilities used to retain and treat the runoff volumes and peak flows to meet pre-project conditions. The approved drainage plan shall be incorporated into the proposed Project.

Response b): The Master Plan area is located in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. Groundwater levels in Eastern San Joaquin County have been in decline, due to overdraft, and there is a significant cone of depression east of Stockton and northeast of the Project site. There may be some contribution from the site in support of agricultural or domestic uses, but there are no onsite or nearby domestic wells that would be directly affected. The specific volume, location, and seasonal timing of recharge would not be expected to adversely impact overall groundwater supply in the area; therefore, this project does not have the potential to significantly interfere with groundwater recharge.

The proposed Project uses would be served with potable water for domestic purposes, irrigation, and fire flow from the City of Manteca, through the City’s Municipal Well System and an agreement with SSJID for treated surface water. A Water Supply Assessment was prepared by the City of Manteca and concluded that adequate long-term water supplies exist to serve the Master Plan uses, including the uses at the Project site. As such, the Master Plan uses would not contribute to groundwater overdraft.

The proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). In addition, construction activities would be temporary and minor.

Therefore, project construction and operation would not substantially deplete or interfere with groundwater supply or quality. This impact would be less than significant.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 72
Response c.iv), d): As shown in Figure 9, the western portion of the Project site is located within the 500-year flood zone. The 500-year flood zone by definition indicates an area protected by levees from the 1% annual chance flood.

The risks of flooding hazards on the Project site and immediate surroundings are primarily related to large, infrequent storm events. These risks of flooding are greatest during the rainy season between November and March. Flooding events can result in damage to structures, injury or loss of human and animal life, exposure to waterborne diseases, and damage to infrastructure.

In addition, standing floodwater can destroy agricultural crops, undermine infrastructure and structural foundations, and contaminate groundwater.

In 2007, the State of California passed a series of laws referred to as Senate Bill (SB) 5 directing the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to prepare flood maps for the Central Valley flood system and the State Plan of Flood Control, which includes a system of levees and flood control facilities located in the Central Valley. This legislation set specific locations within the area affected by the 200-year flood event as the urban level of flood protection (ULOP) for the Central Valley.

SB5 “requires all cities and counties within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, as defined in California Government Code Sections 65007(h) and (j), to make findings related to an ULOP or national Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standard of flood protection before:
(1) entering into a development agreement for any property that is located within a flood hazard zone; (2) approving a discretionary permit or other discretionary entitlement, or ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence, for a project that is located within a flood hazard zone; or (3) approving a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, for any subdivision that is located within a flood hazard zone.” In 2016, the City of Manteca approved a Memorandum of Understanding to pursue 200-year urban level of flood protection to satisfy SB 5.

However, according to FEMA’s Flood Map Service Center (FIRM Panel #06077C0610F), the Project site is located outside of the 100-year floodplain. Additionally, according to the USACE, the Project site is located outside of the 200-year floodplain. Therefore, the release of pollutants due to project inundation is unlikely, either during project construction or operation.

As shown in Figure 10, the Project site is located within a dam inundation area for the New Melones Dam and the San Luis Dam. Dam failure is generally a result of structural instability caused by improper design or construction, instability resulting from seismic shaking, or overtopping and erosion of the dam. Larger dams that are higher than 25 feet or with storage capacities over 50 acre-feet of water are regulated by the California Dam Safety Act, which is implemented by the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DSD).

The DSD is responsible for inspecting and monitoring these dams. The Act also requires that dam owners submit to the California Office of Emergency Services inundation maps for dams that would cause significant loss of life or personal injury as a result of dam failure. The County Office of Emergency Services is responsible for developing and implementing a Dam Failure Plan that designates evacuation plans, the direction of floodwaters, and provides emergency information.

Regular inspection by DSD and maintenance by the dam owners ensure that the dams are kept in safe operating condition. As such, failure of these dams is considered to have an extremely low probability of occurring and is not considered to be a reasonably foreseeable event.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 73
The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.

The Project site is not anticipated to be inundated by a tsunami because it is located at an elevation of approximately 23 feet above sea level and is approximately 60 miles away from the Pacific Ocean which is the closest ocean waterbody.

The Project site is not anticipated to be inundated by a seiche because it is not located in close proximity to a water body capable of creating a seiche.

Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to the risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation by flood hazards, seiches, and tsunamis, or the potential to alter the course of a stream or river in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 74
This page left intentionally blank.

GLENOAKS ST

EXETER DR

HASTINGS DR

PICADILLY WAY

DEGROOT LN

NORTHGATE DR

SHADY OAK ST
PASADO
AVE

ABERCORN ST

AUTUMN OAKS ST

LANDRETH LN

BOLTON LN

BEDFORD LN

LATHROP RD

DAISYWOOD DR

PASSAGES ST

WIDMER LN

KOMENICH DR

AIRPORT WAY

WINCHESTER DR

NUSHAKE WAY

TERRACINA CIR

LATHROP RD
GBxMANTECA PROJECT

MANTECA, CALIFORNIA
O Figure 9. Flood Map 0 250 500
Feet
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS; FEMA; DWR; ArcGIS Online World Imagery Map Service 5/4/2020. Map date: December 17, 2021.

Legend
Project Parcel
Manteca City Boundary
Lathrop City Boundary
USACE 200-yr Flood Zone
FEMA Flood Zones
500-yr Flood Zone
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee
Area of Minimal Flood Hazard
C i t y
o f
L a t h r o p
UP RR
C i t y o f M a n t e c a
unshaded

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 76
This page left intentionally blank.

LATHROP RD

LOUISE AVE

FOXFIRE DR

SLATEST

UNION RD
ZURICH
DR

FILLMORE ST

PARK ST

UN OI N RD

NORTHGATE DR

SNYDER ST
A
G

ATE AVE

JASPER ST

MINGO WAY

PICADILLY WAY
H ST

ABBY PL

LINDE NWAY NANA
PL

LATHROP RD

IVY WAY
SHA
D
OW

BERRY DR

WI NDGATE DR
AV
ON ST

DERBY LN

HASTINGS DR

DAISYWOOD DR

NICOL WAY

MAPLE VALLEY ST
FIFTH
ST

VESUVIO ST

BELLCHASE
DR

LONDON AVE

BOLTON LN

LONG BAR N DR

JONQUIL DR

ARBOR BROOK DR
QUINCY
AVE

S EV ENTH ST

THOMSEN RD
L ST
N ST
I ST
J ST
O ST

KELLEY DR

SIXTH ST
G ST

CHESTNUTHILL DR
PEPPER

TR EE LN

BELLE GLA DE LN

OPAL ST

PR IMAVERA AVE
HARLAN
RD
ZOE LN

AIRPORT WAY

AVON AVE

AIRPORT WAY

LATHROP RD

G IANNA LN

COELHO RD

MCKINLEY AVE

HOWLAND RD

LOVELACE RD

INTERMODAL WAY

AIRPORT WAY
GBxMANTECA PROJECT

MANTECA, CALIFORNIA
O Figure 10. Dam Inundation Map 0 500 1,000
Feet
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS; ArcGIS Online World Imagery Map Service 5/4/2020. Map date: December 29, 2020.

Legend
Project Area
Manteca City Boundary
Lathrop City Boundary
San Luis Dam Inundation Area
New Melones Dam Inundation Area
C i t y
o f
L a t h r o p
UP RR
C i t y o f M a n t e c a

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 78
This page left intentionally blank.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 79
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): The Project site is located within the Manteca City limits and is adjacent primarily to existing urban and agricultural uses. The proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Response b): The key land use planning documents that are directly related to, or that establish a framework within which the proposed Project must be consistent, include:
• City of Manteca General Plan; and
• City of Manteca Zoning Ordinance.

The Project site is designated as LI by the City's General Plan Land Use Map, and the Project site is zoned MP – Master Plan for the City of Manteca Zoning Map. Under the General Plan Update, the Project site would remain under the same land uses as under the existing General Plan.

The purpose of the MP - Master Plan Zoning District is to establish a process for the consideration and regulation of areas suitable for proposed comprehensive development with detailed development plans and of those areas that require special planning.

The proposed Project would not require changes to any land use designations, and would be consistent with the existing zoning, and is supportive to the utility demands for each of these uses. In addition, the proposed Project would not conflict with any goals, policies, or implementing actions contained within the General Plan, or within the proposed General Plan Update. Therefore, impacts to land use compatibility would be less than significant.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 80
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
X
Existing Setting
The California Geological Survey identifies areas that contain or that could contain significant mineral resources so as to provide context for local agency land use decisions and to protect availability of known mineral resources. Classifications ranging from Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) -1 to MRZ-4 are based on knowledge of a resource’s presence and the quality of the resource. No mineral extraction operations are known to exist in or adjacent to the Project site.

The Project site is within MRZ-1, as delineated by the Mineral Resources and Mineral Hazards Mapping Program (MRMHMP) (California Department of Conservation, 2012). MRZ-1 is defined by the MRMHMP as being in areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): As noted above, the Project site is located within MRZ-1. The proposed Project would not result in the loss of an available known mineral resources nor result in the loss of availability of locally-important mineral resource recovery sites delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Additionally, there are no oil and gas extraction wells within or near the property. Therefore, the impact is less than significant to this environmental topic.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 81
XIII. NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
X
Environmental Setting
Fundamentals of Acoustics
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), then they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound and is expressed as cycles per second or Hertz (Hz).

Noise is a subjective reaction to different types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected or undesired, and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.

Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals), as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness.

The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by A-weighted sound levels. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment.

The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10-dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A-weighted, an increase of 10-dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80-dBA sound, and twice as loud as a 60 dBA sound.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 82
Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), which corresponds to a steady-state A weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise.

The day/night average level (DNL or Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10-decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents Table NOISE-1 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common situations.

Table NOISE-1: Typical Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
--110-- Rock Band
Jet Fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft) --100--
Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft) --90--
Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft),
at 80 km/hr (50 mph) --80--
Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft)
Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft)
Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft) --70-- Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft) Commercial Area
Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft) --60-- Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft) Quiet Urban Daytime --50-- Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Nighttime --40-- Theater, Large Conference Room Dishwasher in Next Room (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime --30-- Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime --20-- Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background)
--10-- Broadcast/Recording Studio
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing --0-- Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing SOURCE: CALTRANS, TECHNICAL NOISE SUPPLEMENT, TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS PROTOCOL. SEPTEMBER, 2013.

Effects of Noise on People
The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories:
• Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction; • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning; and • Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling.

Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.

Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called ambient noise

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 83
level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it.

With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur:
• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived;
• Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference; • A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and
• A 10 dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause an adverse response.

Stationary point sources of noise – including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles – attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e. atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres, or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate.

Existing and Future Noise and Vibration Environments
Existing Noise Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Land uses often associated with sensitive receptors generally include residences, schools, libraries, hospitals, and passive recreational areas. Sensitive noise receptors may also include threatened or endangered noise sensitive biological species, although many jurisdictions have not adopted noise standards for wildlife areas. Noise sensitive land uses are typically given special attention in order to achieve protection from excessive noise.

Sensitivity is a function of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities involved. In the vicinity of the project site, sensitive land uses include existing single-family residential uses located east of the project site.

Existing General Ambient Noise Levels
The existing ambient noise environment in the project vicinity is primarily defined by traffic on Airport Way. Saxelby Acoustics conducted a continuous noise measurement survey to quantify the existing ambient noise environment at the project site. The noise measurement location is shown on Figure 2 in the Noise Study (Appendix). A summary of the noise level measurement survey results is provided in Table Noise-2. Appendix B in the Noise Study contains the complete results of the noise monitoring.

The sound level meter was programmed to record the maximum, median, and average noise levels at the project site during the survey. The maximum value, denoted Lmax, represents the highest noise level measured. The average value, denoted Leq, represents the energy average of all of the noise received by the sound level meter microphone during the monitoring period. The median value, denoted L50, represents the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during the monitoring period.

A Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) Model 820 precision integrating sound level meter was used for the ambient noise level measurement survey. The meter was calibrated before and after use with a CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The equipment

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 84
used meets all pertinent specifications of the American National Standards Institute for Type 1 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4).

Table Noise-2: Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data Location Date Ldn Daytime
Leq
Daytime
L50
Daytime
Lmax
Nighttime
Leq
Nighttime
L50
Nighttime
Lmax
LT-1: 100 ft.
to CL of
Monterey
Rd.
4/29/2021 72 69 63 86 64 55 82
Notes:
• All values shown in dBA
• Daytime hours: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
• Nighttime Hours: 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Source: Saxelby Acoustics 2021
Evaluation of Project Operational Noise at Residential Receptors Loading Dock Noise Generation
To determine typical noise levels associated with the proposed loading docks, noise level measurement data from a United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI) warehouse was used. The noise level measurements were conducted at a distance of 200 feet from the center of the loading dock and circulation area. Activities during the peak hour of loading dock activities included truck arrival/departures, truck idling, truck backing, air brake release, and operation of truck-mounted refrigeration units.

The results of the loading dock noise measurements indicate that a busy hour generated an average noise level of 61 dBA Leq at a distance of 200 feet from the center of the loading dock truck maneuvering lanes. This analysis assumes that the proposed loading docks would operate at this level of activity in a busy hour during either daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) or nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).

Truck Shop
To determine typical noise levels associated with the Truck Shop on the project site, noise level measurement data from a Sacramento Unified School District bus repair facility was utilized. The noise level measurements were conducted at a distance of 120 feet from the repair shop entrance.

Primary noise generation emanated from pneumatic tools.

The results of the bus repair shop noise measurements indicate that a busy hour generated an average noise level of 61 dBA Leq and 76 dBA Lmax at a distance of 120 feet from the bay of the bus repair shop. This analysis conservatively assumes that the Truck Shop could operate at this level of activity in a busy hour.

Parking Lot Circulation
Based upon the project traffic study, the peak hour trips for the project would be 60 passenger vehicles and 11 tractor-trailers. Based upon noise measurements conducted of vehicle movements in parking lots, the sound exposure level (SEL) for a single passenger vehicle is 71 dBA at a distance of 50 feet while the SEL of a tractor-trailer is 85 dBA at the same distance.

Saxelby Acoustics used the SoundPLAN noise model to calculate noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors. Input data included the loading dock, truck shop, and parking lot noise

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 85
generation, as discussed above. The results of this analysis are displayed graphically in Figure 3 in the Noise Study in terms of the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) average (Leq) value.

Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) operations would occur at the same level as nighttime operations. Maximum values are expected to be no more than 20 dBA higher than average (Leq) values.

Construction Noise Environment
During the construction of the proposed project noise from construction activities would temporarily add to the noise environment in the project vicinity. As shown in Table Noise-3, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet.

Table Noise-3: Construction Equipment Noise
Type of Equipment Maximum Level, dBA at 50 feet
Auger Drill Rig 84
Backhoe 78
Compactor 83
Compressor (air) 78
Concrete Saw 90
Dozer 82
Dump Truck 76
Excavator 81
Generator 81
Jackhammer 89
Pneumatic Tools 85
Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-HEP-05-054. January 2006.

Construction Vibration Environment
The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur during construction when activities such as grading, utilities placement, and parking lot construction occur. Table Noise-4 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment.

Table Noise-4: Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment Type of Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
at 25 feet
(inches/second)
Peak Particle Velocity
at 50 feet
(inches/second)
Peak Particle Velocity
at 100 feet
(inches/second)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.010
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000
Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 0.031 0.011
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.004
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.025 0.009
Vibratory Compactor/roller

0.210
(Less than 0.20 at 26
feet)

0.074 0.026

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 86
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines. Federal Transit Administration. May 2006.

Regulatory Setting – Manteca General Plan
Federal
There are no federal regulations related to noise that apply to the Proposed Project.

State
There are no state regulations related to noise that apply to the Proposed Project.

Local
City of Manteca General Plan
Exterior and interior noise standards for residential land uses are established within the City of Manteca General Plan Noise Element. Policies contained in the Noise Element applicable to the proposed project include:

The City of Manteca General Plan – Existing (2003) General Plan The City of Manteca General Plan Noise Element contains goals, policies, and implementation measures for assessing noise impacts within the City. Listed below are the noise goals, policies, and implementation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project (City of Manteca as amended through 2016):

Goals: Noise
• N-1. Protect the residents of Manteca from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise.
• N-3. Ensure that the downtown core noise levels remain acceptable and compatible with commercial and higher density residential land uses.
• N-4. Protect public health and welfare by eliminating existing noise problems where feasible, by establishing standards for acceptable indoor and outdoor noise, and by preventing significant increases in noise levels.
• N-5. Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions, and guide the location and design of transportation facilities to minimize the effects of noise on adjacent land uses.

Policies: Noise
• N-P-2. New development of residential or other noise-sensitive land uses will not be permitted in noise-impacted areas unless effective mitigation measures are incorporated into the project design to satisfy the performance standards in Table 9-1.

Table Noise-5: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure Mobile Noise Sources Land Use4 Outdoor Activity
Areas1
Interior Spaces
Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq/CNEL, dB3
Residential 602 45 --

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 87
Land Use4 Outdoor Activity
Areas1
Interior Spaces
Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq/CNEL, dB3
Transient Lodging 602 45 --
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 602 45 --
Theatres, Auditoriums, Music
Halls -- -- 35
Churches, Music Halls 602 -- 40
Office Buildings 65 -- 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums -- -- 45
Playgrounds, Neighborhood
Parks 70 -- --
Notes: 1 Outdoor activity areas for residential development are considered to be backyard patios or decks of single family dwellings, and the common areas where people generally congregate for multi-family developments. Outdoor activity areas for non-residential developments are considered to be those common areas where people generally congregate, including pedestrian plazas, seating areas, and outside lunch facilities. Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use.
2 In areas where it is not possible to reduce exterior noise levels to 60 dB Ldn or below using a practical application of the best noisereduction technology, an exterior noise level of up to 65 Ldn will be allowed. 3 Determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use. 4 Where a proposed use is not specifically listed on the table, the use shall comply with the noise exposure standards for the nearest similar use as determined by the City.

Source: City of Manteca General Plan, Noise Element, Table 9-1. • N-P-3. The City may permit the development of new noise-sensitive uses only where the noise level due to fixed (non-transportation) noise sources satisfies the noise level standards of Table 9-2. Noise mitigation may be required to meet Table 9-2 performance standards.

Table Noise-6: Performance Standards for Stationary Noise Sources or Projects Affected by Stationary Noise Sources 1,2
Noise Level Descriptor Daytime (7 AM – 10 PM) Nighttime (10 PM – 7 AM) Hourly Leq, dB 50 45
Maximum Level, dB 70 65
Notes: 1 Each of the noise levels specified above should be lowered by five (5) dB for simple noise tones, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or recurring impulsive noises. Such noises are generally considered by residents to be particularly annoying and are a primary source of noise complaints.
2 No standards have been included for interior noise levels. Standard construction practices should, with the exterior noise levels identified, result in acceptable interior noise levels.

Source: City of Manteca General Plan, Noise Element, Table 9-2. • N-P-5. In accord with the Table 9-2 standards, the City shall regulate construction-related noise impacts on adjacent uses.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 88
Implementation Measures: Noise
• N-I-1. New development in residential areas with an actual or projected exterior noise level of greater than 60 dB Ldn will be conditioned to use mitigation measures to reduce exterior noise levels to less than or equal to 60 dB Ldn.
• N-I-3. In making a determination of impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a substantial increase will occur if ambient noise levels are increased by 10 dB or more. An increase from 5-10 dB may be substantial. Factors to be considered in determining the significance of increases from 5-10 dB include:
o the resulting noise levels
o the duration and frequency of the noise
o the number of people affected
o the land use designation of the affected receptor sites o public reactions or controversy as demonstrated at workshops or hearings, or by correspondence
o prior CEQA determinations by other agencies specific to the project • N-I-4. Control noise at the source through use of insulation, berms, building design and orientation, buffer space, staggered operating hours and other techniques. Use noise barriers to attenuate noise to acceptable levels.

The City of Manteca General Plan – Proposed General Plan Update It is expected that the City’s General Plan update may be adopted prior to the approval of the 320 Airport Way project. Therefore, the goals and policies of the proposed General Plan are also considered in this document. The City of Manteca General Plan Update noise goals, policies, and implementation measures are included below:

Goals
• Goal S-5: Protect the quality of life by protecting the community from harmful and excessive noise.

