Attachment 3 - Exhibit B to Attachment 1 - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration — Manteca City Council, January 10, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

FINAL INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FOR THE

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
NOVEMBER 23, 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
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "B"

FINAL INITIAL STUDY AND

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FOR THE

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
NOVEMBER 23, 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
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "B"
Proposed Airport Business Centre North Project
Lead Agency:

City of Manteca
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337
Project Title: Airport Business Centre North Project
Project Location: The 21.3-acre Project site is located at 3045, 3123, and 3157 N Airport Way (APN: 198-200-130, - 060, -090). 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 currently is home to Riella Farms, which is a small family-owned agricultural operation that specializes in procuring beef, sheep, goat, and poultry. The business offices and livestock pens are mostly located in the southeastern quadrant of the Project site with open pasture located in the southwestern quadrant. A rural residence is located in the northeastern quadrant, while open pasture and a hay barn is located in the northwestern quadrant. The project site is generally flat, with an elevation range of approximately 22 to 25 feet above sea level.

See Figures 1 and 2 for the regional location and the project vicinity. The site plan is shown in Figure 3. Figure 4 provides Elevations of the facilities. Figure 5 provides site photos.

Much of the area surrounding the Project site is planned for development. Some of the surrounding properties are developed, while some are approved but not yet built, or pending approval. To the north of the Project site is Tactical Way, a 5.11 Factory Store/Warehouse, and an Amazon Fulfillment Center. To the south of the Project site is an existing approved, but not yet built, warehouse facility. To the east of the Project site is Airport Way and existing orchards that are planned for Residential development. To the west of the Project site is an existing storm drainage basin, Intermodal Way, and planned Industrial development.

Project Description: The proposed Project is a 360,000 square foot distribution building located within the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan. The building placement and site design is intended to provide significant landscape buffer from North Airport Way and allows only one auto vehicular access with no truck ingress and egress. All truck movement ingress & egress to the site is via Intermodal Way and Tactical Way with a long on- site private drive along the western side of the Project site. This driveway provides generous stacking capabilities which eliminates the possibility of any backup on to Tactical Way. There will be no through on-site circulation for truck traffic to reach Airport Way with the intent to restrict the truck access to Airport Way. Figure 6 illustrates the Truck ingress/egress.

The design of the building is intended to incorporate the guidelines of the Airport Frontage Buffer Area in the Master Plan and be consistent with the recently approved Airport Business Centre (South). The site plan limits the vehicle parking along Airport to one row and incorporates significant landscaping and berming along Airport to buffer the building presence. The offices at the corners of the building feature glass and have accent colors that are also picked up above the clerestory windows. There are metal awnings included as well as wall undulation or insets at the ends of the building. Varied parapets heights are provided to give articulation to help define the building massing.

The facility will operate as a distribution warehouse. The facility will be a 360,000-sf tilt up concrete building. The parking area is designed with 242 car parking stalls, and 93 trailer stalls. The site plan shows 46 truck docks located on the western side of the building, which is not visible from Airport Way. The building use is broken into 355,000 sf for warehouse space, and 5,000 sf for office space. The footprint of the building covers 38.2% of the lot.

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 Exhibit "B"
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
Exhibit "B"
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.

Exhibit "B"

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.

Exhibit "B"
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 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.

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.

Exhibit "B"
• 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 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).

Exhibit "B"
• 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
Exhibit "B"
• 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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH 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 ............................................................................................................13 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................... 29 Determination.............................................................................................................................................. 29 Evaluation Instructions ............................................................................................................................ 30 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 31 Environmental Checklist.......................................................................................................................... 32 I. AESTHETICS...........................................................................................................................................................................32 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .......................................................................................................35 III. AIR QUALITY.......................................................................................................................................................................37 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................................................43 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................................57 VI. ENERGY.................................................................................................................................................................................59 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ....................................................................................................................................................61 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS...............................................................................................................................65 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.............................................................................................................70 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.........................................................................................................................75 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING..........................................................................................................................................83 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES..................................................................................................................................................84 XIII. NOISE ..................................................................................................................................................................................85 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING................................................................................................................................ 107 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES......................................................................................................................................................... 108 XVI. RECREATION................................................................................................................................................................. 113 XVII. TRANSPORTATION................................................................................................................................................... 114 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................... 127 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.................................................................................................................... 128 Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 2
XX. WILDFIRE.........................................................................................................................................................................134 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE...................................................................................................136 References................................................................................................................................................................................139 Appendix A: Air Quality Technical Information .....................................................................................................142 Appendix B: Traffic Impact Analysis............................................................................................................................143 Appendix C: Noise Study ....................................................................................................................................................144 Appendix D: MMRP for the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan..................................................................145 Appendix E: Plan Set............................................................................................................................................................146 Appendix F: Response to Comments.............................................................................................................................147 Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 3

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

PROJECT TITLE
Airport Business Centre North 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
Rob Mitchell
Greenlaw Development, LLC
18301 Von Karmen Ave, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92612
714-749-6508

PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The 21.3-acre Project site is located at 3045, 3123, and 3157 N Airport Way (APN: 198-200-130, -060, -090). 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.