Policies
• S-5.1 Incorporate noise considerations into land use, transportation, and infrastructure planning decisions, and guide the location and design of noise-producing uses to minimize the effects of noise on adjacent noise-sensitive land uses, including residential uses and schools.
• S-5.2 Ensure that Downtown noise levels remain acceptable and compatible with a pedestrian-oriented environment and higher density residential land uses. • S-5.3 Areas within Manteca exposed to existing or projected exterior noise levels from mobile noise sources exceeding the performance standards in Table S-1 shall be designated as noise-impacted areas.
• S-5.4 Require residential and other noise-sensitive development projects to satisfy the noise level criteria in Tables S-1 and S-2.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 89
• S-5.5 Require new stationary noise sources proposed adjacent to noise sensitive uses to be mitigated so as to not exceed the noise level performance standards in Table S-2, or a substantial increase in noise levels established through a detailed ambient noise survey. • S-5.6 Regulate construction-related noise to reduce impacts on adjacent uses to the criteria identified in Table S-2 or, if the criteria in Table S-2 cannot be met, to the maximum level feasible using best management practices and complying with the MMC Chapter 9.52. • S-5.7 Where the development of residential or other noise-sensitive land use is proposed for a noise-impacted area or where the development of a stationary noise source is proposed in the vicinity of noise-sensitive uses, an acoustical analysis is required as part of the environmental review process so that noise mitigation may be considered in the project design. The acoustical analysis shall:
o Be the responsibility of the applicant.
o Be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics. o Include representative noise level measurements with sufficient sampling periods and locations to adequately describe local conditions and the predominant noise sources.
o Estimate existing and projected (20 years) noise levels in terms of the standards of Table S-1 or Table S-2, and compare those levels to the adopted policies of the Noise Element.
o Recommend appropriate mitigation measures to achieve compliance with the adopted policies and standards of the Noise Element.
o Estimate noise exposure after the prescribed mitigation measures have been implemented.
o If necessary, describe a post-project assessment program to monitor the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures.
• S-5.8 Apply noise level criteria applied to land uses other than residential or other noisesensitive uses consistent with noise performance levels of Table S-1 and Table S-2. • S-5.9 Enforce the Sound Transmission Control Standards of the California Building Code concerning the construction of new multiple occupancy dwellings such as hotels, apartments, and condominiums.
• S-5.10 Ensure that new equipment and vehicles purchased by the City comply with noise level performance standards consistent with the best available noise reduction technology. • S-5.11 Require the Manteca Police Department to actively enforce requirements of the California Vehicle Code relating to vehicle mufflers and modified exhaust systems. • S-5.12 For new residential development backing on to a freeway or railroad right-of-way, the developer shall be required to provide appropriate mitigation measures to satisfy the performance standards in Table S-1.
• S-5.13 It is recognized that the City and surrounding areas are considered to be urban in nature and rely upon both the industrial and agricultural economy of the area. Therefore, it is recognized that noise sources of existing uses may exceed generally accepted standards.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 90
• S-5.14 Carefully review and give potentially affected residents an opportunity to fully review any proposals for the establishment of helipads or heliports. • S-5.15 Recognizing that existing noise-sensitive uses may be exposed to increase noise levels due to circulation improvement projects associated with development under the General Plan and that it may not be feasible to reduce increased traffic noise levels to the criteria identified in Table S-1, the following criteria may be used to determine the significance of noise impacts associated with circulation improvement projects:
o Where existing traffic noise levels are less than 60 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +5 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to roadway improvement projects will be considered significant; and o Where existing traffic noise levels range between 60 and 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +3 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to roadway improvement projects will be considered significant; and o Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a + 1.5 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to roadway improvement projects will be considered significant.
• S-5.16 Work with the Federal Railroad Administration and passenger and freight rail operators to reduce exposure to rail and train noise, including establishing train horn “quiet zones” consistent with the federal regulations.

Implementation
• S-5a Require an acoustical analysis that complies with the requirements of S-5.7 where:
o Noise sensitive land uses are proposed in areas exposed to existing or projected noise levels exceeding the levels specified in Table S-1 or S-2. o Proposed transportation projects are likely to produce noise levels exceeding the levels specified in Table S-1 or S-2 at existing or planned noise sensitive uses. • S-5b Assist in enforcing compliance with noise emissions standards for all types of vehicles, established by the California Vehicle Code and by federal regulations, through coordination with the Manteca Police Department and the California Highway Patrol. • S-5c Update the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.52) to reflect the noise standards established in this Noise Element and proactively enforce the City’s Noise Ordinance, including requiring the following measures for construction:
o Restrict construction activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays or federal holidays, without a specific exemption issued by the City.
o A Construction Noise Management Plan shall be submitted by the applicant for construction projects, when determined necessary by the City. The Construction Noise Management Plan shall include proper posting of construction schedules, appointment of a noise disturbance coordinator, and methods for assisting in noise reduction measures.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 91
o Noise reduction measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds) wherever feasible.
b. Except as provided herein, impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used. This muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used, if such jackets are commercially available. this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever such procedures are available and consistent with construction procedures.
c. Temporary power poles shall be used instead of generators where feasible. d. Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent properties as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or use other measures as determined by the City of provide equivalent noise reduction.
e. The noisiest phases of construction shall be limited to less than 10 days at a time. Exceptions may be allowed if the City determines an extension is necessary and all available noise reduction controls are implemented. f. Delivery of materials shall observe the hours of operation described above. g. Truck traffic should avoid residential areas to the extent possible. • S-5d In making a determination of impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a substantial increase will occur if ambient noise levels are have a substantial increase. Generally, a 3 dB increase in noise levels is barely perceptible, and a 5 dB increase in noise levels is clearly perceptible. Therefore, increases in noise levels shall be considered to be substantial when the following occurs:
o When existing noise levels are less than 60 dB, a 5 dB increase in noise will be considered substantial;
o When existing noise levels are between 60 dB and 65 dB, a 3 dB increase in noise will be considered substantial;
o When existing noise levels exceed 65 dB, a 1.5 dB increase in noise will be considered substantial.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 92
substantial increase in noise levels:
o the resulting noise levels;
o the duration and frequency of the noise;
o the number of people affected;
o conforming or non-conforming land uses;
o the land use designation of the affected receptor sites; o public reactions or controversy as demonstrated at workshops or hearings, or by correspondence; and
o prior CEQA determinations by other agencies specific to the project. • S-5e Control noise at the source through use of insulation, berms, building design and orientation, buffer space, staggered operating hours, and similar techniques. Where such techniques would not meet acceptable levels, use noise barriers to attenuate noise associated with new noise sources to acceptable levels. • S-5f Require that all noise-attenuating features are designed to be attractive and to minimize maintenance.
• S-5g Evaluate new transportation projects, such as truck routes, rail or public transit routes, and transit stations, using the standards contained in Table S-1. However, noise from these projects may be allowed to exceed the standards contained in Table S-1, if the City Council finds that there are special overriding circumstances. • S-5h Work with the Federal Rail Authority and passenger and freight rail service providers to establish a Quiet Zone at at-grade crossings in the City. Where new development would be affected by the train and rail noise, require project applicants to fund a fair-share of: a) studies associated with the application for a Quiet Zone, and b) alternative safety measures associated with the Quiet Zone (including, but not limited to signage, gates, lights, etc.). • S-5i Work in cooperation with Caltrans, the Union Pacific Railroad, San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, and other agencies where appropriate to maintain noise level standards for both new and existing projects in compliance with Table S-1. • S-5j The City shall require new residential projects located adjacent to major freeways, truck routes, hard rail lines, or light rail lines to follow the FTA screening distance criteria to ensure that groundborne vibrations to do not exceed acceptable levels.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 93
Table Noise-7: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure From Mobile Noise Sources Land Use1 Outdoor
Activity Areas2,3
Interior Spaces
Ldn/
CNEL, dBA Leq, dBA4
Residential 60 45 -
Motels/Hotels 65 45 -
Mixed-Use 65 45
Hospitals, Nursing Homes 60 45 -
Theaters, Auditoriums - - 35
Churches 60 - 40
Office Buildings 65 - 45
Schools, Libraries, Museums 70 - 45
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 70 - -
Industrial 75 - 45
Golf Courses, Water Recreation 70 - -
1Where a proposed use is not specifically listed, the use shall comply with the standards for the most similar use as determined by the City. 2Outdoor activity areas for residential development are considered to be the back yard patios or decks of single family units and the common areas where people generally congregate for multi-family developments. Where common outdoor activity areas for multi-family developments comply with the outdoor noise level standard, the standard will not be applied at patios or decks of individual units provided noise-reducing measures are incorporated (e.g., orientation of patio/deck, screening of patio with masonry or other noise-attenuating material). Outdoor activity areas for non-residential developments are the common areas where people generally congregate, including pedestrian plazas, seating areas, and outside lunch facilities; not all residential developments include outdoor activity areas. 3 In areas where it is not possible to reduce exterior noise levels to achieve the outdoor activity area standard w using a practical application of the best noise-reduction technology, an increase of up to 5 Ldn over the standard will be allowed provided that available exterior noise reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with this table 4Determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.

Table Noise-8: Performance Standards for Stationary Noise Sources Noise Level Descriptor
Daytime Nighttime
7 am to 10 pm 10 pm to 7 am
Hourly Leq, dBA a. 55 b. 45
1Each of the noise levels specified above should be lowered by 5 dB for simple noise tones, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or recurring impulsive noises. Such noises are generally considered to be particularly annoying and are a primary source of noise complaints. 2No standards have been included for interior noise levels. Standard construction practices should, with the exterior noise levels identified, result in acceptable interior noise levels.
3Stationary noise sources which are typically of concern include, but are not limited to, the following:

HVAC Systems Cooling Towers/Evaporative Condensers
Pump Stations Lift Stations
Emergency Generators Boilers
Steam Valves Steam Turbines
Generators Fans
Air Compressors Heavy Equipment
Conveyor Systems Transformers
Pile Drivers Grinders
Drill Rigs Gas or Diesel Motors
Welders Cutting Equipment
Outdoor Speakers Blowers
4The types of uses which may typically produce the noise sources described above include but are not limited to: industrial facilities, pump stations, trucking operations, tire shops, auto maintenance shops, metal fabricating shops, shopping centers, drive-up windows, car washes, loading docks, public works projects, batch plants, bottling and canning plants, recycling centers, electric generating stations, race tracks, landfills, sand and gravel operations, and athletic fields.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 94
City of Manteca Municipal Code Noise Ordinance
Section 9.52.030 of the City of Manteca Municipal Code prohibits excessive or annoying noise or vibration to residential and commercial properties in the City. The following general rules are outline in the ordinance:

9.52.030 Prohibited noises—General standard
No person shall make, or cause to suffer, or permit to be made upon any public property, public right-of-way or private property, any unnecessary and unreasonable noises, sounds or vibrations which are physically annoying to reasonable persons of ordinary sensitivity or which are so harsh or so prolonged or unnatural or unusual in their use, time or place as to cause or contribute to the unnecessary and unreasonable discomfort of any persons within the neighborhood from which said noises emanate or which interfere with the peace and comfort of residents or their guests, or the operators or customers in places of business in the vicinity, or which may detrimentally or adversely affect such residences or places of business. (Ord. 1374 § 1(part), 2007)

17.58.050 D. Exempt Activities

8. Construction activities when conducted as part of an approved Building Permit, except as prohibited in Subsection 17.58.050(E)(1) (Prohibited Activities) below.

17.58.050 E. Prohibited Activities

1. Construction Noise. Operating or causing the operation of tools or equipment on private property used in alteration, construction, demolition, drilling, or repair work daily between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., so that the sound creates a noise disturbance across a residential property line, except for emergency work of public service utilities.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Thresholds of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project will have a significant impact related to noise if it will result in:

Would the Project:
a. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 95
Determination of a Significant Increase in Noise Levels Existing (2003) General Plan Policies
The CEQA guidelines define a significant impact of a Project if it “increases substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas”. Implementation Measure N-I-3 of the City of Manteca General Plan Noise Element provides specific guidance for assessing increases in ambient noise, as follows:

In making a determination of impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a substantial increase will occur if ambient noise levels are increased by 10 dB or more. An increase from 5-10 dB may be substantial. Factors to be considered in determining the significance of increases from 5-10 dB include:
• the resulting noise levels
• the duration and frequency of the noise
• the number of people affected
• the land use designation of the affected receptor sites • public reactions/controversy as demonstrated at workshops/hearings, or by correspondence
• prior CEQA determinations by other agencies specific to the Project Proposed General Plan Policies
Under the City’s proposed General Plan Update, the following policy S-5d will apply when evaluating substantial noise increases:

In making a determination of impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a substantial increase will occur if ambient noise levels increase substantially. Generally, a 3 dB increase in noise levels is barely perceptible, and a 5 dB increase in noise levels is clearly perceptible. Therefore, increases in noise levels shall be considered to be substantial when the following occurs:
• When existing noise levels are less than 60 dB, a 5 dB increase in noise will be considered substantial;
• When existing noise levels are between 60 dB and 65 dB, a 3 dB increase in noise will be considered substantial;
• When existing noise levels exceed 65 dB, a 1.5 dB increase in noise will be considered substantial.

Additional or alternative criteria can be used for determining a substantial increase in noise levels. For instance, if the overall increase in noise levels occurs where no noise-sensitive uses are located, then the City may use their discretion in determining if there is any impact at all. In such a case, the following alternative factors may be used for determining a substantial increase in noise levels:
• the resulting noise levels;
• the duration and frequency of the noise;
• the number of people affected;
• conforming or non-conforming land uses;

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 96
• the land use designation of the affected receptor sites; • public reactions or controversy as demonstrated at workshops or hearings, or by correspondence; and
• prior CEQA determinations by other agencies specific to the Project.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Would the project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Operational Noise at Sensitive Receptors
As shown on Figure 3 in the Noise Study, the proposed project is predicted to generate noise levels of up to 24 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptors. These noise levels comply with the City of Manteca nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise levels standard of 45 dBA Leq.

It should be noted that maximum noise levels generated by the loading docks, truck shop, and on-site vehicle circulation are predicted to be 20 dBA, or less, than the average (Leq) values. The City of Manteca’s maximum (Lmax) nighttime noise level standard is 65 dBA Lmax, which is 20 dBA higher than the Leq standard. Therefore, where average noise levels are in compliance with the Leq standards, maximum noise levels will also meet the City’s standards. Based upon the predicted average noise levels of 24 dBA, the maximum noise levels will be 44 dBA and comply with the City maximum standards.

Therefore, impacts resulting from operations noise would be required less-than-significant and do not require mitigation.

Construction Noise
During the construction of the Project, including roads, water, sewer lines, and related infrastructure, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the Project vicinity. Existing receptors adjacent to the proposed construction activities are located north, southwest, and east of the site.

As indicated in Table Noise-3, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 82 to 96 dB Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A significant Projectgenerated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from construction sites. This noise increase would be of short duration and would likely occur primarily during daytime hours.

Construction activities would be temporary in nature and are exempt from noise regulation during the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, as outlined in the City’s Municipal Code:

17.58.050 D. Exempt Activities

8. Construction activities when conducted as part of an approved Building Permit, except as prohibited in Subsection 17.58.050(E)(1) (Prohibited Activities) below.

17.58.050 E. Prohibited Activities

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 97

Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 1(a) and 1(b), temporary construction noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure NOI-1(a): Construction activities shall adhere to the requirements of the City of Manteca Municipal Code with respect to hours of operation. This requirement shall be noted in the improvements plans prior to approval by the City’s Public Works Department.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2(b): All equipment shall be fitted with factory equipped mufflers, and in good working order. This requirement shall be noted in the improvements plans prior to approval by the City’s Public Works Department.

Response b): Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building structural damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of perception. Building damage can take the form of cosmetic or structural.

The Table Noise-4 data indicate that construction vibration levels anticipated for the project are less than the 0.2 in/sec threshold at distances of 26 feet. Sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction related vibrations, especially vibratory compactors/rollers, are located approximately 26 feet, or further, from typical construction activities. At these distances construction vibrations are not predicted to exceed acceptable levels. Additionally, construction activities would be temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours. This is a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required.

Response c): There are no airports in the project vicinity. Therefore, this impact is not applicable to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact relative to this topic.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 98
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): The proposed Project would not include upsizing of offsite infrastructure or roadways. The installation of new infrastructure would be limited to the internal Project site. The sizing of the infrastructure would be specific to the size of the building and the number and type of vehicles that would travel to and from the Project site. Implementation of the proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.

The proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 280 employees. Not all employees would live and work in the City of Manteca. Employees are projected to live in several communities in the San Joaquin County, including Manteca, Lathrop, Ripon, Stockton and other unincorporated areas of San Joaquin County. It is not anticipated that people would commute to this job from areas outside the region.

The land uses for the Project site have been established for over a decade. SJCOG develops their projections based on long range planning documents from the communities that they serve. For instance, the growth projections that SJCOG establishes for Manteca are derived from the City of Manteca General Plan, Master Plans, etc. The proposed Project is part of the Northwest Airport Master Plan, which is known by SJCOG and is assumed within their growth projections.

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. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact relative to this topic.

Response b): The Project site is currently vacant and does not contain housing. The proposed Project would not displace housing or people. Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact relative to this topic.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 99
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a):

Fire Protection
The Project site is currently under the jurisdiction of the Manteca Fire Department. The Manteca Fire Department serves approximately 71,164 residents throughout approximately 17.2 square miles within the City limits. The Manteca Fire Department operates out of four (4) facilities that are strategically located in the City of Manteca. The nearest fire station to the Project site is Manteca Fire Station #4 located at 1465 Lathrop Road, approximately 1.0 miles southeast of the Project site.

The Manteca Fire Department maintains a goal for the initial company of three (3) firefighters to arrive on scene for fire and emergency medical service (EMS) incidents within five (5) minutes 90% of the time (Response Effectiveness). In 2016, the Department averaged a response time for Code 3 emergencies such as fires, medical calls or auto accidents at 4:20 minutes City-wide. The Department is currently meeting the Response Effectiveness goal. The City’s currently ISO PPC is rated Class 2 on a scale of 1 to 10, with Class 1 being the highest possible protection rating and Class 10 being the lowest, which is better than most of the jurisdictions in San Joaquin and Stanislaus County.

The City of Manteca receives funds for the provision of public services through development fees, property taxes, and connection and usage fees. As land is developed within the City and annexed into the City of Manteca, these fees apply. The City of Manteca reviews these fee structures on an annual basis to ensure that they provide adequate financing to cover the provision of city services. The City’s Community Development, Public Works, and Finance Departments are responsible for continual oversight to ensure that the fee structures are adequate. The City reviews the referenced fees and user charges on an annual basis to determine the correct level of adjustment required to reverse any deficits and assure funding for needed infrastructure going forward. The City includes discussion of these fees and charges as part of the annual budget hearings.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 100
The City of Manteca General Plan 2023 includes policies and implementation measures that would allow for the Department to continue providing adequate facilities and staffing levels.

Below is a list of relevant policies:
• The City shall endeavor to maintain an overall fire insurance (ISO) rating of 4 or better (Policy PF-P-42).
• The City shall endeavor through adequate staffing and station locations to maintain the minimum feasible response time for fire and emergency calls (PF-P-43). • The City shall provide fire services to serve the existing and projected population (PF-P44). • The City will establish the criteria for determining the circumstances under which fire service will be enhanced (PF-P-45).
• The Fire Department shall continuously monitor response times and report annually on the results of the monitoring (PF-I-24).
• The City shall encourage a pattern of development that promotes the efficient and timely development of public services and facilities (LU-P-3).

Impact fees from new development are collected based upon projected impacts from each development. The adequacy of impact fees is reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that the fee is commensurate with the service. Payment of applicable impact fees by new development, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by the proposed Project, would fund capital and labor costs associated with fire protection services. Payment of such fees is adequate to ensure that the proposed Project would not result in any CEQA impacts related to this topic, including the potential for the proposed Project to cause substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically alternated governmental services, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure PSU-1, the impact of the proposed Project on the need for additional fire services facilities is less than significant.

Mitigation Adopted by the City
Mitigation Measure PSU-1: Prior to issuance of building permits for any project uses, the Project applicant shall provide the City of Manteca will all applicable fire protection development fees in accordance with the latest adopted fee schedule.

Police Protection
The Project site is currently under the jurisdiction of the Manteca Police Department. In 2019, the MPD had 74 sworn officers. The Manteca Police Department operates out of its headquarters located at 1001 W. Center Street. The Project site is located approximately 2.75 miles northwest of the headquarters.

The Manteca Police Department is organized into two divisions: Operations and Services.

Additionally, the Police Department operates a Public Affairs Unit. For budgeting purposes, the Police Department is organized into the following programs: administration, patrol, investigations, support services, dispatch, code enforcement, jail services, and animal services.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 101
Response times are an important benchmark of police service. Response times can vary greatly depending on the size of the city and department, geographical location, and levels of crime.

Smaller cities usually have faster response times, due simply to the geography.

The Police Department had previously requested that the projects developed in the Master Plan area implement Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design practices, as well as other techniques intended to deter and prevent criminal activity. This request will be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the Master Plan uses. Furthermore, as part of the City of Manteca’s standard design review process, the Police Department will have the opportunity to review and comment on the site plans of each the Master Plan uses (including the proposed Project), including the application of criminal activity deterrence and prevention practices and techniques.

The City’s General Plan includes policies and implementation measures that would allow for the Manteca Police Department to continue providing adequate staffing levels. Below is a list of relevant policies:
• The City shall endeavor through adequate staffing and patrol arrangements to maintain the minimum feasible police response times for police calls. As of 2019, the City had 74 sworn officers. With a population of 84,800 (as of 2020), that equates to a staffing level of .87 officers per 1000 residents.
• The City shall provide police services to serve the existing and projected population. The Police Department will continuously monitor response times and report annually on the results of the monitoring.

Impact fees from new development are collected based upon projected impacts from each applicable development. The adequacy of impact fees is reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that the fee is commensurate with the service. Payment of the applicable impact fees by the Project applicant, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by the proposed Project, would fund capital and labor costs associated with police services. Payment of such fees is adequate to ensure that the proposed Project would not result in any CEQA impacts related to this topic, including the potential for the proposed Project to cause substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically alternated governmental services, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

Based on the current adequacy of existing response times and the ability of the Manteca Police Department to serve the City, it is anticipated that the existing police department facilities are

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 102
sufficient to serve the proposed Project. Consequently, any impacts would be less than significant.

Schools
Most schools within the City of Manteca are part of the Manteca Unified School District (MUSD).

The MUSD provides school services for grades kindergarten through 12 (K-12) within the communities of Manteca, Manteca, Stockton, and French Camp. The District is approximately 113 square miles and serves more than 23,000 students. Within the City of Manteca, there are three elementary schools (Manteca Elementary School, Joseph Widmer School, and Mossdale Elementary School) and one high school (Sierra High School). River Islands has two charter elementary schools, located within the Banta Unified School District (River Islands Technology Academy and the S.T.E.A.M. Academy).

MUSD provides school services for grades K through 12 within the communities of Manteca, Lathrop, Stockton, and French Camp. MUSD operates 14 elementary and middle schools (grades K-8), four high schools (grades 9-12), one community day school (grades 7-12), and one vocational academy (grades 11-12). The schools in the City had a total enrollment of approximately 14,279 students, of which 9,416 were enrolled in elementary and middle school (grades K – 8) and 4,863 were enrolled in high school (grades 9 – 12).

The proposed Project does not include any residential units, and therefore would not directly increase the student population in the area.

The MUSD collects impact fees from new developments under the provisions of The Leroy F.

Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, enacted by Senate Bill 50 (“SB 50”). SB 50 restricts the ability of local agencies to deny or condition land use approvals on the basis that school facilities are inadequate and precludes local agencies from requiring anything other than payment of the prevailing developer fee adopted by the local school district. SB 50 sets forth the “exclusive methods of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities” resulting from any planning and/or development project, regardless of whether its character is legislative, adjudicative, or both. Govt. Code § 65996(a) (emphasis added).

Section 65995(h) provides that “[t]he payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement levied or imposed pursuant to Section 17620 of the Education Code in the amount specified in Section 65995 … is hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property … on the provision of adequate school facilities.” The reference in Section 65995(h) to fees “imposed pursuant to Section 17620 of the Education Code in the amount specified in Section 65995” is to per-square-foot school fees that can be imposed by school districts on new residential and commercial and industrial construction.

Pursuant to this authority, the District has adopted a Level 1 fee in the amount of $3.79 per square foot of assessable space of new residential construction. Payment of this Level 1 fee by the applicant constitutes full and complete mitigation of all impacts of the proposed Project on the District’s school facilities as a matter of law. (Gov't Code § 65995(h).) Under SB 50, the City of Manteca is legally precluded from concluding, under CEQA or otherwise, that payment of the prevailing Level 1 fee will not completely mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project. Government Code § 65995(a) sets forth the “exclusive methods of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities” when evaluating a development project. Because the methods of both “considering and mitigating” impacts on school facilities set forth in

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 103
Government Code section 65996(a) are exclusive, SB 50 obviates the need for CEQA documents even to contain a description and analysis of a development project’s impacts on school facilities.

See Chawanakee Unified Sch. Dist. v. Cty. of Madera, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1016, 1027 (2011). Further, these statutes prohibit local agencies from concluding that payment of the authorized fees do not constitute full and complete mitigation of a project’s school facilities impacts. Local agencies have no power to supersede the legislature’s express and unambiguous directives on this subject. Nor does the City possess the authority to deny or condition the proposed Project unless the applicant agrees to pay fees or provide other mitigation beyond the duly adopted Level 1 fee.

Under Government Code § 65995(a), a “local agency may not deny or refuse to approve a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property . . . on the basis of a person’s refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the amounts authorized pursuant to [SB 50.]” In short, payment of the Level 1 fee is “deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation and, notwithstanding [Government Code] Section 65858, or [CEQA], or any other provision of state or local law, a state or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve [the] development of real property ... on the basis that school facilities are inadequate.” Payment of the applicable impact fees from new development, and ongoing revenues that would come from taxes, would fund capital and labor costs associated with school services. The adequacy of fees is reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that the fee is commensurate with the service. Payment of the applicable impact fees, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes and other revenues generated by the proposed Project, would fund improvements associated with school services.

The provisions of State law are considered full and complete mitigation for the purposes of analysis under CEQA for school construction needed to serve new development. In fact, State law expressly precludes the City from reaching a conclusion under CEQA that payment of the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act school impact fees would not completely mitigate new development impacts on school facilities. Consequently, the City of Manteca is without the legal authority under CEQA to impose any fee, condition, or other exaction on the proposed Project for the funding of new school construction other than the fees allowed by the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act. Additionally, local agencies are prohibited from using the inadequacy of school facilities as a basis for denying or conditioning approvals. Although MUSD may collect higher fees than those imposed by the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act, no such fees are required to mitigate the impact under CEQA. Because the proposed Project would pay fees as required by The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act, this impact would be less than significant.

Parks
CEQA requires that the proposed Project is analyzed to determine whether any substantial adverse impacts would be associated with any new or physically altered governmental facilities that may be required to serve the proposed Project (in this case, for park and recreation facilities). The proposed Project directly increases the number of persons in the area as a result of an increase in employment potential. The proposed Project does not include any residential units.

The proposed Project does not include the construction of residential uses, does not directly increase the need for additional parks. Implementation of the proposed Project would have a no impact relative to this topic.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 104
Other Public Facilities
The proposed Project would not result in a need for other public facilities that are not addressed above, or in Section XVIII, Utilities and Service Systems. Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact relative to this issue.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 105
XVI. RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a): The proposed Project does not include the construction of residential uses, and therefore does not generate additional direct demand on park services. Thus, the potential impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Responses b): The proposed Project does not include the construction of recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact relative to this topic.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 106
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Introduction
This discussion provides the results of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed GBxManteca Project located at 2261 Operation Place. The proposed project would construct an industrial warehousing / distribution building on the south-east corner of the Intermodal Way / Interconnect Drive intersection in the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Area. The proposed project would be located approximately 1.75 mile (9,250 feet ) south of the Roth Road / Airport Way signalized intersection, and approximately 0.25 miles (1,450 feet) north of the Lathrop Road / Airport Way signalized intersection. The proposed GBxManteca Project would encompass 23.5 acres and would provide the following three access driveways:
• One driveway on Operation Place for employees;
• A second driveway on Interconnect Way for trucks and employee; and • A third driveway on Intermodal Way (with a sliding gate) for trucks The GBxManteca Project Suite will provide a total of 251 automobile parking stalls located on the south and east sides of the distribution building. On the west side of the GBxManteca building, a total of 56 truck trailer parking stalls and 40 truck loading docks will be provided adjacent to Intermodal Way.

The proposed project would construct Interconnect Way, connecting Intermodal Way with Operation Avenue, providing the primary access route for truck to access the project site. The proposed project would also construct Operation Place, connecting Interconnect Way with the cul-de-sac on the southern end of the project site.

Project Trip Generation
Trip generation rates are provided in Table Trans-1, projected trips generated by the proposed GBxManteca Project for Weekday Daily, AM Peak Hour, and PM Peak Hour Conditions for All Vehicles (Table Trans-2), Employee Vehicles – Passenger Cars, SUV and Light Duty Trucks (Table Trans-3), and Delivery CA Legal / STAA Trucks ((Table Trans-4). Trips generated are based on blended trip rates from the Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2021) and the City of Manteca Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) Model that was developed for the General Plan 2020/2040 Update.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 107
Table Trans-1: GBxManteca (2261 Operation Place) Project Trip Generation Rates Land Use
(ITE Code)
Gross Floor
Area (Sq.

Ft.)
Vehicle Trip Rate1
Daily AM PM
Total Total In Out Total In Out
Warehousing Industrial
(Blended Trip Rate of
10% - 110, 14% - 130,
16% - 150, 48% - 154
5% -155, 4%-156,
and 3% -157)
294,943
Square Feet 2.245 0.23 0.16 0.07 0.23 0.08 0.15
1 Trip rates are based on the Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2021).

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022
Table Trans-2: Project Trip Generation (All Vehicles)
Project Gross Floor
Area (Sq. Ft.)
Daily
(All Vehicles)
AM Peak Hour
(All Vehicles)
PM Peak Hour
(All Vehicles)
Total Total In Out Total In Out
GBxManteca
(2261 Operation Place)
294,943
Square Feet 662 67 46 21 67 22 45
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022
Table Trans-3: Project Trip Generation (Employee Vehicles – Passenger Cars, SUV and Light Duty Trucks)
Project Gross Floor
Area (Sq. Ft.)
Daily
(Employee
Vehicles)
AM Peak Hour
(Employee Vehicles)
PM Peak Hour
(Employee Vehicles)
Total Total In Out Total In Out
GBxManteca
(2261 Operation Place)
294,943
Square Feet 530 56 44 12 60 17 43
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022
Table Trans-4: Project Trip Generation – Trucks (Delivery CA Legal and STAA) Project Gross Floor
Area (Sq. Ft.)
Daily
(CA Legal and
STAA Trucks)
AM Peak Hour
(CA Legal and STAA
Trucks)
PM Peak Hour
(CA Legal and STAA
Trucks)
Total Total In Out Total In Out
GBxManteca
(2261 Operation Place)
294,943
Square Feet 132 11 2 9 7 5 2
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a): An analysis of level of service is provided below to ensure that the proposed project’s traffic operations are consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan.

Roadway segment level of service analysis – existing conditions In addition to Vehicle Miles Traveled, the secondary and non-CEQA measure analyzed for the transportation analysis is segment level of service for Existing (Year 2022) and Existing With

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 108
GBxManteca Project Weekday Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Conditions. It should be noted that the Existing volumes were developed using traffic counts completed in Fall 2021 and adjusted up to represent Year 2022 ADT volumes.

Table Trans-5 presents the existing weekday ADT volumes for twenty-six (26) study roadway segments in the project study area. The Project Trip Generation analysis showed that on a daily basis, the proposed GBxManteca Project would add a total of 662 vehicles to the surrounding transportation network, consisting of 530 employee vehicles, and 132 California Legal or STAA Trucks. On a typical weekday, the proposed GBxManteca Project would add 132 California Legal or STAA Trucks on Intermodal Way between Roth Road and Interconnect Drive.

The results of the roadway segment level of service analysis showed that the proposed GBxManteca Project would not result in any roadways operating below acceptable level of service thresholds on the surrounding transportation network. All twenty-six roadway segments would continue to operate at acceptable Level of Service C or D under Existing With Project Conditions.

Table Trans-5: Existing Level of Service Analysis – No Project versus With GBxManteca Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Roadway Segment - Location
Existing (No Project) Existing With Project With Project - No Project ADT
Volume LOS ADT Volume LOS ADT Volume
Percentage
Change

1. Roth Road – Between Intermodal
Way and Airport Way 9,700 D 9,779 D 79 0.8 %

2. Roth Road – Between Intermodal
Way and McKinley Avenue 9,600 D 9,759 D 159 1.7 %

3. Roth Road – Between McKinley
Avenue and Harlan Road 9,800 D 9,959 D 159 1.6 %

4. Roth Road – Between Harlan Road
and NB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 14,800 D 14,959 D 159 1.1 %

5. Roth Road – Between NB I-5
Off/On-Ramps and SB I-5 Off/OnRamps8,500 C 8,553 C 53 0.6 %

6. Airport Way – Between French
Camp Road and Roth Road 7,400 C ,7,479 C 79 1.1 %

7. Airport Way – Between Roth Road
and Lovelace Road 6,700 C 6,806 C 106 1.6 %

8. Airport Way – Between Lovelace
Road and Daisywood Drive 7,000 C 7,106 C 106 1.5 %

9. Airport Way – Between Daisywood
Drive and Pinnacle Drive 7,500 D 7,606 D 106 1.4 %

10. Airport Way – Between Pinnacle
Drive and Lathrop Road 8,800 D 9,224 D 424 4.8 %

11. Airport Way – Between Lathrop
Road and Northgate Drive 9,800 D 9,986 D 186 1.9 %

12. Airport Way – Between Northgate
Drive and Louise Avenue 10,500 D 10,686 D 186 1.8 %

13. Airport Way – Between Louise
Avenue and Crom Avenue 14,800 D 14,986 D 186 1.3 %

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 109

14. Airport Way – Between Crom
Avenue and Yosemite Avenue 15,600 D 15,786 D 186 1.2 %

15. Lathrop Road – Between Union
Road and Airport Way 16,700 D 16,833 D 133 0.8 %

16. Lathrop Road – Between Airport
Way and McKinley Avenue 21,400 D 21,506 D 106 0.5 %

17. Lathrop Road – Between McKinley
Avenue and 5th Street 21,000 D 21,095 D 95 0.5 %

18. Lathrop Road – Between 5th Street
and Harlan Road 20,600 D 20,695 D 95 0.5 %

19. Lathrop Road – Between Harlan
Road and NB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 24,500 D 24,595 D 95 0.4 %

20. Lathrop Road – Between NB I-5 Off
/On-Ramps and SB I-5 Off/OnRamps16,200 C 16,248 C 48 0.3 %

21. Spartan Way – Between SB I-5
Off/On -Ramps and Golden Valley
Parkway
9,200 C 9,211 C 11 0.1 %

22. Intermodal Way – Between Roth
Road and 5.11 Tactical Building 1,650 C 1,782 C 132 8.0 %

23. Intermodal Way – Between 5.11
Tactical Building and Tactical Way 950 C 1,082 C 132 13.9 %

24. Intermodal Way – Between Tactical
Way and Street A 190 C 322 C 132 69.5 %

25. Intermodal Way – Between Street
A and Interconnect Drive N/A C 133 C 132 N/A

26. Pinnacle Drive – Between Airport
Way and Operation Court 35 C 565 C 530 1,514 %
Note: LOS = Level of Service based on Segment Level of Service Thresholds from Manteca General Plan Update and Lathrop General Plan Update
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022
Roadway segment level of service analysis – cumulative conditions In addition to Vehicle Miles Traveled, the secondary measure analyzed for the transportation analysis was segment level of service for Cumulative No Project and Cumulative With GBxManteca Project Weekday Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Conditions. Table Trans-6 presents the projected ADT volumes for twenty-six (26) study roadway segments in the project study area using the City of Manteca / City of Lathrop Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) Model.

The Project Trip Generation analysis showed that on a daily basis, the proposed GBxManteca Project would add a total of 662 vehicles to the surrounding transportation network, consisting of 530 employee vehicles, and 132 California Legal or STAA Trucks. On a typical weekday, the proposed GBxManteca Project would add 132 California Legal or STAA Trucks on Intermodal Way between Roth Road and Interconnect Drive.

The results of the roadway segment level of service analysis showed that the proposed GBxManteca Project would not result in any roadways operating below acceptable level of service

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 110
thresholds on the surrounding transportation network. All twenty-six roadway segments would continue to operate at acceptable Level of Service C or D under Existing With Project Conditions.

Table Trans-6: Cumulative Level of Service Analysis – No Project versus With GBxManteca Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Roadway Segment - Location
No Project With Project With Project - No Project
ADT
Volume LOS ADT Volume LOS ADT Volume
Percentage
Change

1. Roth Road – Between Intermodal
Way and Airport Way 17,790 D 17,869 D 79 0.4 %

2. Roth Road – Between Intermodal
Way and McKinley Avenue 17,420 D 17,579 D 159 0.9 %

3. Roth Road – Between McKinley
Avenue and Harlan Road 19,380 D 19,539 D 159 0.8 %

4. Roth Road – Between Harlan Road
and NB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 24,600 D 24,759 D 159 0.6 %

5. Roth Road – Between NB I-5
Off/On-Ramps and SB I-5 Off/OnRamps32,610 D 32,663 D 53 0.2 %

6. Airport Way – Between French
Camp Road and Roth Road 17,640 C 17,719 C 79 0.4 %

7. Airport Way – Between Roth Road
and Lovelace Road 19,800 C 19,906 C 106 0.5 %

8. Airport Way – Between Lovelace
Road and Daisywood Drive 16,010 C 16,116 C 106 0.7 %

9. Airport Way – Between Daisywood
Drive and Pinnacle Drive 15,980 C 16,086 C 106 0.7 %

10. Airport Way – Between Pinnacle
Drive and Lathrop Road 24,980 D 25,404 D 424 1.7 %

11. Airport Way – Between Lathrop
Road and Northgate Drive 22,190 D 22,376 D 186 0.8 %

12. Airport Way – Between Northgate
Drive and Louise Avenue 20,840 D 21,026 D 186 0.9 %

13. Airport Way – Between Louise
Avenue and Crom Avenue 23,300 D 23,486 D 186 0.8 %

14. Airport Way – Between Crom
Avenue and Yosemite Avenue 23,180 D 23,366 D 186 0.8 %

15. Lathrop Road – Between Union
Road and Airport Way 21,650 D 21,783 D 133 0.6 %

16. Lathrop Road – Between Airport
Way and McKinley Avenue 24,460 D 24,566 D 106 0.4 %

17. Lathrop Road – Between McKinley
Avenue and 5th Street 26,030 D 26,125 D 95 0.4 %

18. Lathrop Road – Between 5th Street
and Harlan Road 25,410 D 25,505 D 95 0.4 %

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 111

19. Lathrop Road – Between Harlan
Road and NB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 35,350 D 35,445 D 95 0.3 %

20. Lathrop Road – Between NB I-5 Off
/On-Ramps and SB I-5 Off/OnRamps39,330 D 39,378 D 48 0.1 %

21. Spartan Way – Between SB I-5
Off/On -Ramps and Golden Valley
Parkway
47,830 D 47,841 D 11 0.1 %

22. Intermodal Way – Between Roth
Road and 5.11 Tactical Building 2,380 C 2,512 C 132 5.5 %

23. Intermodal Way – Between 5.11
Tactical Building and Tactical Way 1,780 C 1,912 C 132 7.4 %

24. Intermodal Way – Between Tactical
Way and Street A 1,190 C 1,322 C 132 11.4 %

25. Intermodal Way – Between Street
A and Interconnect Drive 600 C 732 C 132 22.0 %

26. Pinnacle Drive – Between Airport
Way and Operation Court 800 C 1,330 C 530 66.3 %
Note: LOS = Level of Service based on Segment Level of Service Thresholds from Manteca General Plan Update and Lathrop General Plan Update
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022
Intersection level of service analysis – existing conditions The tertiary and non-CEQA measure analyzed for the transportation analysis is intersection level of service for Existing (Year 2022) and Existing With GBxManteca Project Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Conditions. It should be noted that the Existing volumes were developed using traffic counts completed in Fall 2021 and adjusted up to represent Year 2022 ADT volumes.

Table Trans-7 presents the existing AM and PM peak hour intersection level of service for the fourteen (14) study intersections in the project study area. The Project Trip Generation analysis showed that during the AM peak hour, the proposed GBxManteca Project would add a total of 67 vehicles to the surrounding transportation network, consisting of 56 employee vehicles, and 311 California Legal or STAA Trucks. During the PM peak hour, the proposed GBxManteca Project would add a total of 67 vehicles to the surrounding transportation network, consisting of 60 employee vehicles, and 7 California Legal or STAA Trucks.

The results of the intersection level of service analysis showed that the proposed GBxManteca Project would not result in any intersections operating below acceptable level of service thresholds on the surrounding transportation network. All fourteen (14) study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable Level of Service D or better under Existing With Project Conditions.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 112
Table 7: Existing Level of Service Analysis – No Project versus With GBxManteca Project Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours
Intersection (Control)
Existing (No Project) Existing With Project
Delay AM(PM) LOS AM(PM) Delay AM(PM) LOS AM(PM)

1. Roth Road / Airport Way (Signal) 12.0 (13.1) B (B) 14.0 (15.4) B (B)

2. Roth Road / Intermodal Way
(Signal) 8.5 (9.2) A (A) 9.1 (9.8) A (A)

3. Roth Road / I-5 SB Ramps (SSSC) 18.5 (22.1) C (C) 21.2 (22.1) C (C)

4. Roth Road / I-5 NB Ramps (SSSC) 13.1 (15.7) B (C) 14.4 (16.2) B (C)

5. Airport Way / Lovelace Road
(Signal) 9.7 (9.0) A (A) 10.1 (9.5) B (A)

6. Airport Way / Daisywood Drive
(Signal) 6.7 (5.8) A (A) 7.1 (6.2) A (A)

7. Airport Way / Lathrop Road
(Signal) 26.6 (27.0) C (C) 28.1 (28.7) C (C)

8. Airport Way / Louise Avenue
(Signal) 28.5 (29.6) C (C) 29.4 (30.5) C (C)

9. Lathrop Road / I-5 SB Ramps
(Signal) 14.4 (17.8) B (B) 16.2 (18.5) B (B)

10. Lathrop Road / I-5 NB Ramps
(Signal) 13.1 (17.4) B (B) 14.4 (19.2) B (B)

11. Lathrop Road / Union Road
(Signal) 31.7 (30.8) C (C) 32.3 (31.9) C (C)

12. Lathrop Road / SR 99 SB Ramps /
Main Street (Signal) 21.1 (24.0) C (C) 22.2 (24.8) C (C)

13. Lathrop Road / SR 99 NB Ramps
(Signal) 10.1 (9.9) B (A) 10.8 (10.2) B (B)

14. Airport Way / Pinnacle Drive
(SSSC) 9.5 (10.1) A (B) 9.8 (10.3) A (B)
Notes:

SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control; LOS = Level of Service 1 For signalized intersections and all-way stop controlled intersections, average intersection delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for all approaches. For side street stop-controlled intersections, intersection delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for the overall intersection and (worst-case) movement. Intersection delay is calculated based on the procedures and methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2016).

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022
Intersection level of service analysis – cumulative conditions The tertiary and non-CEQA measure analyzed for the transportation analysis is intersection level of service for Cumulative No Project and Cumulative With GBxManteca Project Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Conditions. It should be noted that the Existing volumes were developed using traffic counts completed in Fall 2021 and adjusted up to represent Year 2022 ADT volumes.

Table Trans-8 presents the projected AM and PM peak hour intersection level of service for the fourteen (14) study intersections in the project study area using the City of Manteca / City of Lathrop Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) Model.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 113
Under Cumulative No Project Conditions, traffic associated with land use growth in the City of Manteca and City of Lathrop contributes to the increase in traffic volumes along Lathrop Road.

As displayed, the following intersection would operate unacceptably:

Union Road/Lathrop Road would operate unacceptably at LOS F during both AM peak hour and PM peak hours. Major intersection expansion would be required to accommodate the projected Cumulative No Project traffic volumes at this intersection during the AM and PM peak hour. The eastbound approach was modified to include two left turn pockets; the westbound approach was modified to include two left turn pockets, two through lanes, and a right turn pocket; the northbound approach was modified to include two northbound through lanes and a right turn pocket. It is important to note that the expansion of this intersection would require right-of-way acquisition from parcels with existing, established land uses around the intersection.

Table Trans-8: Cumulative Level of Service Analysis – No Project versus With GBxManteca Project Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours
Intersection (Control)
Cumulative (No Project) Cumulative With Project
Delay AM(PM) LOS AM(PM) Delay AM(PM) LOS AM(PM)

1. Roth Road / Airport Way (Signal) 2 22.5 (23.1) C (C) 22.2 (24.4) C (C)

2. Roth Road / Intermodal Way (Signal)
2 10.2 (10.8) B (B) 11.2 (11.4) B (B)

3. Roth Road / I-5 SB Ramps (Signal) 2 13.9 (18.0) B (B) 14.5 (19.2) B (B)

4. Roth Road / I-5 NB Ramps (Signal) 2 13.2 (14.4) B (B) 13.7 (15.1) B (B)

5. Airport Way / Lovelace Road (Signal)
2 9.1 (9.2) A (A) 9.8 (9.6) A (A)

6. Airport Way / Daisywood Drive
(Signal) 2

6.9 (7.2) A (A) 7.5 (7.6) A (A)

7. Airport Way / Lathrop Road (Signal)
2 33.2 (32.6) C (C) 34.4 (33.9) C (C)

8. Airport Way / Louise Avenue (Signal)
2 26.2 (28.5) C (C) 27.7 (29.4) C (C)

9. Lathrop Road / I-5 SB Ramps (Signal)
2 3 17.8 (21.3) B (C) 18.2 (22.4) B (C)

10. Lathrop Road / I-5 NB Ramps
(Signal) 2 3 34.1 (25.4) C (C) 34.8 (26.1) C (C)

11. Lathrop Road / Union Road (Signal) 89.8 (80.2) F (F) 90.2 (80.7) F (F)

12. Lathrop Road / SR 99 SB Ramps /
Main Street (Signal) 47.4 (45.3) D (D) 48.1 (46.2) D (D)

13. Lathrop Road / SR 99 NB Ramps
(Signal) 11.2 (10.8) B (B) 11.6 (11.2) B (B)

14. Airport Way / Pinnacle Drive (SSSC) 10.2 (10.5) B (B) 12.7 (11.5) B (B) Notes:

Bold indicates unacceptable operations.

SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control; LOS = Level of Service 1 For signalized intersections, roundabouts, and all-way stop controlled intersections, average intersection delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for all approaches. For side street stop-controlled intersections, intersection delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for the overall intersection and (worst-case) movement. Intersection delay is calculated based on the procedures and methodology contained in the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2016).

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 114
2 Intersection lane configuration and/or traffic control are different from Existing Conditions due to planned intersection and roadway improvements.
3 The future interchange design has not been formalized. Delay and LOS are estimated using an improved tight-diamond interchange configuration and are subject to change.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022
The results of the intersection level of service analysis showed that the proposed GBxManteca Project would not result in any additional intersections operating below acceptable level of service thresholds on the surrounding transportation network. Thirteen (13) of the fourteen (14) study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable Level of Service D or better under Cumulative With Project Conditions. The Union Road/Lathrop Road intersection would continue to operate unacceptably at LOS F during both AM peak hour and PM peak hours. The City of Manteca has identified improvements to the intersection of Union Road / Lathrop Road that are needed under the Cumulative With Project Conditions. The improvements identified are beyond the current intersection geometrics, and include a new traffic signal controller and improved signal timings. With these improvements under the Cumulative With Project Conditions, AM and PM peak hour operations at the Union Road / Lathrop Road intersection would marginally improve, reducing average vehicle delay and corresponding level of service (from LOS F to LOS E) for both Without and With the Pending / Undeveloped NWAWMP Area scenarios. Based on a discussion with the Engineering Department, the Union Road / Lathrop Road intersection will also be fully evaluated after the General Plan Update is completed as part of the 2023 PFIP Update. The goal will be to improve Union Road / Lathrop Road operations from LOS E to LOS D conditions under the Cumulative with Project Conditions, and each of the contributing development project, including the proposed Project, will pay the current PFIP fee prior to issuance of building permits.

Recommended Conditions of Approval
The following conditions should be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the proposed project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and existing capital improvement plans that fund local and regional traffic improvements:
• Traffic COA #1 – The developer shall pay for the total cost of construction of Interconnect Way between Intermodal Drive and Operation Place and require all truck traffic to use Intermodal Drive to access the GBxManteca Project.
• Traffic COA #2 – The developer shall pay for the total cost of construction of Operation Place between Interconnect Drive and GBxManteca Project driveway and install an all-way stop controlled intersection at the Operation Place / Pinnacle Drive three-legged intersection.
• Traffic COA #3 – The developer shall pay their fair share for improvements identified in the City of Manteca Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP) by paying current fees as determined by the City of Manteca prior to issuance of building permits to improve intersections in the City of Manteca.
• Traffic COA #4 – The developer shall pay their fair share of the SJCOG Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) by paying current fees as determined by the City of Manteca prior to issuance of building permits top improve the Roth Road Corridor in the City of Manteca, City of Lathrop, and San Joaquin County. • Traffic COA #5 – Intersection improvements at the Union Road/Lathrop Road intersection include a new traffic signal controller and improved signal timings to improve LOS. The City

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 115
is also anticipated to update the PFIP with additional improvements that would improve the LOS further. The developer shall pay their fair share for improvements identified in the PFIP to accommodate the projected Cumulative No Project and Cumulative. Under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, the GBxManteca Project contributes to 3 percent of the total intersection volume.

Response b): SB 743 created several statewide changes to the evaluation of transportation and traffic impacts under CEQA. First, it directs OPR to amend the CEQA Guidelines to establish new metrics for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas (TPAs) and allows OPR to extend use of the new metrics beyond TPAs. The California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the amended CEQA Guidelines in December 2018. In the amended CEQA Guidelines, OPR selected Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the primary transportation impact metric to be applied throughout the State of California.

The amended CEQA Guidelines state that “generally, VMT is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts” and the provisions requiring the use of VMT shall apply statewide as of July 1, 2020. The amended CEQA Guidelines further state that land use “projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact.” Second, SB 743 establishes that aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center projects on an infill site within a TPA shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.

Third, SB 743 added section 21099 to the Public Resources Code, which states that automobile delay, as described by level of service (LOS) or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment upon certification of the CEQA Guidelines by the Natural Resources Agency. Since the amended CEQA Guidelines were certified in December 2018, LOS or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion are not considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA.

Lastly, SB 743 establishes a new CEQA exemption for a residential, mixed-use, and employment center project a) within a TPA, b) consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has been certified, and c) consistent with an SCS. This exemption requires further review if the project or circumstances changes significantly.

Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts To aid in SB 743 implementation, in December 2018 OPR released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory). The Technical Advisory provides advice and recommendations to CEQA lead agencies on how to implement the SB 743 changes. This includes technical recommendations regarding the assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, VMT mitigation measures, and screening thresholds for certain land use projects.

Lead agencies may consider and use these recommendations at their discretion and with the provision of substantial evidence to support alternative approaches.

The Technical Advisory identifies “screening thresholds” to quickly identify when a project should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed study.

The Technical Advisory suggests that projects meeting one or more of the following criteria should be expected to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT.

Small projects – projects consistent with a SCS and local general plan that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 116
Projects near major transit stops – certain projects (residential, retail, office, or a mix of these uses) proposed within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a highquality transit corridor.

Affordable residential development – a project consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing may be a basis to find a less-than-significant impact on VMT.

Local-serving retail – local-serving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT.

The Technical Advisory encourages lead agencies to decide when a project will likely be localserving, but generally acknowledges that retail development including stores larger than 50,000 square feet might be considered regional-serving. The Technical Advisory suggests lead agencies analyze whether regional-serving retail would increase or decrease VMT (i.e., not presume a lessthan-significant).

Projects in low VMT areas – residential and office projects that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility) as existing development in areas with low VMT will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT.

The Technical Advisory also identifies recommended numeric VMT thresholds for residential, office, and retail projects, as described below.

Residential development that would generate vehicle travel exceeding 15 percent below existing (baseline) residential VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact. Existing VMT per capita may be measured as a regional VMT per capita or as city VMT per capita.

Office projects that would generate vehicle travel exceeding 15 percent below existing regional VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact.

Retail projects (and other non-residential/non-office projects) that results in a net increase in total VMT may indicate a significant transportation impact.

For mixed-use projects, the Technical Advisory suggests evaluating each component independently and applying the significance threshold for each project type included.

Alternatively, the lead agency may consider only the project’s dominant use.

The Technical Advisory also provides guidance on impacts to transit. Specifically, the Technical Advisory suggests that lead agencies generally should not treat the addition of new transit users as an adverse impact. As an example, the Technical Advisory suggests that “an infill development may add riders to transit systems and the additional boarding and alighting may slow transit vehicles, but it also adds destinations, improving proximity and accessibility. Such development also improves regional vehicle flow by adding less vehicle travel onto the regional network.” VMT-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide
On May 20, 2020, the VMT-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG) was adopted. The TISG provides guidance on how Caltrans will review land use projects, with focus on VMT analysis and supporting state land use goals, state planning priorities, and GHG emission reduction goals; as well as identifying land use projects’ possible transportation impacts to the State Highway System and potential non-capacity increasing mitigation measures.

The TISG emphasizes that VMT analysis is Caltrans’ primary review focus, and references OPR’s Technical Advisory as a basis for the guidance in the TISG. Notably, the TISG recommends the use of the recommended thresholds in the Technical Advisory for land use projects. The TISG also

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 117
references the Technical Advisory for screening thresholds that would identify projects and areas presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact. Caltrans supports streamlining for projects that meet these screening thresholds because they help achieve VMT reduction and mode shift goals.

VMT Analysis
The proposed GBxManteca Project does not qualify as a small project for screening purposes, and it is not located in a low VMT area. Therefore, consistent with the discussion of SB 743 provided above vehicle travel was evaluated using VMT as the primary metric. The following describes the baseline VMT levels for industrial land uses in the City of Manteca. 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.

Roadway improvements and land use projections consistent with the SJCOG Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), City of Manteca General Plan, and City of Lathrop General Plan were added to the Cumulative Conditions Model.

A model-wide analysis was preformed to obtain daily trips and travel distance for all Industrial Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs), and the product of daily trips and travel distance was summed up to obtain VMT estimates. It should be noted that the VMT analysis was based on Interconnect Way being constructed to provide access to and from Intermodal Way, Roth Road and the I-5 / Roth Road interchange for project-generated California Legal and STAA Truck traffic.

Table Trans-9 presents modeled Baseline Citywide and Cumulative With GBxManteca Project VMT per industrial employee. The proposed GBxManteca Project will result in a decrease in VMT when compared to baseline citywide, from 75.3 to 75.1 vehicle miles per employee. This represents a 0.26% decrease when compared to baseline city-wide average. Therefore, the construction of the GBxManteca Project will improve the jobs to housing balance in the City of Manteca and provide an overall benefit to reducing VMT per employee, fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In order to have a less than significant impact relative to this primary CEQA topic, the GBxManteca Project will be required to have all trucks access the facility using Intermodal Way and only employee access will be allowed from Airport Way.

Table Trans-9: GBxManteca Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Scenario VMT Per Industrial
Employee
VMT Reduction Per
Industrial Employee
Percentage Reduction Per
Industrial Employee
Baseline Citywide 75.3
Cumulative With
GBxManteca Project

75.1 - 0.2 -0.26%
Note: Citywide VMT includes All industrial land Uses in the City of Manteca Source: City of Manteca Travel Demand Model - Fehr & Peers, 2022 Responses c), d): The proposed project would develop a distribution facility, which would build out a portion of the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan area, as planned. No site circulation or access issues have been identified that would cause a traffic safety problem/hazard or any unusual traffic congestion or delay within the proposed project. The volumes on the internal roadways would be relatively low. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 118
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
X
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resources to a
California Native American tribe.

X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): AB 52 Tribal Consultation is a requirement by which public agencies are required to consult with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project that is subject to CEQA, if the tribes request formal notification and subsequently consultation.

In order to participate in AB 52 tribal consultation, a tribe must specifically request, in writing, to be notified by lead agencies through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area with which the tribe is traditionally and culturally affiliated. However, there are no tribes that have requested such formal notification of proposed projects in the City of Manteca.

Therefore, according to AB 52, there is no requirement that a lead agency (i.e. City of Manteca) engage in AB 52 tribal consultation.

No Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) have been documented in the Project site. Nevertheless, the Project site is located in a region where significant cultural resources have been recorded and there remains a potential that undocumented archaeological resources that may meet the TCR definition could be unearthed or otherwise discovered during ground-disturbing and construction activities. Examples of significant archaeological discoveries that may meet the TCR definition would include villages and cemeteries. Due to the possible presence of undocumented TCRs within the Project site, construction-related impacts on tribal cultural resources would be potentially significant. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact related to tribal cultural resources.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-4.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 119
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
projects projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a-c):

Water
It is anticipated that water supply for the proposed Project would be local groundwater and treated surface water from SSJID’s South County Water Supply Program (SCWSP). Water distribution will be by an underground distribution system to be installed as per the City of Manteca standards and specifications. The applicant for the proposed Project will provide their proportionate share of required funding to the City for the acquisition and delivery of treated potable water supplies to the proposed Project site through connection fees.

The City’s General Plan designates the Project site as LI, which allows for the uses proposed for the proposed Project. Therefore, the City’s 2023 General Plan anticipated the proposed Project and the City’s UWMP assumed that the site would be developed with LI uses. There are no changes to the land use assumptions in the City’s General Plan Update, and UWMP Update. The following analysis reflects the City’s most current water demand and supply projections based on the General Plan Update.

A comparison of the City’s projected potable and raw water supplies and demands is shown in Table UTIL-1 for Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years. Demand within the City’s service area is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies in any Normal year between 2020 and 2040. No

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 120
demand reductions are assumed during dry years. With this assumption, the City’s water demands are not expected to exceed water supplies in Single Dry Years or Multiple Dry Years.

Table UTIL-1: Summary of Potable and Raw Water Demand Versus Supply During Hydrologic Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years

HYDROLOGIC CONDITION

SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON, AFY
2025 2030 2035 2040

NORMAL YEAR
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply(a) 23,260 25,247 27,569 37,284 Total Water Demand(b) 18,480 21,012 23,891 27,164
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 4,780 4,235 3,678 10,120
Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

SINGLE DRY YEAR
Available Potable and Raw Water Supply(a) 23,260 25,247 27,569 37,284 Total Water Demand(b) 18,480 21,012 23,891 27,164
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 4,780 4,235 3,678 10,120
Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

MULTIPLE DRY YEAR
Multiple
Dry
Year 1
Available Potable and Raw Water
Supply(a)
23,260 25,247 27,569 37,284
Total Water Demand(b) 18,480 21,012 23,891 27,164
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 4,780 4,235 3,678 10,120
Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Multiple
Dry
Year 2
Available Potable and Raw Water
Supply(a)
23,260 25,247 27,569 37,284
Total Water Demand(b) 18,480 21,012 23,891 27,164
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 4,780 4,235 3,678 10,120
Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Multiple
Dry
Year 3
Available Potable and Raw Water
Supply(a)
21,409 24,313 27,552 33,376
Total Water Demand(b) 18,480 21,012 23,891 27,164
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 2,929 3,301 3,661 6,212
Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Multiple
Dry
Year 4
Available Potable and Raw Water
Supply(a)
21,409 24,313 27,552 33,376
Total Water Demand(b) 18,480 21,012 23,891 27,164
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 2,929 3,301 3,661 6,212
Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
Multiple
Dry
Year 5
Available Potable and Raw Water
Supply(a)
23,260 25,247 27,569 37,284
Total Water Demand(b) 18,480 21,012 23,891 27,164
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 4,780 4,235 3,678 10,120
Supply Shortfall, Percent of Demand ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑
(A) SURFACE WATER SUPPLY FROM TABLE 6-2 PLUS ASSUMED GROUNDWATER SUPPLY FROM TABLE 6-3. (B) EQUALS THE CITY’S TOTAL PROJECTED POTABLE AND RAW WATER DEMAND (FROM TABLE 5-1 AND TABLE 5-4).

The technical analyses shows that the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the Proposed Project during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. The proposed Project would not result in

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 121
insufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact to water supplies.

Wastewater
The City of Manteca owns and operates a wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system, and provides sanitary sewerage service to the City of Manteca and a portion of the City of Lathrop.

On February 18, 2021, the RWQCB adopted Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R5-2021- 0003 NPDES NO. CA0081558, prescribing waste discharge requirements for the City of Manteca WQCF and allowing expansion of the plant up to 17.5 mgd.

The Manteca WQCF is an activated sludge plant with denitrification. The WQCF consists of an influent pump station, aerated grit tanks, primary sedimentation basins, fine-bubble activated sludge aeration basins, secondary clarifiers, secondary effluent equalization pond, tertiary filters, UV disinfection and effluent pumping station. Secondary effluent is land applied during the spring and summer. Tertiary filtered and UV disinfected water is discharged to the San Joaquin River during the winter.

The 2006 Wastewater Master Plan Update projected a capacity requirement of 27 mgd ADWF at buildout for the WQCF at buildout. Expansion of the WQCF to buildout would occur in multiple phases, which would increase the ADWF capacity to 17.5 mgd, then to 27 mgd. The Wastewater Master Plan projected a potential reclaimed water use of 3.28 mgd. The 2005 Urban Water Management Plan projected a reclaimed water usage of 2 mgd by 2030. All of these flows may be adjusted based on historical reductions in water usage as part of a new Wastewater Master Plan which will start in 2021 and finish in 2023.

According to the City’s 2012 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update, Light Industrial uses are estimated to generated 1000 gallons per acre per day. The Project site includes 16.02 acres of Light Industrial. Using this rate, the proposed Light Industrial uses on the Project site would generate approximately 16,020 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. Accordingly, the proposed Project would increase the amount of wastewater requiring treatment. The wastewater would be treated at the WQCF. Occupancy of the proposed Project would be prohibited without sewer allocation.

The City’s available capacity would ensure that there would not be a determination by the wastewater treatment and/or collection provider that there is inadequate capacity to serve the proposed Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

Additionally, any planned expansion to the WQCF (such as a planned expansion to a total capacity of 27 mgd) with a subsequent allocation of capacity to the proposed Project would ensure that there would not be a determination by the wastewater treatment and/or collection provider that there is inadequate capacity to serve the proposed Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

As noted above, the City’s 2023 General Plan designates the Project site as LI, which allows for the uses proposed by the proposed Project. Therefore, the City’s 2023 General Plan anticipated the uses associated with the proposed Project on the Project site.

Because the Project applicant would pay City Public Facilities Improvement Plan (PFIP) fees to develop the site, and adequate long-term wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve full build-out of the proposed Project, a less than significantimpact would occur related to requiring or resulting in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 122
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Nevertheless, to ensure consistency with the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan, the proposed Project is required to implement the following mitigation measures, which would ensure water efficiency within the Project site.

Storm Drainage
Stormwater management at the project site would comply with the requirements of the City of Manteca Municipal Code. This would require the applicant to shall submit a stormwater quality control plan for the project as a whole to the City of Manteca for review and approval during improvement plan review. The plan must include a detailed drainage plan that demonstrates attainment of pre-project runoff requirements prior to release at the outlet canal and describes the volume reduction measures and treatment controls used to reach attainment. The drainage plan must identify all expected flows from the project area and the location, size, and type of facilities used to retain and treat the runoff volumes and peak flows to meet pre-project conditions.

Mitigation Adopted by the City
Mitigation Measure PSU-3a: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan use, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Manteca for review and approval identifying a non-potable irrigation system that is separate from the potable water systems. The non-potable irrigation system shall use non-potable well water until recycled water is available, at which point it shall be converted to use recycled water.

Mitigation Measure PSU-3b: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan use, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Manteca for review and approval identifying that all appropriate and feasible water conservation measures are incorporated into the proposed use(s). The approved measures shall be incorporated into the final development plans.

Examples of water conservation measures include but are not limited to:
• Drought-tolerant landscaping or xeriscaping
• Water efficient irrigation systems (drip irrigation, bubbler/soaker systems, hydrozones, evapotranspiration controllers, etc.)
• Sensor-activated low-flow fixtures (e.g., faucets, urinals, and toilets) Responses d), e): The City of Manteca Solid Waste Division (SWD) provides solid waste hauling service for the City of Manteca and would serve the proposed Project. Solid waste from Manteca is primarily landfilled at the Forward Sanitary Landfill, located northeast of Manteca. Other landfills used include Foothill Sanitary and North County.

Construction Waste Generation
Short-term construction waste generation is summarized in Table UTIL-2. The estimate of 574 tons was calculated using non-residential construction waste generation rates provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 123
Table UTIL-2: Construction Solid Waste Generation
Activity Waste
Generation Rate Square Feet Waste Generation (Tons)
Construction 3.89 pounds per
square foot 295,176 574
Mitigation Measure PSU-6a is proposed that would require construction debris recycling to be implemented. The implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant.

Operational Waste Generation
Operational solid waste generation estimates were calculated using a standard commercial waste generation rate provided by Cal Recycle. As shown in Table UTIL-3, the proposed Project uses are estimated to generate 708 tons of solid waste annually.

Table UTIL-3: Operational Solid Waste Generation (Annual) Waste Generation Rate Square Feet Waste Generation (Tons)

4.8 pounds per square
foot 295,176 708
Regardless, Mitigation Measure PSU-6b is proposed that would require the installation recycling facilities prior to issuance of occupancy permits. The implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce solid waste generation and reduce demand for landfill capacity. Therefore, solid waste impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant.

Landfill
Forward Sanitary Landfill has a remaining capacity of 23,700,000 cubic yards, and has a current maximum permitted throughput of 8,668 tons per day. This landfill originally had a cease operation date in the year 2020. A 17.3-acre expansion was approved in January of 2020 inside the landfill’s existing boundaries along Austin Road east of Stockton Metropolitan Airport. The lifespan of the landfill will extend from 2030 to 2036 and an additional 8.2 million cubic yards of waste will be processed on two sites, an 8.7-acre parcel in the northeast corner and an 8.6-acre parcel on the south end of the property. The City will need to secure a new location or expand existing facilities when the Forward Landfill is ultimately closed. There are several options that the City will have to consider for solid waste disposal at that time which is estimated to be 2036, including the construction of new facilities or expansion of existing facilities.

At the closure of the Forward Landfill, the City can potentially utilize the Foothill Landfill and the North County Landfill as locations for solid waste disposal. The permitted maximum disposal at the Foothill Landfill is 1,500 tons per day and the North County Landfill is 825 tons per day. The remaining capacity of these landfills include 125 million cubic yards of solid waste at the Foothill Landfill, with an estimated cease operation date of 2054, and 35.4 million cubic yards of solid waste at the North County Landfill, which has an estimated cease operation date of 2035. The addition of solid waste associated with the proposed Project to the Foothill Landfill and North County Landfill would not exceed the combined landfills’ remaining capacity of 160.4 cubic yards.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 124
The addition of solid waste associated with the proposed Project, approximately 1.9 tons per day at total buildout, to the Forward Landfill would not exceed the landfill’s remaining capacity. The City will need to secure a new location of disposal of all solid waste generated in the City when the Forward landfill is ultimately closed. There are several options that the City will have to consider for solid waste disposal at that time. Because the proposed Project would increase the local waste stream, the proposed Project would subject to the City’s waste connection fee.

Development of the site for industrial uses was assumed in the City’s General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not interfere with regulations related to solid waste (i.e. the Statemandated waste target of not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted), or generate waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure.

Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Mitigation Adopted by the City
Mitigation Measure PSU-6a: Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project applicant shall retain a qualified contractor to perform construction debris recycling. Following the completion of construction activities, the Project applicant shall provide documentation to the satisfaction of the City of Manteca demonstrating that construction debris was recycled.

Mitigation Measure PSU-6b: Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project applicant shall provide information to the City of Manteca describing the methods by which recycling and waste diversion activities shall be achieved. This information shall include but is not limited to the type and location of facilities necessary to collect and store recyclable materials, contractors who would pick-up recyclable and reusable materials, and how recycling and waste diversion activities would be integrated into operational practices. To the extent feasible, centralized recycling facilities are encouraged to enhance the ease and efficiency of such practices. The approved facilities and practices shall be incorporated into the uses envisioned by the project.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 125
XX. WILDFIRE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
Existing Setting
There are no State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) within the vicinity of the Manteca Planning Area.

In addition, there are no areas within the City of Manteca that are categorized as a "Very High" Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by CalFire or a local agency. Although this CEQA topic only applies to areas within a SRA or Very High FHSZ, out of an abundance of caution, these checklist questions are analyzed below.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): The proposed circulation improvements would allow for sufficient emergency access. The Project site would provide adequate emergency vehicular access via driveway connections with adjoining roadways and an internal circulation network. All driveways and internal roadways would be designed to accommodate large emergency vehicles such as fire engines. These improvements would contribute to effective emergency response and evacuation, and they would promote efficient circulation in the project vicinity. Furthermore, the proposed Project does not propose any permanent road closures, lane reductions, or other adverse circulation conditions that may adversely affect emergency response or evacuation in the project vicinity. Furthermore, the City of Manteca does not maintain an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts from project implementation would be considered less than significant relative to this topic.

Response b): The risk of wildfire is related to a variety of parameters, including fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents) and topography (degree of slope). Steep slopes contribute to fire hazard by intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult. Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point. San Joaquin County has areas with an abundance of flashy fuels (i.e. grassland) in the foothill areas of

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 126
the eastern and western portion of the County. The Project site is located in an area that is predominately agricultural and urban, which is not considered at a significant risk of wildfire.

Therefore, impacts from project implementation would be considered less than significant relative to this topic.

Response c): Development of the proposed Project would not exacerbate fire risks, nor would there be installation or maintenance of any other infrastructure associated with the proposed Project that would significantly exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, impacts from project implementation would be considered less than significant relative to this topic.

Response d): Landslides include rockfalls, deep slope failure, and shallow slope failure. Factors such as the geological conditions, drainage, slope, vegetation, and others directly affect the potential for landslides. One of the most common causes of landslides is construction activity that is associated with road building (i.e. cut and fill). The Project site is relatively flat; therefore, the potential for a landslide, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes, in the Project site is essentially non-existent.

Therefore, impacts from proposed project implementation would be considered less than significant relative to this topic.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 127
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): This Initial Study includes an analysis of the proposed Project impacts associated with aesthetics, agricultural and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems.

The analysis covers a broad spectrum of topics relative to the potential for the proposed Project to have environmental impacts. This includes the potential for the proposed Project to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. It was found that the proposed Project would have either no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with the implementation of mitigation measures. For the reasons presented throughout this Initial Study, the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. With the implementation of mitigation measures presented in this Initial Study, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Response b): In evaluating the cumulative effects of the proposed Project, Section 21100(e) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “previously approved land use documents including, but not

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 128
limited to, general plans, specific plans, and local coastal plans, may be used in cumulative impact analysis.” The City of Manteca maintains a list of ongoing commercial and industrial development.

The 2018 RTP/SCS analyzed the region’s transportation system, future growth projections, and potential funding sources in order in order to develop a long‐term framework for transportation improvements and maintenance. The RTP includes policies and regulations set forth to ensure development within the SJCOG regional area is within planned and forecast socioeconomic projections. As part of the RTP, SJCOG developed an SCS, which was required by Senate Bill 375, the Sustainable Communities Act of 2008. The SCS is intended to combine land use and transportation planning with the overall goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated by vehicle travel. According to traffic analysis described in Section XVII. Transportation, the proposed Project provides an overall benefit to reducing VMT.

Although the potential exists for the proposed Project to result in population growth through employment opportunities, the proposed Project is not expected to exceed growth projections or generate any increase in population that otherwise would not have been planned for in the City or by SJCOG.

As discussed in Section III. Air Quality, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not generate criteria pollutants in excess of the SJVAPCD emissions thresholds. Therefore, the proposed Project would not contribute significantly to cumulative impacts for any air quality pollutants for which the region is in non-attainment. As for cumulative impacts to regional air quality, the discussion in Section III. Air Quality indicates the proposed Project would not jeopardize the region’s attainment of air quality standards. The SJVAPCD uses project‐level significance thresholds to determine whether a project’s emissions are cumulatively considerable. Because the proposed Project’s emissions do not exceed the SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds, as detailed in Section III. Air Quality, the SJVAPCD does not consider the proposed Project to contribute significantly to a cumulative air quality impact.

As detailed in Section XIII. Noise, for the cumulative conditions, a less than significant offsite noise impact from Master Plan-related vehicle traffic noise would occur along the study area roadways.

Finally, as detailed throughout Section XIX., Utilities and Service Systems, sufficient utility facilities and resources are available to serve the proposed Project in addition to existing entitlements.

Conclusion
This Initial Study includes an analysis of the proposed Project impacts associated with aesthetics, agricultural and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems. The analysis covers a broad spectrum of topics relative to the potential for the proposed Project to have environmental impacts. It was found that the proposed Project would have either no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with the implementation of mitigation measures. These mitigation measures would also function to reduce the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts.

The proposed Project would increase the population and use of public services and systems; however, it was found that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed Project.

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 129
The proposed Project has no impact or a less than significant impact with respect to all environmental issues. Therefore, a less than significant cumulative impact would occur, and mitigation is not required.

Responses c): The construction phase could affect surrounding neighbors through increased air emissions, noise, and traffic; however, the construction effects are temporary and are not substantial. The operational phase could also affect surrounding neighbors through increased air emissions, noise, and traffic; however, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed Project that would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. The proposed Project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 130

REFERENCES
Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.

Barbour and Major 1988. Terrestrial Vegetation of California.

C Donald Ahrens. 2006. Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, & the Environment.

California Air Resources Board. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October 2000. Available at:
<https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf>.

California Air Resources Board. 2016. ARB Databases: Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System (ADAM). Available at: <http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/databases.htm>.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection Conservation Program Support. 2018. San Joaquin County Williamson Act FY 2016/2017. The Williamson Act. Available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa/Pages/stats_reports.aspx California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection. 2018. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. San Joaquin County Important Farmland 2016. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/SanJoaquin.aspx California Department of Conversation. 2012. Author: Smith, J.D. and Clinkenbeard J.P. Special Report 199. Update of Mineral Land Classification for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the Stockton-Lodi Production-Consumption Region, San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties, California. Available: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_199/ California Department of Conversation. 2015. Mineral Land Classifications Map. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area (SRA). Adopted by CAL FIRE on October 2, 2007.

Available at: http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_joaquin/fhszs_map.39.pdf California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Adopted by CAL FIRE on November 7, 2007. Available:
http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_joaquin/fhszl06_1_map.39.pdf California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2017. EnviroStor database. Accessed on January 19, 2021. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ California Department of Water Resources. 2021. Best Available Maps (BAM). Available:
https://gis.bam.water.ca.gov/bam/
California Energy Commission. 2005. Global Climate Change: In Support of the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. (CEC-600-2005-007.) Available at:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-100-2005-007/CEC-100-2005-007- CMF.PDF.

California Energy Commission. 2006. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004. (CEC-600-2006-013-SF.) Available at:

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 131
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600-2006-013/CEC-600-2006-013- SF.PDF.

California Energy Commission. 2021. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory – 2020Edition. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2020. Version 12/2020. Accessed in December 2020.

City of Manteca. 2013. City of Manteca Climate Action Plan. Adopted October 15, 2013. http://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/communitydevelopment/Documents/Final%20Climate%20 Action%20Plan.pdf .

City of Manteca. 2016. Final Draft City of Manteca 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. July 2016. Available:
https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/Engineering/Documents/Manteca_2015_UWMPFinalDraft.pdf#search=uwmp City of Manteca. Adopted December 17, 1991. City of Manteca Comprehensive General Plan.

City of Manteca, 2003. Manteca General Plan 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report. Certified October 6, 2003.

City of Manteca, 2004. Central Manteca Specific Plan.

City of Manteca, 2004. Central Manteca Specific Plan Draft EIR.

City of Manteca. 2010. Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

City of Manteca. 2010. Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

City of Manteca. 2011. City of Manteca General Plan 2023. Policy Document. Adopted October 6, 2003. Housing Element Amended June 15, 2010. Circulation Element Amended April 5, 2011. Available:
https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/CommunityDevelopment/Documents/City%20of%20Mant eca%20General%20Plan.pdf
City of Manteca, 2013. 2012 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update. January 2013.

Available:
https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/pwt/Documents/Wastewater%20Collection%20System%2 0Master%20Plan%20-%20Complete.pdf
City of Manteca. 2018. Municipal Service Review and Sphere Of Influence Plan.

City of Manteca. 2019. Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum.

City of Manteca. 2020. Manteca Municipal Code.

Hickman, James C. 1993. Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 132
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.” Available at:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf Pacific Gas & Electric. 2019. Where your Electricity Comes From. 2018 Power Mix. Available at:
https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/your-account/your-bill/understandyour-bill/bill-inserts/2019/1019-Power-Content-Label.pdf Sawyer, John and Todd Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation.

Skinner, Mark W. and Bruce M. Pavlik, Eds. 2001. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Climate Change Indicators in the United States:

Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Updated May 2014. Available at:
www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 133
APPENDIX A: CALEEMOD RESULTS
GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only)
San Joaquin County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Total gross lot size = 16.02 acres. 295,176 sf industrial building (unrefrigerated warehouse). Based on gross lot size, assumes 9.25 acres of parking lot.

Construction Phase - Construction Phase - HHD Mobile Run Only Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Demolition - HHD Mobile Run Only
Grading -
Architectural Coating - HHD Mobile Run Only

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 25.00 1000sqft 0.57 25,000.00 0 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 20.00 1000sqft 0.46 20,000.00 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 250.18 1000sqft 5.74 250,176.00 0 Parking Lot 9.25 Acre 9.25 402,930.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
2 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.7 Precipitation Freq (Days) 51

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2023
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Vehicle Trips - 132 total daily HHD vehicle trips, per Fehr & Peers (HHD Run only).

Area Coating - HHD Mobile Run Only
Land Use Change -
Sequestration -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - HHD Mobile Run Only Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -
Energy Mitigation -
Water Mitigation - HHD Mobile Run Only
Operational Off-Road Equipment -
Fleet Mix - HHD Mobile Run Only
Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior 150 0
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Interior 150 0
tblConstDustMitigation CleanPavedRoadPercentReduction 0 9 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 5 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 1.00
tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 1.00
tblFleetMix LDA 0.53 0.00
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.05 0.00
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.17 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.00
tblFleetMix LHD2 6.3850e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.00
tblFleetMix MDV 0.16 0.00
tblFleetMix MH 3.7070e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblFleetMix OBUS 4.7900e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 1.1350e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 3.2900e-004 0.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 250,180.00 250,176.00
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 7.30 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 7.30 50.00
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TTP 41.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 9.50 0.00
tblVehicleTrips CW_TTP 59.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 5.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 3.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 92.00 100.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.74 0.53
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.74 0.53
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.74 0.53
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - 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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 2.9200e0030.0298 0.0158 3.0000e0050.0102 1.4300e0030.0116 5.1500e0031.3200e0036.4700e0030.0000 2.9591 2.9591 9.1000e0040.0000 2.9833 Maximum 2.9200e0030.0298 0.0158 3.0000e0050.0102 1.4300e0030.0116 5.1500e0031.3200e0036.4700e0030.0000 2.9591 2.9591 9.1000e0040.0000 2.9833 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 2.9200e0030.0298 0.0158 3.0000e0054.7600e0031.4300e0036.2000e0032.3600e0031.3200e0033.6800e0030.0000 2.9591 2.9591 9.1000e0040.0000 2.9833 Maximum 2.9200e0030.0298 0.0158 3.0000e0054.7600e0031.4300e0036.2000e0032.3600e0031.3200e0033.6800e0030.0000 2.9591 2.9591 9.1000e0040.0000 2.9833 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.33 0.00 46.69 54.17 0.00 43.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-1-2022 9-30-2022 0.0234 0.0234
Highest 0.0234 0.0234

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.2388 3.0000e0052.8000e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 5.4400e0035.4400e0031.0000e0050.0000 5.8000e003 Energy 0.0105 0.0953 0.0800 5.7000e0047.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0030.0000 279.0563 279.0563 0.0304 5.3400e003281.4065 Mobile 0.0868 6.8033 0.9791 0.0343 1.0229 0.0700 1.0928 0.2812 0.0670 0.3481 0.0000 3,299.771 7 3,299.771
7 0.0178 0.5190 3,454.878
6 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 56.2732 0.0000 56.2732 3.3257 0.0000 139.4144 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 21.2314 34.3864 55.6178 2.1862 0.0522 125.8187 Total 1.3361 6.8986 1.0619 0.0349 1.0229 0.0772 1.1001 0.2812 0.0742 0.3554 77.5046 3,613.219 8 3,690.724
4 5.5600 0.5765 4,001.523
9 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - 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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.2388 3.0000e0052.8000e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 5.4400e0035.4400e0031.0000e0050.0000 5.8000e003 Energy 0.0105 0.0953 0.0800 5.7000e0047.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0030.0000 279.0563 279.0563 0.0304 5.3400e003281.4065 Mobile 0.0868 6.8033 0.9791 0.0343 1.0229 0.0700 1.0928 0.2812 0.0670 0.3481 0.0000 3,299.771 7 3,299.771
7 0.0178 0.5190 3,454.878
6 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 56.2732 0.0000 56.2732 3.3257 0.0000 139.4144 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 16.9851 27.6317 44.6168 1.7490 0.0417 100.7787 Total 1.3361 6.8986 1.0619 0.0349 1.0229 0.0772 1.1001 0.2812 0.0742 0.3554 73.2583 3,606.465 2 3,679.723
4 5.1228 0.5661 3,976.484
0 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 9/1/2022 9/1/2022 5 1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.48 0.19 0.30 7.86 1.81 0.63 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Soil Stabilizer
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Clean Paved Roads
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 81 0.73
Site Preparation Excavators 0 158 0.38
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 10 25.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 10 25.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 9.25
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - 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 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 9.8300e0030.0000 9.8300e0035.0500e0030.0000 5.0500e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.8400e0030.0297 0.0152 3.0000e0051.4300e0031.4300e0031.3200e0031.3200e0030.0000 2.7974 2.7974 9.0000e0040.0000 2.8200 Total 2.8400e0030.0297 0.0152 3.0000e0059.8300e0031.4300e0030.0113 5.0500e0031.3200e0036.3700e0030.0000 2.7974 2.7974 9.0000e0040.0000 2.8200 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 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 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 Worker 8.0000e0056.0000e0056.2000e0040.0000 3.7000e0040.0000 3.7000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.1617 0.1617 1.0000e0050.0000 0.1633 Total 8.0000e0056.0000e0056.2000e0040.0000 3.7000e0040.0000 3.7000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.1617 0.1617 1.0000e0050.0000 0.1633 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - 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 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 4.4200e0030.0000 4.4200e0032.2700e0030.0000 2.2700e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.8400e0030.0297 0.0152 3.0000e0051.4300e0031.4300e0031.3200e0031.3200e0030.0000 2.7974 2.7974 9.0000e0040.0000 2.8200 Total 2.8400e0030.0297 0.0152 3.0000e0054.4200e0031.4300e0035.8500e0032.2700e0031.3200e0033.5900e0030.0000 2.7974 2.7974 9.0000e0040.0000 2.8200 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 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 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 Worker 8.0000e0056.0000e0056.2000e0040.0000 3.4000e0040.0000 3.4000e0049.0000e0050.0000 9.0000e0050.0000 0.1617 0.1617 1.0000e0050.0000 0.1633 Total 8.0000e0056.0000e0056.2000e0040.0000 3.4000e0040.0000 3.4000e0049.0000e0050.0000 9.0000e0050.0000 0.1617 0.1617 1.0000e0050.0000 0.1633 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0868 6.8033 0.9791 0.0343 1.0229 0.0700 1.0928 0.2812 0.0670 0.3481 0.0000 3,299.771 7 3,299.771
7 0.0178 0.5190 3,454.878
6 Unmitigated 0.0868 6.8033 0.9791 0.0343 1.0229 0.0700 1.0928 0.2812 0.0670 0.3481 0.0000 3,299.771 7 3,299.771
7 0.0178 0.5190 3,454.878
6 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
General Office Building 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 132.00 132.00 132.00 2,402,438 2,402,438 Total 132.00 132.00 132.00 2,402,438 2,402,438
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by General Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Refrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

9.50 7.30 7.30 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH General Office Building 0.531667 0.052263 0.168651 0.155495 0.027235 0.006385 0.012362 0.016685 0.000479 0.000329 0.023608 0.001135 0.003707 Parking Lot 0.531667 0.052263 0.168651 0.155495 0.027235 0.006385 0.012362 0.016685 0.000479 0.000329 0.023608 0.001135 0.003707 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.531667 0.052263 0.168651 0.155495 0.027235 0.006385 0.012362 0.016685 0.000479 0.000329 0.023608 0.001135 0.003707 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 175.3350 175.3350 0.0284 3.4400e003177.0687 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 175.3350 175.3350 0.0284 3.4400e003177.0687 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0105 0.0953 0.0800 5.7000e0047.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0030.0000 103.7214 103.7214 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.3377 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0105 0.0953 0.0800 5.7000e0047.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0030.0000 103.7214 103.7214 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.3377 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - 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
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
General Office
Building
407500 2.2000e0030.0200 0.0168 1.2000e0041.5200e0031.5200e0031.5200e0031.5200e0030.0000 21.7458 21.7458 4.2000e0044.0000e00421.8750 Parking Lot 0 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 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
22600 1.2000e0041.1100e0039.3000e0041.0000e0058.0000e0058.0000e0058.0000e0058.0000e0050.0000 1.2060 1.2060 2.0000e0052.0000e0051.2132 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

1.51356e
+006

8.1600e0030.0742 0.0623 4.5000e0045.6400e0035.6400e0035.6400e0035.6400e0030.0000 80.7696 80.7696 1.5500e0031.4800e00381.2496 Total 0.0105 0.0953 0.0800 5.8000e0047.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0030.0000 103.7214 103.7214 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.3377 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.51356e
+006

8.1600e0030.0742 0.0623 4.5000e0045.6400e0035.6400e0035.6400e0035.6400e0030.0000 80.7696 80.7696 1.5500e0031.4800e00381.2496 Total 0.0105 0.0953 0.0800 5.8000e0047.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0030.0000 103.7214 103.7214 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.3377 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - 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
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
General Office
Building
241500 22.3445 3.6100e0034.4000e00422.5654
Parking Lot 141026 13.0482 2.1100e0032.6000e00413.1772 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
374200 34.6224 5.6000e0036.8000e00434.9648
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

1.1383e
+006
105.3199 0.0170 2.0700e003106.3613
Total 175.3350 0.0284 3.4500e003177.0687
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

1.1383e
+006
105.3199 0.0170 2.0700e003106.3613
Total 175.3350 0.0284 3.4500e003177.0687
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.2388 3.0000e0052.8000e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 5.4400e0035.4400e0031.0000e0050.0000 5.8000e003 Unmitigated 1.2388 3.0000e0052.8000e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 5.4400e0035.4400e0031.0000e0050.0000 5.8000e003

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0597 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

1.1789 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 2.6000e0043.0000e0052.8000e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 5.4400e0035.4400e0031.0000e0050.0000 5.8000e003 Total 1.2388 3.0000e0052.8000e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 5.4400e0035.4400e0031.0000e0050.0000 5.8000e003 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0597 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

1.1789 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 2.6000e0043.0000e0052.8000e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 5.4400e0035.4400e0031.0000e0050.0000 5.8000e003 Total 1.2388 3.0000e0052.8000e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 5.4400e0035.4400e0031.0000e0050.0000 5.8000e003 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 44.6168 1.7490 0.0417 100.7787
Unmitigated 55.6178 2.1862 0.0522 125.8187

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
General Office
Building

4.44334 /

2.72334

4.5161 0.1453 3.4800e0039.1853
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

4.625 / 0 3.7828 0.1511 3.6000e0038.6338
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

57.8541 /
0 47.3189 1.8899 0.0451 107.9996
Total 55.6178 2.1862 0.0522 125.8187
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
General Office
Building

3.55467 /

2.55722

3.7355 0.1163 2.7900e0037.4720
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

3.7 / 0 3.0262 0.1209 2.8800e0036.9070
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

46.2833 /
0 37.8551 1.5119 0.0361 86.3997
Total 44.6168 1.7490 0.0417 100.7787
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 56.2732 3.3257 0.0000 139.4144
Unmitigated 56.2732 3.3257 0.0000 139.4144
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
General Office
Building

23.25 4.7195 0.2789 0.0000 11.6925
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

18.8 3.8162 0.2255 0.0000 9.4546
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
235.17 47.7374 2.8212 0.0000 118.2674
Total 56.2732 3.3257 0.0000 139.4144
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - 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
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
General Office
Building

23.25 4.7195 0.2789 0.0000 11.6925
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

18.8 3.8162 0.2255 0.0000 9.4546
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
235.17 47.7374 2.8212 0.0000 118.2674
Total 56.2732 3.3257 0.0000 139.4144
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - 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
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 23 Date: 8/16/2022 3:47 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (HHD Mobile Only) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile)
San Joaquin County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Total gross lot size = 16.02 acres. 295,176 sf industrial building (unrefrigerated warehouse). Based on gross lot size, assumes 9.25 acres of parking lot.

Construction Phase - Construction schedule as provided by project applicant. Site prepare reduced due to site conditions requiring little to no veg or debris removal. Site is flat.

Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
2 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.7 Precipitation Freq (Days) 51

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2023
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Demolition - City applicant estimated 1,776 CY tons of concrete debris to be removed during demolition phase, which is approximately 3,476.52 tons. Density of concrete is assumed to be 145 lb/ft3.

Grading - Site will not require import/export, balanced on site.

Architectural Coating - This project does not contain interior coatings (see email dated January 4, 2022 from Vickey Seidler of Ryan Companies).

Vehicle Trips - 530 total daily non-HHD vehicle trips, per Fehr & Peers (traffic consultant).

Area Coating - No interior coatings for this project.

Land Use Change -
Sequestration -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Contruction Mitigation per SJVACPD requirements/rules for dust prohibition. 10% PM reduction for soil stabilizer for unpaved roads. Water exposed areas 2x/day. Max unpaved vehicle speed = 5 mph. Clean paved Road PM reduction 9% Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -
Energy Mitigation -
Water Mitigation - Indoor water use fixtures mitigated to be equivalent to existing Title 24 energy efficiency requirements. Project also uses water-efficient irrigation systems (consistent with current Title 24 requirements).

Operational Off-Road Equipment -
Fleet Mix - \
Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior 150 0
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Interior 150 0
tblConstDustMitigation CleanPavedRoadPercentReduction 0 9 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 5 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 5.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 200.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 10.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 250,180.00 250,176.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.74 2.12
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.74 2.12
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.74 2.12
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.1382 1.2758 1.1196 2.8500e0030.2569 0.0536 0.3105 0.0886 0.0499 0.1385 0.0000 256.0936 256.0936 0.0441 0.0110 260.4584 2023 2.3598 1.6207 2.0384 5.7000e0030.2716 0.0613 0.3329 0.0732 0.0577 0.1310 0.0000 517.9728 517.9728 0.0516 0.0300 528.2093 Maximum 2.3598 1.6207 2.0384 5.7000e0030.2716 0.0613 0.3329 0.0886 0.0577 0.1385 0.0000 517.9728 517.9728 0.0516 0.0300 528.2093 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.1382 1.2758 1.1196 2.8500e0030.1527 0.0536 0.2062 0.0501 0.0499 0.0999 0.0000 256.0934 256.0934 0.0441 0.0110 260.4582 2023 2.3598 1.6207 2.0384 5.7000e0030.2511 0.0613 0.3124 0.0682 0.0577 0.1259 0.0000 517.9726 517.9726 0.0516 0.0300 528.2091 Maximum 2.3598 1.6207 2.0384 5.7000e0030.2511 0.0613 0.3124 0.0682 0.0577 0.1259 0.0000 517.9726 517.9726 0.0516 0.0300 528.2091 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.60 0.00 19.39 26.93 0.00 16.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1400 1.1400
2 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 0.7631 0.7631
3 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 1.0113 1.0113
4 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 2.4854 2.4854
Highest 2.4854 2.4854

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.2388 3.0000e0052.8000e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 5.4400e0035.4400e0031.0000e0050.0000 5.8000e003 Energy 0.0105 0.0953 0.0800 5.7000e0047.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0030.0000 279.0563 279.0563 0.0304 5.3400e003281.4065 Mobile 0.2662 0.4282 2.5578 5.8900e0030.5770 4.8600e0030.5818 0.1543 4.5500e0030.1588 0.0000 544.6784 544.6784 0.0303 0.0288 554.0064 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 56.2732 0.0000 56.2732 3.3257 0.0000 139.4144 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 21.2314 34.3864 55.6178 2.1862 0.0522 125.8187 Total 1.5155 0.5235 2.6407 6.4600e0030.5770 0.0121 0.5891 0.1543 0.0118 0.1661 77.5046 858.1265 935.6311 5.5725 0.0863 1,100.651 7 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.2388 3.0000e0052.8000e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 5.4400e0035.4400e0031.0000e0050.0000 5.8000e003 Energy 0.0105 0.0953 0.0800 5.7000e0047.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0030.0000 279.0563 279.0563 0.0304 5.3400e003281.4065 Mobile 0.2662 0.4282 2.5578 5.8900e0030.5770 4.8600e0030.5818 0.1543 4.5500e0030.1588 0.0000 544.6784 544.6784 0.0303 0.0288 554.0064 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 56.2732 0.0000 56.2732 3.3257 0.0000 139.4144 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 16.9851 27.6317 44.6168 1.7490 0.0417 100.7787 Total 1.5155 0.5235 2.6407 6.4600e0030.5770 0.0121 0.5891 0.1543 0.0118 0.1661 73.2583 851.3718 924.6301 5.1353 0.0758 1,075.611 8 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 9/1/2022 9/7/2022 5 5 2 Demolition Demolition 9/8/2022 9/28/2022 5 15
3 Grading Grading 9/30/2022 10/27/2022 5 20
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.48 0.79 1.18 7.85 12.09 2.28 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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 10/28/2022 8/3/2023 5 200 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/25/2023 7/19/2023 5 40 6 Paving Paving 7/25/2023 8/7/2023 5 10
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 81 0.73
Site Preparation Excavators 0 158 0.38
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 442,764; Non-Residential Outdoor: 147,588; Striped Parking Area:
24,176 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 7.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 60
Acres of Paving: 9.25
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Soil Stabilizer
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Clean Paved Roads
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Architectural Coating Pavers 0 130 0.42
Architectural Coating Paving Equipment 0 132 0.36
Architectural Coating Rollers 0 80 0.38
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 10 25.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 10 25.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 344.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 291.00 114.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 58.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 58.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0491 0.0000 0.0491 0.0253 0.0000 0.0253 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0142 0.1487 0.0761 1.6000e0047.1600e0037.1600e0036.5900e0036.5900e0030.0000 13.9869 13.9869 4.5200e0030.0000 14.1000 Total 0.0142 0.1487 0.0761 1.6000e0040.0491 7.1600e0030.0563 0.0253 6.5900e0030.0319 0.0000 13.9869 13.9869 4.5200e0030.0000 14.1000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 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 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 Worker 4.0000e0042.8000e0043.1100e0031.0000e0051.8600e0031.0000e0051.8600e0034.8000e0040.0000 4.8000e0040.0000 0.8085 0.8085 3.0000e0052.0000e0050.8164 Total 4.0000e0042.8000e0043.1100e0031.0000e0051.8600e0031.0000e0051.8600e0034.8000e0040.0000 4.8000e0040.0000 0.8085 0.8085 3.0000e0052.0000e0050.8164 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0221 0.0000 0.0221 0.0114 0.0000 0.0114 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0142 0.1487 0.0761 1.6000e0047.1600e0037.1600e0036.5900e0036.5900e0030.0000 13.9869 13.9869 4.5200e0030.0000 14.1000 Total 0.0142 0.1487 0.0761 1.6000e0040.0221 7.1600e0030.0293 0.0114 6.5900e0030.0180 0.0000 13.9869 13.9869 4.5200e0030.0000 14.1000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 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 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 Worker 4.0000e0042.8000e0043.1100e0031.0000e0051.7000e0031.0000e0051.7100e0034.4000e0040.0000 4.4000e0040.0000 0.8085 0.8085 3.0000e0052.0000e0050.8164 Total 4.0000e0042.8000e0043.1100e0031.0000e0051.7000e0031.0000e0051.7100e0034.4000e0040.0000 4.4000e0040.0000 0.8085 0.8085 3.0000e0052.0000e0050.8164 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0378 0.0000 0.0378 5.7200e0030.0000 5.7200e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0198 0.1929 0.1545 2.9000e0049.3200e0039.3200e0038.6600e0038.6600e0030.0000 25.4927 25.4927 7.1600e0030.0000 25.6717 Total 0.0198 0.1929 0.1545 2.9000e0040.0378 9.3200e0030.0471 5.7200e0038.6600e0030.0144 0.0000 25.4927 25.4927 7.1600e0030.0000 25.6717 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 6.6000e0040.0264 4.9900e0031.1000e0042.9300e0032.7000e0043.2000e0038.1000e0042.5000e0041.0600e0030.0000 10.1737 10.1737 7.0000e0051.6000e00310.6523 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 Worker 3.6000e0042.5000e0042.8000e0031.0000e0059.0000e0040.0000 9.0000e0042.4000e0040.0000 2.4000e0040.0000 0.7276 0.7276 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.7348 Total 1.0200e0030.0267 7.7900e0031.2000e0043.8300e0032.7000e0044.1000e0031.0500e0032.5000e0041.3000e0030.0000 10.9013 10.9013 9.0000e0051.6200e00311.3871 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0170 0.0000 0.0170 2.5700e0030.0000 2.5700e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0198 0.1929 0.1545 2.9000e0049.3200e0039.3200e0038.6600e0038.6600e0030.0000 25.4926 25.4926 7.1600e0030.0000 25.6717 Total 0.0198 0.1929 0.1545 2.9000e0040.0170 9.3200e0030.0263 2.5700e0038.6600e0030.0112 0.0000 25.4926 25.4926 7.1600e0030.0000 25.6717 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 6.6000e0040.0264 4.9900e0031.1000e0042.7400e0032.7000e0043.0000e0037.6000e0042.5000e0041.0100e0030.0000 10.1737 10.1737 7.0000e0051.6000e00310.6523 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 Worker 3.6000e0042.5000e0042.8000e0031.0000e0058.3000e0040.0000 8.3000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.3000e0040.0000 0.7276 0.7276 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.7348 Total 1.0200e0030.0267 7.7900e0031.2000e0043.5700e0032.7000e0043.8300e0039.8000e0042.5000e0041.2400e0030.0000 10.9013 10.9013 9.0000e0051.6200e00311.3871 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0920 0.0000 0.0920 0.0365 0.0000 0.0365 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0363 0.3884 0.2904 6.2000e0040.0164 0.0164 0.0150 0.0150 0.0000 54.5346 54.5346 0.0176 0.0000 54.9755 Total 0.0363 0.3884 0.2904 6.2000e0040.0920 0.0164 0.1084 0.0365 0.0150 0.0516 0.0000 54.5346 54.5346 0.0176 0.0000 54.9755 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 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 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 Worker 6.3000e0044.4000e0044.9800e0031.0000e0051.5900e0031.0000e0051.6000e0034.2000e0041.0000e0054.3000e0040.0000 1.2936 1.2936 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3063 Total 6.3000e0044.4000e0044.9800e0031.0000e0051.5900e0031.0000e0051.6000e0034.2000e0041.0000e0054.3000e0040.0000 1.2936 1.2936 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3063 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0414 0.0000 0.0414 0.0164 0.0000 0.0164 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0363 0.3884 0.2904 6.2000e0040.0164 0.0164 0.0150 0.0150 0.0000 54.5345 54.5345 0.0176 0.0000 54.9755 Total 0.0363 0.3884 0.2904 6.2000e0040.0414 0.0164 0.0578 0.0164 0.0150 0.0315 0.0000 54.5345 54.5345 0.0176 0.0000 54.9755 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 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 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 Worker 6.3000e0044.4000e0044.9800e0031.0000e0051.4700e0031.0000e0051.4800e0033.9000e0041.0000e0054.0000e0040.0000 1.2936 1.2936 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3063 Total 6.3000e0044.4000e0044.9800e0031.0000e0051.4700e0031.0000e0051.4800e0033.9000e0041.0000e0054.0000e0040.0000 1.2936 1.2936 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3063 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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 - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0392 0.3592 0.3764 6.2000e0040.0186 0.0186 0.0175 0.0175 0.0000 53.2968 53.2968 0.0128 0.0000 53.6160 Total 0.0392 0.3592 0.3764 6.2000e0040.0186 0.0186 0.0175 0.0175 0.0000 53.2968 53.2968 0.0128 0.0000 53.6160 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 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 Vendor 5.5300e0030.1446 0.0399 5.5000e0040.0173 1.5900e0030.0189 5.0100e0031.5200e0036.5300e0030.0000 52.4907 52.4907 3.7000e0047.9500e00354.8706 Worker 0.0212 0.0148 0.1665 4.7000e0040.0533 2.8000e0040.0536 0.0142 2.6000e0040.0144 0.0000 43.2886 43.2886 1.4300e0031.3100e00343.7148 Total 0.0267 0.1593 0.2064 1.0200e0030.0706 1.8700e0030.0725 0.0192 1.7800e0030.0210 0.0000 95.7793 95.7793 1.8000e0039.2600e00398.5854 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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 - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0392 0.3592 0.3764 6.2000e0040.0186 0.0186 0.0175 0.0175 0.0000 53.2967 53.2967 0.0128 0.0000 53.6160 Total 0.0392 0.3592 0.3764 6.2000e0040.0186 0.0186 0.0175 0.0175 0.0000 53.2967 53.2967 0.0128 0.0000 53.6160 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 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 Vendor 5.5300e0030.1446 0.0399 5.5000e0040.0162 1.5900e0030.0178 4.7400e0031.5200e0036.2600e0030.0000 52.4907 52.4907 3.7000e0047.9500e00354.8706 Worker 0.0212 0.0148 0.1665 4.7000e0040.0492 2.8000e0040.0494 0.0132 2.6000e0040.0134 0.0000 43.2886 43.2886 1.4300e0031.3100e00343.7148 Total 0.0267 0.1593 0.2064 1.0200e0030.0654 1.8700e0030.0673 0.0179 1.7800e0030.0197 0.0000 95.7793 95.7793 1.8000e0039.2600e00398.5854 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1211 1.1076 1.2508 2.0700e0030.0539 0.0539 0.0507 0.0507 0.0000 178.4897 178.4897 0.0425 0.0000 179.5512 Total 0.1211 1.1076 1.2508 2.0700e0030.0539 0.0539 0.0507 0.0507 0.0000 178.4897 178.4897 0.0425 0.0000 179.5512 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 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 Vendor 9.2600e0030.3884 0.1143 1.7600e0030.0580 2.4800e0030.0605 0.0168 2.3800e0030.0191 0.0000 169.1254 169.1254 8.3000e0040.0256 176.7656 Worker 0.0651 0.0431 0.5097 1.5300e0030.1785 8.8000e0040.1794 0.0475 8.1000e0040.0483 0.0000 140.2473 140.2473 4.2700e0034.0300e003141.5539 Total 0.0743 0.4314 0.6240 3.2900e0030.2365 3.3600e0030.2399 0.0642 3.1900e0030.0674 0.0000 309.3727 309.3727 5.1000e0030.0296 318.3195 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1211 1.1076 1.2508 2.0700e0030.0539 0.0539 0.0507 0.0507 0.0000 178.4894 178.4894 0.0425 0.0000 179.5509 Total 0.1211 1.1076 1.2508 2.0700e0030.0539 0.0539 0.0507 0.0507 0.0000 178.4894 178.4894 0.0425 0.0000 179.5509 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 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 Vendor 9.2600e0030.3884 0.1143 1.7600e0030.0543 2.4800e0030.0568 0.0159 2.3800e0030.0182 0.0000 169.1254 169.1254 8.3000e0040.0256 176.7656 Worker 0.0651 0.0431 0.5097 1.5300e0030.1646 8.8000e0040.1655 0.0440 8.1000e0040.0449 0.0000 140.2473 140.2473 4.2700e0034.0300e003141.5539 Total 0.0743 0.4314 0.6240 3.2900e0030.2189 3.3600e0030.2223 0.0599 3.1900e0030.0631 0.0000 309.3727 309.3727 5.1000e0030.0296 318.3195 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 2.1363 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8300e0030.0261 0.0362 6.0000e0051.4200e0031.4200e0031.4200e0031.4200e0030.0000 5.1065 5.1065 3.1000e0040.0000 5.1142 Total 2.1401 0.0261 0.0362 6.0000e0051.4200e0031.4200e0031.4200e0031.4200e0030.0000 5.1065 5.1065 3.1000e0040.0000 5.1142 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 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 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 Worker 6.7400e0034.4600e0030.0528 1.6000e0040.0345 9.0000e0050.0346 8.8400e0038.0000e0058.9200e0030.0000 14.5211 14.5211 4.4000e0044.2000e00414.6564 Total 6.7400e0034.4600e0030.0528 1.6000e0040.0345 9.0000e0050.0346 8.8400e0038.0000e0058.9200e0030.0000 14.5211 14.5211 4.4000e0044.2000e00414.6564 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 2.1363 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8300e0030.0261 0.0362 6.0000e0051.4200e0031.4200e0031.4200e0031.4200e0030.0000 5.1065 5.1065 3.1000e0040.0000 5.1141 Total 2.1401 0.0261 0.0362 6.0000e0051.4200e0031.4200e0031.4200e0031.4200e0030.0000 5.1065 5.1065 3.1000e0040.0000 5.1141 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 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 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 Worker 6.7400e0034.4600e0030.0528 1.6000e0040.0316 9.0000e0050.0317 8.1300e0038.0000e0058.2100e0030.0000 14.5211 14.5211 4.4000e0044.2000e00414.6564 Total 6.7400e0034.4600e0030.0528 1.6000e0040.0316 9.0000e0050.0317 8.1300e0038.0000e0058.2100e0030.0000 14.5211 14.5211 4.4000e0044.2000e00414.6564 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 5.1600e0030.0510 0.0729 1.1000e0042.5500e0032.5500e0032.3500e0032.3500e0030.0000 10.0134 10.0134 3.2400e0030.0000 10.0944 Paving 0.0121 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0173 0.0510 0.0729 1.1000e0042.5500e0032.5500e0032.3500e0032.3500e0030.0000 10.0134 10.0134 3.2400e0030.0000 10.0944 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 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 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 Worker 2.2000e0041.4000e0041.7100e0031.0000e0056.0000e0040.0000 6.0000e0041.6000e0040.0000 1.6000e0040.0000 0.4694 0.4694 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.4738 Total 2.2000e0041.4000e0041.7100e0031.0000e0056.0000e0040.0000 6.0000e0041.6000e0040.0000 1.6000e0040.0000 0.4694 0.4694 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.4738 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 5.1600e0030.0510 0.0729 1.1000e0042.5500e0032.5500e0032.3500e0032.3500e0030.0000 10.0134 10.0134 3.2400e0030.0000 10.0944 Paving 0.0121 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0173 0.0510 0.0729 1.1000e0042.5500e0032.5500e0032.3500e0032.3500e0030.0000 10.0134 10.0134 3.2400e0030.0000 10.0944 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 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 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 Worker 2.2000e0041.4000e0041.7100e0031.0000e0055.5000e0040.0000 5.5000e0041.5000e0040.0000 1.5000e0040.0000 0.4694 0.4694 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.4738 Total 2.2000e0041.4000e0041.7100e0031.0000e0055.5000e0040.0000 5.5000e0041.5000e0040.0000 1.5000e0040.0000 0.4694 0.4694 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.4738 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.2662 0.4282 2.5578 5.8900e0030.5770 4.8600e0030.5818 0.1543 4.5500e0030.1588 0.0000 544.6784 544.6784 0.0303 0.0288 554.0064 Unmitigated 0.2662 0.4282 2.5578 5.8900e0030.5770 4.8600e0030.5818 0.1543 4.5500e0030.1588 0.0000 544.6784 544.6784 0.0303 0.0288 554.0064

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
General Office Building 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 530.01 530.01 530.01 1,547,366 1,547,366 Total 530.01 530.01 530.01 1,547,366 1,547,366
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by General Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Refrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

9.50 7.30 7.30 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

9.50 7.30 7.30 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3

0.531667 0.052263 0.168651 0.155495 0.027235 0.006385 0.012362 0.016685 0.000479 0.000329 0.023608 0.001135 0.003707

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 175.3350 175.3350 0.0284 3.4400e003177.0687 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 175.3350 175.3350 0.0284 3.4400e003177.0687 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0105 0.0953 0.0800 5.7000e0047.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0030.0000 103.7214 103.7214 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.3377 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0105 0.0953 0.0800 5.7000e0047.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0030.0000 103.7214 103.7214 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.3377 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.51356e
+006

8.1600e0030.0742 0.0623 4.5000e0045.6400e0035.6400e0035.6400e0035.6400e0030.0000 80.7696 80.7696 1.5500e0031.4800e00381.2496 Total 0.0105 0.0953 0.0800 5.8000e0047.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0030.0000 103.7214 103.7214 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.3377 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.51356e
+006

8.1600e0030.0742 0.0623 4.5000e0045.6400e0035.6400e0035.6400e0035.6400e0030.0000 80.7696 80.7696 1.5500e0031.4800e00381.2496 Total 0.0105 0.0953 0.0800 5.8000e0047.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0037.2400e0030.0000 103.7214 103.7214 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.3377 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.1383e
+006
105.3199 0.0170 2.0700e003106.3613
Total 175.3350 0.0284 3.4500e003177.0687
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

1.1383e
+006
105.3199 0.0170 2.0700e003106.3613
Total 175.3350 0.0284 3.4500e003177.0687
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.2388 3.0000e0052.8000e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 5.4400e0035.4400e0031.0000e0050.0000 5.8000e003 Unmitigated 1.2388 3.0000e0052.8000e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 5.4400e0035.4400e0031.0000e0050.0000 5.8000e003

0.0597 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

1.1789 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 2.6000e0043.0000e0052.8000e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 5.4400e0035.4400e0031.0000e0050.0000 5.8000e003 Total 1.2388 3.0000e0052.8000e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 5.4400e0035.4400e0031.0000e0050.0000 5.8000e003 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0597 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

1.1789 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 2.6000e0043.0000e0052.8000e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 5.4400e0035.4400e0031.0000e0050.0000 5.8000e003 Total 1.2388 3.0000e0052.8000e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 5.4400e0035.4400e0031.0000e0050.0000 5.8000e003 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 44.6168 1.7490 0.0417 100.7787
Unmitigated 55.6178 2.1862 0.0522 125.8187

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
General Office
Building

4.44334 /

2.72334

4.5161 0.1453 3.4800e0039.1853
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

4.625 / 0 3.7828 0.1511 3.6000e0038.6338
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

57.8541 /
0 47.3189 1.8899 0.0451 107.9996
Total 55.6178 2.1862 0.0522 125.8187
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
General Office
Building

3.55467 /

2.55722

3.7355 0.1163 2.7900e0037.4720
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

3.7 / 0 3.0262 0.1209 2.8800e0036.9070
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

46.2833 /
0 37.8551 1.5119 0.0361 86.3997
Total 44.6168 1.7490 0.0417 100.7787
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 56.2732 3.3257 0.0000 139.4144
Unmitigated 56.2732 3.3257 0.0000 139.4144
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
General Office
Building

23.25 4.7195 0.2789 0.0000 11.6925
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

18.8 3.8162 0.2255 0.0000 9.4546
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
235.17 47.7374 2.8212 0.0000 118.2674
Total 56.2732 3.3257 0.0000 139.4144
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
General Office
Building

23.25 4.7195 0.2789 0.0000 11.6925
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

18.8 3.8162 0.2255 0.0000 9.4546
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
235.17 47.7374 2.8212 0.0000 118.2674
Total 56.2732 3.3257 0.0000 139.4144
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - 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
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 36 Date: 8/16/2022 3:27 PM GBxManteca - Final IS/MND (Excludes HHD Mobile) - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Josh Smith <[email protected]>
CalEEMod Assumptions Sheet to Send to the Developer (for the Coors Distribution Project) 2 messages
Josh Smith <[email protected]> Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 5:12 PM To: Steve McMurtry <[email protected]>
Hi Steve,
See attached for a CalEEMod Construction Assumptions sheet to pass onto the applicant for verification/modification. -Josh
--
Josh Smith, AICP | Senior Planner
De Novo Planning Group | www.denovoplanning.com
[email protected] | 916-805-1281
Southern California | 180 East Main St. #108 | Tustin, CA 92780 Northern California | 1020 Suncast Ln #106 | El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 CalEEMod Construction Detail Assumptions_GBxMANTECA.docx 24K
[email protected] <[email protected]> Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 12:28 PM To: Josh Smith <[email protected]>
See below from the construction schedule and other details for the Coors distribution site in Manteca.

Steve McMurtry | Principal
De Novo Planning Group | www.denovoplanning.com
[email protected] | 916.580.9818
Northern California | 1020 Suncast Lane #106 | El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 Southern California | 180 East Main Street # 108 | Tustin, CA 92780 From: Vicky Seidler <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 8:42 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: CalEEMod Assumptions Sheet to Send to the Developer (for the Coors Distribution Project) Hi Steve,
Happy New Year.

Upon review of the Construction Related Assumptions here are my comments:

Schedule – Looks like we won’t be getting the Grading permit until June 2022 so here are updated time frames:

Site Prep: 5 days
6/13/2022 - 6/17/2022
Demolition: 15 days
6/20/22 – 7/11/22
Grading: 20 days
07/12/22 to 08/8/22
Building Construction: 200 days
8/09/2022 – 5/17/2023
Paving: 10 days
5/4/2023 – 5/17/2023
Architectural Coating (paint exterior): 40 days
3/02/2023 – 4/26/2023
Project Opening Date – estimated to be May 2023.

Demolition – We have no structures to demolish, however, we do have concrete dolly pads and curbs to remove. The concrete pads will be broken up by an excavator with a breaker. Excavator with a clam or bucket will put the pieces in dump trucks for haul to concrete recycling. Curbs will be broken up by skid steers, excavator will load into dump trucks for haul to concrete recycling. I calc’d 1776CY of concrete to be hauled out
We will be pulling up the existing base that was put down for the asphalt paving (which was not installed) to get down to native so we can grade and establish the building pad. We plan to stockpile the base on site for re-use.

Grading – we do not plan to import or export, this should be a balanced site. We will grade for the building pad and then dig footings.

Building construction – we have a transformer to provide power on site and plan to have temporary power established well before building construction, that should reduce the usage of generators. There will be manlifts for several activities, not sure if those need to be identified in Equipment Type.

Architectural coatings – I assume that exterior painting is the referenced activity, not interior painting.

Site grading – the site will need to be regraded to accommodate revised parking lot elevations , bioswales, curb and gutter. We plan to re-use the base we pulled up, hopefully no import of base.

Let me know what other information you may need.

Thank you
Vicky Seidler
Victoria Seidler
Sr Project Manager
(c) 442/303-8491
Ryan Companies US, Inc.
4275 Executive Square, Suite 370
La Jolla, CA 92037
ryancompanies.com
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 6:02 PM
To: Vicky Seidler <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: CalEEMod Assumptions Sheet to Send to the Developer (for the Coors Distribution Project) EXTERNAL EMAIL: If unknown sender, DO NOT click links/attachments. NEVER give out your user ID or password.

Vicky,
We need to establish our construction assumptions in the AQ model. The attached sheet includes our best guess for the construction schedule and the construction equipment to be used. Can you take a look at the schedule by phase. Note we have assumed no grading because the site is already developed. Below the schedule is a list of equipment used in each phase. Can you comment on the number and hours/day that aligns with your plan for construction? Note that equipment list is a default list from the model, which we can override with the Engineer or CM input.

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 132
APPENDIX B: AIR TOXICS SCREENING ASSESSMENT
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.1) Emission Rates
Region Type: County
Region: San Joaquin
Calendar Year: 2022
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC202x Categories
Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, mph for Speed, kWh/mile for Energy Consumption, gallon/mile for Fuel Consumption. PHEV calculated based on total VMT.

Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Total VMT PM10_RUNEX San Joaquin 2022 T7 Tractor Class 8 Aggregate 10 Diesel 1683.346604 0.014003507 San Joaquin 2022 T7 Tractor Class 8 Aggregate 55 Diesel 20401.71991 0.02163113 Mobile Truck Emissions pounds per gram: 0.002205
On-site Pickup, Loading, and Return for Storage hours per day: 24 Line Source Volume #1:

Assumptions: Factor: Source:

1. Total travel distance per truck trip (one-day): 0.5 miles As measured by Google Maps (conservative estimate)

2. # of trucks trips per day: 132 trips Fehr & Peers, 2022

3. PM10 Mobile Emissions Factor: 0.014003507 g/mile EMFAC2021 (San Joaquin County, 10 MPH, Year 2022, T7 Tractor Class 8) Therefore:

Total daily PM10 mobile emissions generated by the project along this line volume source:

0.924231462 g/day-all vehicles

0.002037579 lbs/day-all vehicles

0.743716396 lbs/year-all vehicles 0.743716
Max Hr Emissions
132.00 Peak hour truck trips (assumes all trips occur in the same hour, for a highly conservative estimate)

0.924231462 g/hr-all vehicles

0.002037579 lbs/hr-all vehicles
Mobile Truck Emissions pounds per gram: 0.002205
Off-site (0.25 miles distance) hours per day: 24
Line Source Volume #1:

Assumptions: Factor: Source:

1. Total travel distance per truck trip (one-day): 0.25 miles As measured by Google Maps (conservative estimate)

2. # of trucks trips per day: 132 trips Fehr & Peers, 2022

3. PM10 Mobile Emissions Factor: 0.02163113 g/mile EMFAC2021 (San Joaquin County, 55 MPH, Year 2022, T7 Tractor Class 8) Therefore:

Total daily PM10 mobile emissions generated by the project along this line volume source:

0.71382729 g/day-all vehicles

0.001573718 lbs/day-all vehicles

0.574407041 lbs/year-all vehicles 0.574407
Max Hr Emissions
132.00 Peak hour truck trips (assumes all trips occur in the same hour, for a highly conservative estimate)

0.71382729 g/hr-all vehicles

0.001573718 lbs/hr-all vehicles
Truck Idling Emission Rates
Idling Emission Rates taken from tables 3.2-41 and 42, of the EMFAC2014 Volume III - Technical Documentation Guidebook:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2014/emfac2014-vol3-technical-documentation-052015.pdf pounds per gram: 0.00220462 Idling Emissions:

Table 3.2-40: Revised HHD Diesel Truck Low Idle Emission Rates (after 2009) PM10 0.001 g/hr-truck Table 3.2-41: High Idle Emissions Rates for Summer (2009 and later) PM10 0.003 g/hr-truck Note: the following calculation uses an average of the summer and Table 3.2-42: High Idle Emissions Rates for Winter (2009 and later) PM10 0.004 g/hr-truck winter high idle emissions rates for the emission factor calcs.

0.000291667 g/5 minutes-truck Note: Trucks are equiped with 5-min auto shutoff.

0.000291667 g/day-truck
24 hours in day
66 # of trucks/day Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022
2 Idle Points per truck/day Note: Assumption
Therefore: 0.0385 g/day-all trucks

14.0525 g/year-all trucks

0.030980423 lbs/year-all trucks

0.030980423
Max Hr Emissions
# Peak hour truck trips (assumes all trips occur in the same hour, for a highly conservative estimate)

0.0385 g/hr-all vehicles

0.0000849 lbs/hr-all vehicles
Truck TRU (Idling)
pounds per gram: 0.002205

0.02 g/hp-hr source: ARB
34 hp rated TRU engines

7.4% Percentage of trucks assumed to be refrigerated (based on the refrigerated warehouse square footage of 20 ksf, out of a total of 270.176 ksf warehouse space.

0.53 Load Factor of 0.53 based Walmart Riverwalk Marketplace HRA Impact Sciences, Inc

0.25 Trucks are expected to run their TRUs for 15 minutes per hour (Leland Vilalvazo, phone conversation) On/Off Cycle Factor 66 Total # of trucks per day (note: truck trips are round trips; hence, total # of trucks is equal to half the number of truck trips) Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022

0.440201942 Emissions (g/day)
Total

0.440201942 Emissions (g/day)
161 Emissions (g/year)

0.354224472 Emissions (lbs/year)
Max Hour:

0.177112236 Emissions (lbs/year)
Note: Assume max hour trucks are half of the total daily trucks, as a conservative estime.

Construction - DPM Exhaust Emissions pounds per ton: 2000 Note: DPM Exhaust Emissions taken from CalEEMod
CalEEMod - Maximum Annual Construction Emissions
Exhaust PM2.5 tons/year Exhaust PM2.5 pounds/year

0.0584 116.8
Total Amoritized over 70 Years

1.668571429 lbs/year
Name
Applicability
Author or updater Last Update
Facility:

ID#:

Project #:

Unit and Process#
Operating Hours hr/yr 8,760.00
Cancer Chronic Acute
Score Score Score
0< R<100 1.000 7.79E+00 1.15E-02 0.00E+00 7.79E+00
100R<250 0.250 1.95E+00 2.89E-03 0.00E+00 1.95E+00
250R<500 0.040 3.12E-01 4.62E-04 0.00E+00 3.12E-01
500R<1000 0.011 8.57E-02 1.27E-04 0.00E+00 8.57E-02
1000R<1500 0.003 2.34E-02 3.46E-05 0.00E+00 2.34E-02
1500R<2000 0.002 1.56E-02 2.31E-05 0.00E+00 1.56E-02
2000<R 0.001 7.79E-03 1.15E-05 0.00E+00 7.79E-03
0 CAS# Finder
Substance CAS#
Annual
Emissions
(lbs/yr)
Maximum
Hourly
(lbs/hr)
Average
Hourly
(lbs/hr) Cancer Chronic Acute
9901
Diesel engine exhaust, particulate matter (Diesel PM) 9901 3.37189976 0.180808411 3.85E-04 7.79E+00 1.15E-02 0.00E+00

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Totals 7.79E+00 1.15E-02 0.00E+00
Diesel engine exhaust, particulate matter
(Diesel PM)
Substance
Use the substance dropdown list in the CAS# Finder to
locate CAS# of substances.

Enter the unit's CAS# of the substances emitted and their amounts.

Prioritzation score for each substance
generated below. Totals on last row.

Receptor proximity is in meters. Priortization
scores are calculated by multiplying the total
scores summed below by the proximity factors.

Record the Max score for your receptor
distance. If the substance list for the unit is
longer than the number of rows here or if there
are multiple processes use additional
worksheets and sum the totals of the Max
Scores.

Receptor Proximity and Proximity Factors Max Score
Prioritization Calculator
Use to provide a Prioritization score based on the emission potency method. Entries required in yellow areas, output in gray areas.

Matthew Cegielski November 2, 2020

GBXMANTECA PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 135
APPENDIX C: MMRP FOR THE NORTHWEST AIRPORT WAY MASTER PLAN Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the
Northwest Airport Way Master Plan
City of Manteca, San Joaquin County, California
State Clearinghouse No. 2010022024
Prepared for:

City of Manteca
Community Development Department
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337
209.456.8516
Contact: Rochelle Henson, Senior Planner
Prepared by:

Michael Brandman Associates
Bishop Ranch 3
2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 460
San Ramon, CA 94583
925.830.2733
Contact: Jason Brandman, Project Director
October 7, 2010

City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1: Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of
Mitigation Measures Method of Completion Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial

2. Agricultural Resources MM AG-1: At the time building permits are sought for any Master Plan contemplated use, the project applicant shall pay the required City of Manteca agricultural mitigation fee to help offset the conversion of Important Farmland pursuant to Manteca Municipal Code Chapter 13.42.

Receipt of fees At the time building
permits are sought
City of Manteca Community Development Department

3. Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions MM AIR-1a: Prior to issuance of grading permits for each Master Plan use, the project applicant shall provide information to the City of Manteca describing the methods by which the following measures will be complied with: • Off-road equipment used onsite shall achieve a fleet average emissions equal to or less than the Tier II emissions standard of 4.8 grams of NOx per horsepower hour. This can be achieved through any combination of engine standards. Tier II emission standards are set forth in Section 2423 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, and Part 89 of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations. • Construction equipment shall be properly maintained at an offsite location; maintenance shall include proper tuning and timing of engines. Equipment maintenance records and data sheets of equipment design specifications shall be kept on-site during construction. • Onsite construction equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes in any one hour.
• During the building phase, onsite electrical hook ups shall be provided for electric construction tools including saws, drills and compressors, to eliminate the need for diesel powered electric generators. • Construction workers shall be encouraged to carpool to and from the construction site to the greatest extent practical. Workers shall be informed in writing and a letter shall be placed on file in the City office documenting efforts to carpool.

Notes on construction plans; submittal of documentation Prior to issuance of grading permits for each Master Plan use City of Manteca Community Development Department & Public Works Engineering City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 2 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial MM AIR-1b: 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.

Notes on construction plans; site inspection
During the architectural coating phase for all Master Plan uses City of Manteca Community Development Department Building Division MM AIR-1c: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan building, the project applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable requirements of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Rule 9510 via the submittal of a Rule 9510 Implementation Plan to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The implementation plan shall achieve a 33-percent reduction in NOx and a 45-percent reduction in PM10 over the first 10 years of operations through the use of onsite emissions reduction measures or through the payment of offsite mitigation fees to the SJVAPCD for purchase of emission reductions. The requirements of the approved implementation plan shall be incorporated into the proposed project.

Submittal of documentation
Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan building City of Manteca Community Development Department
MM AIR-1d: Prior to approval of the final site plan for each Master Plan building that would receive 10 more truck deliveries per week, the project applicant shall demonstrate that the following anti-idling measures would be implemented: • Provide available electricity hookups for trucks in the loading dock areas.
• Signs shall be posted in dock areas advising drivers that idling shall not occur for more than 3 minutes.
• Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and the California Air Resources Board shall be posted on signs at truck entrances to report idling violations.

Approval of plans Prior to approval
of the final site plan for each Master Plan building that would receive 10 more truck deliveries per week City of Manteca Community Development Department
City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 3 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial MM AIR-6: Prior to final site plan approval for any Master Plan use that includes food service (i.e., restaurants, cafeterias, etc.), the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with SJVAPCD Rules 4102 (Nuisance) and 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling) to the extent that these rules are applicable. Compliance may entail the installation of kitchen exhaust vents, exhaust filtration systems, or other odor-reduction measures in accordance with accepted engineering practice. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project.

Approval of plans Prior to final site
plan approval for any Master Plan use that includes food service (i.e., restaurants, cafeterias, etc.) City of Manteca Community Development Department Building Division

4. Biological Resources MM BIO-1a: If ground clearing or vegetation removal activities occur during the nesting season (February 15 through August 31), then pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted in all area suitable for nesting that are located within 250 feet of the Master Plan area. Surveys shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance. If an active nest is located, a 250-foot buffer shall be delineated and maintained around the nest until a qualified biologist has determined that fledging has occurred. Alternatively, CDFG may be consulted to determine if the protective buffer can be reduced based upon individual species responses to disturbance. This mitigation measure does not apply if ground clearing or vegetation removal activities occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 through February 14).

Site inspection; submittal of documentation
If ground clearing or vegetation removal activities occur during the nesting season (February 15 through August 31), City of Manteca Community Development Department; California Department of Fish and Game MM BIO-1b: No more than 30 day prior to the beginning of ground disturbance, a pre-construction survey for burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in general accordance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium. Should the surveys be scheduled to occur during the period extending from February 1 through May 1, then surveys shall be conducted Site inspection; submittal of documentation
No more than 30 day prior to the beginning of ground disturbance City of Manteca Community Development Department; California Department of Fish and Game City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 4 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial no more that 15 days prior to the start of ground disturbance. Surveys shall be conducted from 2 hours before sunset to 1 hour after sunset, or from 1 hour before sunrise to 2 hours after sunrise, and shall be conducted during weather conducive to observing owls outside of their burrows. No surveys shall occur during heavy rain, high winds, or dense fog. If occupied burrows are found, mitigation for potential impacts shall follow the guidelines outlined by the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines, including passive relocation. MM BIO-2: Prior to issuance of grading permits within any impacted resource area, the project applicant shall obtain all required authorization from agencies with jurisdiction over the drainage canals within the Master Plan area. Such agencies may include but are not limited to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Impacted resources shall be offset through onsite restoration, offsite restoration, or purchase of credits at an agency-approved mitigation bank in the region at no less than a 1:1 ratio.

Submittal of documentation
Prior to issuance of grading permits within any impacted resource area City of Manteca Community Development Department; United States Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game; Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board MM BIO-3: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall obtain all required authorization from agencies with jurisdiction over the drainage canals within the Master Plan area. This authorization may involve approvals from the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Impacted features shall be offset through onsite restoration, offsite restoration, or purchase of credits at an agency-approved mitigation bank in the region at no less than a 1:1 ratio.

Submittal of documentation
Prior to issuance of grading permits
City of Manteca Community Development; United States Army Corps of Engineers, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Department City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 5 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial MM BIO-5: Prior to issuance of grading permits for any activities that would remove one or more trees subject to City of Manteca Ordinance 17.19.060, the applicant shall prepare and submit a tree removal and replacement plan to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The plan shall identify all trees proposed for removal and proposed replacement tree species and locations. Replacement shall occur at no less than a 1:1 ratio. All replacement trees shall be no less than a 24-inch box size species.

Approval of plan Prior to issuance of
grading permits for any activities that would remove one or more trees subject to City of Manteca Ordinance 17.19.060 City of Manteca Community Development Department
MM BIO-6: Prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit for the Master Plan, the project applicant shall obtain coverage under the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan. Coverage shall consist of approval of the Master Plan-specific “Section 8.2.1 (10) Checklist for Unmapped SJMSCP Projects” by the San Joaquin Council of Governments Technical Advisory Committee. The applicant shall pay all required fees to the San Joaquin Council of Governments prior to the commencement of construction activities.

Approval of application; receipt of fees
Prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit for the Master Plan City of Manteca Community Development Department Planning and building Divisions, Public Works Engineering; San Joaquin Council of Governments

5. Cultural Resources MM CUL-1: If potentially significant historic resources are encountered during subsurface excavation activities for any Master Plan use, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the resource requires further study. The City shall require that the applicant include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Site inspection; submittal of documentation
During subsurface excavation activities
City of Manteca Community Development Department Planning and Building Division & Public Works Engineering City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 6 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial Recreation forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined to be significant under CEQA, the City and a qualified archaeologist shall determine whether preservation in place is feasible. Such preservation in place is the preferred mitigation. If such preservation is infeasible, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the resource. The archaeologist shall also conduct appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive written report and file it with the appropriate information center (California Historical Resources Information System), and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials. MM CUL-2: If potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during subsurface excavation activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the resource requires further study. The City shall require that the applicant include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is Site inspection; submittal of documentation
During subsurface excavation activities
City of Manteca Community Development Department Planning and Building Division & Public Works Engineering City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 7 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial determined to be significant under CEQA, the City and a qualified archaeologist shall determine whether preservation in place is feasible. Such preservation in place is the preferred mitigation. If such preservation is infeasible, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the resource. The archaeologist shall also conduct appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive written report and file it with the appropriate information center (California Historical Resources Information System), and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials. MM CUL-3: In the event that plant or animal fossils are discovered during subsurface excavation activities for the proposed project, all excavation within 50 feet of the fossil shall cease until a qualified paleontologist has determined the significance of the find and provides recommendations in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The paleontologist shall notify the City of Manteca to determine procedures to be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the find is determined to be significant and the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and implement a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Upon approval, the plan shall be incorporated into the project.

Site inspection; submittal of documentation
During subsurface excavation activities
City of Manteca Community Development Department Planning and Building Division & Public Works Engineering City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 8 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial MM CUL-4: If previously unknown human remains are encountered during construction activities, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code applies, and the following procedures shall be followed: • In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Public Resource Code Section 5097.98 must be followed. Once project-related ground disturbance begins and if there is accidental discovery of human remains, the following steps shall be taken:
• There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the San Joaquin County Coroner’s Office is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation into cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

Site inspection; submittal of documentation
During construction activities
City of Manteca Community Development Department Planning and Building Division & Public Works Engineering

6. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity MM GEO-1: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan use, the project applicant shall submit a designlevel geotechnical study and building plans to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The building plans shall demonstrate that they incorporate all applicable Approval of plans Prior to issuance of
building permits for each Master Plan use
City of Manteca Community Development Department Building Division City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 9 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial recommendations of the design-level geotechnical study and comply with all applicable requirements of the most recent version of the California Building Standards Code. A licensed professional engineer shall prepare the plans, including those that pertain to soil engineering, structural foundations, pipeline excavation, and installation. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. All onsite soil engineering activities shall be conducted under the supervision of a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1a: Prior to grading activities for any Master Plan use in areas where THP-D has been detected, the applicant shall conduct soil sampling to delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of the TPH-D in order to implement a soil remediation program. Soil remediation shall be conducted in accordance with California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) guidelines. Contaminated soil shall be excavated and disposed of at an approved disposal facility. Following excavation, confirmation sampling shall be conducted to confirm whether remaining soil meets acceptable applicable regulatory levels. The excavation shall be backfilled with clean soil.

Submittal of documentation
Prior to grading activities for any Master Plan use in areas where THPD has been detected City of Manteca Community Development Department, Public Works Engineering MM HAZ-1b: Prior to grading activities for any Master Plan use, any onsite wells or septic systems intended to be removed shall be destroyed under permit and inspection with San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department.

Submittal of documentation
Prior to grading activities for any Master Plan use
City of Manteca Community Development Department; San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 10 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial MM HAZ-1c: Prior to demolition activities of any structures located within the Master Plan area, the project applicant shall retain a certified hazardous waste contractor to determine the presence or absence of building materials or equipment that contains hazardous waste, including asbestos, lead-based paint, mercury, and PCBs. If such substances are found to be present, the contractor shall properly remove and dispose of these hazardous materials in accordance with federal and state law. All removal activities shall be completed prior to commencement of demolition activities.

Submittal of documentation
Prior to demolition activities of any structures located within the Master Plan area City of Manteca Community Development Department Building Division

8. Hydrology and Water Quality MM HYD-1: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for each proposed activities within the Master Plan area, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City of Manteca that identifies specific actions and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent stormwater pollution during construction activities. The SWPPP shall identify a practical sequence for BMP implementation, monitoring, and maintenance; site restoration; contingency measures; responsible parties; and agency contacts. The SWPPP shall include but not be limited to the following elements: • Temporary erosion control measures shall be employed for disturbed areas.
• Specific measures shall be identified to protect the onsite open drainages during construction of the proposed resort. • Specific measures shall be identified to protect the French Camp Outlet Canal and Drain 3 during any construction activities.

Approval of plan Prior to the
issuance of grading or building permits for each proposed activities within the Master Plan area City of Manteca Public Works
City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 11 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial • No disturbed surfaces shall be left without erosion control measures in place during the winter and spring months.
• Sediment shall be retained onsite by a system of sediment basins, traps, or other appropriate measures.
• The construction contractor shall prepare Standard Operating Procedures for the handling of hazardous materials on the construction site to eliminate or reduce discharge of materials to storm drains. • BMP performance and effectiveness shall be determined either by visual means where applicable (e.g., observation of above-normal sediment release), or by actual water sampling in cases where verification of contaminant reduction or elimination (such as inadvertent petroleum release) is required by the RWQCB to determine adequacy of the measure. • In the event of significant construction delays or delays in final landscape installation, native grasses or other appropriate vegetative cover shall be established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance, as an interim erosion control measure throughout the wet season.

MM HYD-2: Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for any development activities that occur pursuant to the Master Plan, the project applicant shall submit a stormwater quality control plan to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The plan shall include a detailed drainage plan and identify expected site-specific pollutants and required measures to treat those pollutants before they reach the regional detention basins and, ultimately, the French Camp Outlet Canal and San Joaquin River. The approved measures shall be incorporated Approval of plan Prior to the
issuance of building or grading permits
City of Manteca Public Works
City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 12 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial into the proposed project. The plan will describe monitoring and performance measures and standards required in order to ensure water quality is adequately protected during operation of all proposed sites within the project area. Examples of stormwater pollution prevention measures and practices to be incorporated into the plan include but are not limited to: • Strategically placed bioswales and landscaped areas that promote percolation of runoff
• Pervious pavement • Roof drains that discharge to landscaped areas • Trash enclosures with screen walls and roofs • Stenciling on storm drains • Curb cuts in parking areas to allow runoff to enter landscaped areas
• Rock-lined areas along landscaped areas in parking lots • Catch basins • Oil/water separators • Regular sweeping of parking areas and cleaning of storm drainage facilities
• Employee training to inform maintenance personnel of
stormwater pollution prevention measures
City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 13 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial MM HYD-4: Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits for the proposed project, the project applicant shall submit a stormwater quality control plan for the project as a whole to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The plan shall include a detailed drainage plan that demonstrates attainment of pre-project runoff requirements prior to release at the outlet canal and describes the volume reduction measures and treatment controls used to reach attainment. The drainage plan shall identify all expected flows from the project area and the location, size, and type of facilities used to retain and treat the runoff volumes and peak flows to meet pre-project conditions. The approved drainage plan shall be incorporated into the proposed project.

Approval of plan Prior to the
issuance of building or grading permits
City of Manteca Public Works
MM HYD-5a: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project applicant must revisit the status of the provisionally accredited levees providing 100-year level of flood protection to the Master Plan area to determine it is still the case and the Master Plan remains outside of the 100-year flood hazard.

Submittal of documentation
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits
City of Manteca Community Development Department & Public Works MM HYD-5b: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall either demonstrate that the developed portions of the Master Plan are outside of the anticipated 200-year flood hazard area or incorporate measures into the Master Plan to achieve a 200-year level of flood protection for any site installations that will occur in 2012 or later.

Submittal of documentation
Prior to the issuance of grading permits
City of Manteca Community Development Department & Public Works City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 14 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial

10. Noise MM NOI-1: During construction activities for all Master Plan uses, the applicant shall require its construction contractors to adhere to the following noise attenuation requirements: • Construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily. The City of Manteca Director of Public Works shall have the discretion to permit construction activities to occur outside of allowable hours if compelling circumstances warrant such an exception (e.g., weather conditions necessary to pour concrete). • All construction equipment shall use noise-reduction features (e.g., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are no less effective than those originally installed by the manufacturer. If no noise-reduction features were installed by the manufacturer, then the contractor shall require that at least a muffler be installed on the equipment. • Construction staging and heavy equipment maintenance
activities shall be performed a minimum distance of 300 feet from the nearest residence, unless safety or technical factors take precedence (e.g., an equipment breakdown). • A 10-foot-high construction noise barrier shall be installed along the edge of the Master Plan area within 300 feet of any offsite residence prior to start of grading activities. The noise barrier shall either be constructed of a minimum 0.5-inch plywood or utilize acoustical blankets with a minimum Sound Transmission Class of 12. The barrier shall remain in place until noise intensive aspects of construction are completed.

Notes on construction plans; site inspection
During construction activities for all Master Plan uses City of Manteca Community Development Department Building Division & Public Works City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 15 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial MM NOI-4: During Master Plan operations, the use of street sweepers and mechanical landscape maintenance equipment (lawnmowers, leaf blowers, etc.) shall be prohibited between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Site inspection During Master
Plan operations
City of Manteca Community Development Department

11. Public Services and Utilities MM PSU-1: Prior to issuance of building permits for any Master Plan uses, the project applicant shall provide the City of Manteca will all applicable fire protection development fees in accordance with the latest adopted fee schedule.

Receipt of fees Prior to issuance of
building permits for any Master Plan uses
City of Manteca Community Development Department
MM PSU-3a: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan use, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Manteca for review and approval identifying a non-potable irrigation system that is separate from the potable water systems. The non-potable irrigation system shall use non-potable well water until recycled water is available, at which point it shall be converted to use recycled water.

Submittal of documentation
Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan use City of Manteca Community Development Department & Public Works MM PSU-3b: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan use, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Manteca for review and approval identifying that all appropriate and feasible water conservation measures are incorporated into the proposed use(s). The approved measures shall be incorporated into the final development plans. Examples of water conservation measures include but are not limited to: • Drought-tolerant landscaping or xeriscaping • Water efficient irrigation systems (drip irrigation, Submittal of documentation
Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan use City of Manteca Community Development Department
City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 16 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial bubbler/soaker systems, hydrozones, evapotranspiration controllers, etc.) • Sensor-activated low-flow fixtures (e.g., faucets, urinals, and toilets)
MM PSU-6a: Prior to issuance of building permits for any building developed pursuant to the Master Plan, the project applicant shall retain a qualified contractor to perform construction and demolition debris recycling. Following the completion of construction activities, the project applicant shall provide documentation to the satisfaction of the City of Manteca demonstrating that construction and demolition debris was recycled.

Submittal of documentation
Prior to issuance of building permits for any building developed pursuant to the Master Plan City of Manteca Community Development Department
MM PSU-6b: Prior to issuance of building permits for each building developed pursuant to the Master Plan, the project applicant shall provide information to the City of Manteca describing the methods by which recycling and waste diversion activities shall be achieved. This information shall include but is not limited to the type and location of facilities necessary to collect and store recyclable materials, contractors who would pick-up recyclable and reusable materials, and how recycling and waste diversion activities would be integrated into operational practices. To the extent feasible, centralized recycling facilities are encouraged to enhance the ease and efficiency of such practices. The approved facilities and practices shall be incorporated into the uses envisioned by the Master Plan.

Approval of plan Prior to issuance of
building permits for each building developed pursuant to the Master Plan City of Manteca Community Development Department
City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 17 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial

12. Transportation MM TRANS-1: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan use, the applicant shall pay all transportationrelated fees in accordance with the latest adopted fee schedule at the time permits are sought. Such fees shall include, but not be limited to, the City of Manteca Public Facilities Implementation Plan fee and the San Joaquin County Regional Transportation Impact Fee.

Receipt of fees Prior to issuance of
building permits for each Master Plan use
City of Manteca Community Development Department Building Division MM TRANS-2a: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan use, the applicant shall provide fees to the City of Manteca for the installation of signals at the I-5 Northbound Ramps/Roth Road and I-5 Southbound Ramps/Roth Road intersections, provided that fee collection mechanism exists. Fee amounts shall be calculated in accordance with equitable share methodology. This mitigation measure shall be superseded by Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 if no fee collection mechanism exists for this improvement at the time building permits are sought.

Receipt of fees Prior to issuance of
building permits for each Master Plan use
City of Manteca Community Development Department & Public Works MM TRANS-2b: Prior to issuance of building permits for each Master Plan use, the applicant shall provide fees to the City of Manteca for improvements to the Roth Road/Harland Road intersection, provided that fee collection mechanism exists. The improvements shall consist of the installation of a signal and widening the westbound approach to include left-turn lane, through lane, and shared through/right lane. Fee amounts shall be calculated in accordance with equitable share methodology. This mitigation measure shall be superseded by Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 if no fee collection mechanism exists for this improvement at the time building permits are sought.

Receipt of fees Prior to issuance of
building permits for each Master Plan use
City of Manteca Community Development Department
City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 18 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial MM TRANS-4a: Prior to site plan review for each Master Plan use, the applicant shall consult with the City of Manteca Community Development Department about appropriate frontage improvements. All necessary frontage improvements shall be depicted on the final site plan and implemented as part of site development.

Approval of plan Prior to site plan
review for each Master Plan use
City of Manteca Community Development Department & Public Works MM TRANS-4b: Prior to site plan review for each Master Plan use, the applicant shall consult with the City of Manteca Community Development Department and public Works about the following roadway access issues listed below. The access evaluations shall be performed in accordance with the City’s Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. All necessary improvements shall be depicted on the final site plan and implemented as part of site development. Issues include but are not limited to: • Need for traffic signals at driveways • Traffic signal coordination and installation of associated signal conduits
• Truck traffic volumes at driveways and associated lane storage requirements, right-turn deceleration needs, and curb return radii • Coordination and accommodation of driveways for future projects on the opposite side of the street
• Pavement thickness
Approval of plan Prior to site plan
review for each Master Plan use
City of Manteca Community Development Department & Public Works City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 19 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial MM TRANS-6a: Prior to site plan review for each Master Plan light industrial use, the applicant shall consult with the City of Manteca Community Development Department, City of Manteca Public Works, Manteca Transit, and the San Joaquin Regional Transit District about the inclusion of appropriate transit facilities (turnouts, shelters, etc.) or services (e.g., an employee shuttle). If transit facilities are deemed to be necessary, they shall be provided on the final site plan. If transit services are deemed to be necessary, the applicant shall prepare a service plan and submit it to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The approved plan shall be incorporated into the project. To the extent feasible, transit facilities and services shall be coordinated among Master Plan uses to maximize efficiency and effectiveness.

Approval of plan Prior to site plan
review for each Master Plan light industrial use
City of Manteca Community Development Department & Public Works MM TRANS-6b: Prior to site plan review for each Master Plan light industrial use, the applicant shall consult with the City of Manteca Community Development Department about the inclusion of appropriate bicycle facilities (racks, lockers, etc.). If bicycle facilities are deemed to be necessary, such facilities shall be provided on the final site plan.

Approval of plan Prior to site plan
review for each Master Plan light industrial use
City of Manteca Community Development Department
MM TRANS-6c: Prior to site plan review for each Master Plan light industrial use, the applicant shall consult with the City of Manteca Community Development Department about the inclusion of appropriate pedestrian facilities. If pedestrian facilities are deemed to be necessary, such facilities shall be provided on the final site plan.

Approval of plan Prior to site plan
review for each Master Plan light industrial use
City of Manteca Community Development Department
City of Manteca – Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 20 H:\Client (PN-JN)\2482\24820003\5 - FEIR\MMRP\24820003 Northwest Airport Way MMRP.doc Table 1 (cont.): Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Completion Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for Verification Date Initial MM TRANS-6d: Prior to site plan review for the Master Plan community commercial use, the applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Manteca demonstrating access and facilities for public transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Public transit facilities shall consist of at least one bus turnout with shelter, lighting, trash receptacle, and direct pedestrian connection to the community commercial center. Bicycle facilities shall consist of racks near building entrances that provide storage equivalent to 2 percent of the minimum Municipal Code parking requirement. Pedestrian facilities shall consist of sidewalks along street frontages and direct connections between buildings. The approved facilities shall be incorporated in the community commercial center plans.

Approval of plan Prior to site plan
review for the Master Plan community commercial use
City of Manteca Community Development Department & Public Works MM TRANS-7: Prior to issuance of grading permits for each Master Plan use, the applicant shall submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The plan shall identify the timing and routing of all major construction equipment and trucking to avoid potential traffic congestion and delays on the local street network. The plan shall encourage the use of Interstate 5 (I-5), Roth Road, Airport Way, and Lathrop Road wherever practical. Anticipated temporary road closures should be identified, along with safety measures and detours. If necessary, construction equipment and materials deliveries shall be limited to off-peak hours to avoid conflicts with local traffic circulation. The plan shall also identify suitable locations for construction worker parking.

Approval of plan Prior to issuance of
grading permits for each Master Plan use
City of Manteca Public Works

INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 136
APPENDIX D: NOISE STUDY
Environmental Noise Assessment
GBx Manteca Beverage Distribution Facility
City of Manteca, California
March 10, 2022
Project #211011
Prepared for:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
Prepared by:

Saxelby Acoustics LLC
Luke Saxelby, INCE Bd. Cert.

Principal Consultant
Board Certified, Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) GBx Manteca Beverage Distribution Facility
City of Manteca, CA
Job #211011
March 10, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com
Page i
\\SAXDESKTOPNEW\Job Folders\211011 GBx Manteca Beverage Distribution Facility\Word\211011 GBx Manteca Beverage Distribution Facility.docx Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.............................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE........................................................................................................3 EXISTING AND FUTURE NOISE AND VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTS .....................................................8 EXISTING NOISE RECEPTORS ........................................................................................................................8 EXISTING GENERAL AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS ...................................................................................................8 EVALUATION OF PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE AT RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS ..................................9 LOADING DOCK NOISE GENERATION.............................................................................................................9 TRUCK SHOP.............................................................................................................................................9 PARKING LOT CIRCULATION.........................................................................................................................9 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ENVIRONMENT.........................................................................................11 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................12 REGULATORY CONTEXT ................................................................................................................12 FEDERAL ................................................................................................................................................12 STATE....................................................................................................................................................12 LOCAL....................................................................................................................................................12 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................................................21 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE ..................................................................................................................21 DETERMINATION OF A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN NOISE LEVELS .......................................................................21 PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ..............................................................................23 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................25 Appendices
Appendix A: Acoustical Terminology
Appendix B: Field Noise Measurement Data
GBx Manteca Beverage Distribution Facility
City of Manteca, CA
Job #211011
March 10, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com
Page ii
\\SAXDESKTOPNEW\Job Folders\211011 GBx Manteca Beverage Distribution Facility\Word\211011 GBx Manteca Beverage Distribution Facility.docx List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Plan..........................................................................................................................................4 Figure 2: Noise Measurement Sites and Receptor Locations.......................................................................5 Figure 3: Project-Generated Noise Level Contours (dBA, Leq) ....................................................................10 List of Tables
Table 1: Typical Noise Levels.........................................................................................................................6 Table 2: Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data .........................................................8 Table 3: Construction Equipment Noise .....................................................................................................11 Table 4: Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment..................................................................12 Table 5: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure Mobile Noise Sources........................................................13 Table 6: Performance Standards for Stationary Noise Sources or Projects Affected by Stationary Noise Sources 1,2....................................................................................................................................................14 Table 7: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure From Mobile Noise Sources................................................19 Table 8: Performance Standards for Stationary Noise Sources..................................................................20 GBx Manteca Beverage Distribution Facility
City of Manteca, CA
Job #211011
March 10, 2022 www.SaxNoise.com

Page 3 ends

Manteca City CouncilJanuary 10, 2023

Manteca City Council
January 10, 2023