3. Figure 4 provides Elevations of the facilities. Figure 5 provides site photos.

Much of the area surrounding the Project site is planned for development. Some of the surrounding properties are developed, while some are approved but not yet built, or pending approval. To the north of the Project site is Tactical Way, a 5.11 Factory Store/Warehouse, and an Amazon Fulfillment Center. To the south of the Project site is an existing approved, but not yet built, warehouse facility. To the east of the Project site is Airport Way and existing orchards that are planned for residential development. To the west of the Project site is an existing storm drainage basin, Intermodal Way, and planned industrial development.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project is a 360,000 square foot distribution building located within the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan. The building placement and site design is intended to provide significant landscape buffer from North Airport Way and allows only one auto vehicular access with no truck ingress and egress. All truck movement ingress & egress to the site is via Intermodal Way and Tactical Way with a long on- site private drive along the western side of the Project site.

This driveway provides generous stacking capabilities which eliminates the possibility of any Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 4
backup on to Tactical Way. There will be no through on-site circulation for truck traffic to reach Airport Way with the intent to restrict the truck access to Airport Way. Figure 6 illustrates the Truck ingress/egress.

The facility will operate as a distribution warehouse. The facility will be a 360,000-sf tilt up concrete building. The parking area is designed with 242 car parking stalls, and 93 trailer stalls.

The site plan shows 46 truck docks located on the western side of the building, which is not visible from Airport Way. The building use is broken into 355,000 sf for warehouse space, and 5,000 sf for office space. The footprint of the building covers 38.2% of the lot.

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.

More recently the City has proposed modifications to the circulation system within the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan area based on input from residents located east of Airport Way, and input provided from the City of Lathrop. The proposed modifications that the City is considering includes:
• Elimination of truck trips from using Lathrop Road or Airport Road to reduce truck traffic in residential areas.
• Eliminate unsignalized all way access on Airport Road (i.e. right-in-right out only at nonsignalized access points) • Modify Intermodal Way such that it does not connect to Lathrop Road. • Establish a STAA route from the southern terminus of Intermodal Way north to Roth Road.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 5
• Establish a STAA route on Roth Road to I-5.
• Concentrate all heavy truck trips on Intermodal Way and Roth Road While not yet approved, these modifications to the circulation system were developed by the Manteca Planning and Engineering Departments through coordination with the City of Lathrop and neighboring Manteca residents. These modifications alleviate the concerns for truck traffic driving through residential areas of Airport Way and Lathrop Road. These modifications are also intended to improve safety on Airport Way and Lathrop Road, and will eliminate diesel truck emissions from these more sensitive residential areas. These modifications are anticipated to provide benefits related to Air Quality concerns, as well as traffic concerns, if they are in fact approved by the City of Manteca. The proposed site plan is consistent with the proposed modifications to the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan.

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:

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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 6
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 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 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:
https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/CommunityDevelopment/Planning%20Division/Pages/Plannin g-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 Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 7
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.
• 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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 8
Environmental
Topic
Mitigation Measure Adopted by the City
• 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, CDFW 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.

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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 9
Environmental
Topic
Mitigation Measure Adopted by the City
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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 10
Environmental
Topic
Mitigation Measure Adopted by the City
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.

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
Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 11
Environmental
Topic
Mitigation Measure Adopted by the City
• 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). • 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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 12
Environmental
Topic
Mitigation Measure Adopted by the City
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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 13
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 7. 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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 14
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).

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 15
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 16
This page left intentionally blank.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 17
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 18
This page left intentionally blank.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 19
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 20
This page left intentionally blank.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 21
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 22
This page left intentionally blank.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 23
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 24
This page left intentionally blank.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 25
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 26
This page left intentionally blank.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 27
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 28
This page left intentionally blank.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 29

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
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 30

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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 31

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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 32

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. This Project site contains annual grassland and developed buildings associated with the agricultural operation, which is 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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 33
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 existing agricultural business operation. 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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 34
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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 35
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 includes land designated as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency (California Department of Conservation, 2018). The open pasture/annual grassland is the area designated as Prime Farmland, while the beef, sheep, goat, and poultry operations of Riella Farms is designated as Farmland of Local Importance.

The proposed project would result in the conversion of this designated Prime Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance to a non-agricultural use. The loss of this farmland was analyzed under the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR and determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and certified the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR with a significant and unavoidable conclusion under this environmental topic. The proposed project is consistent with the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan in terms of the loss of prime farmland and is subject to all mitigation measure and conditions associated with the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan.

The proposed project is subject to the City’s agricultural mitigation fee program and the SJMSCP.

The City’s agricultural mitigation fee program helps offset the conversion of Important Farmland by funding the acquisition of irrevocable instruments on active farmland (e.g., conservation easements or farmland deed restrictions), to ensure such land remains in agricultural use in perpetuity. The SJMSCP, while created more specifically for the protection of biological resources, functionally serves as compensation and mitigation for impacts to agricultural resources when agricultural land or easements are purchased and preserved for the benefit of wildlife. This occurs when SJMSCP fees are paid to SJCOG who uses the funds to preserve open space land of comparable types throughout the County, often coordinating with other private or Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 36
public land trusts to purchase conservation easements or buy land outright for preservation. This is more specifically addressed under the biological discussion later in this document.

Pursuant to Mitigation Measure AG-1 below, the project proponent would be required to pay the established fees on a per-acre basis for the loss of important farmland. Fees paid toward the City’s program shall be used to fund conservation easements on comparable or better agricultural lands to provide compensatory mitigation. Therefore, with implementation of the following mitigation measure the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant impact relative to this issue.

Mitigation Adopted by the City
Mitigation Measure 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.

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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 37
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
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 construction, and architectural coatings. Construction activities that could generate dust and Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 38
vehicle emissions are primarily related to grading, soil excavation, and other ground-preparation activities.

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 0.9357 10 N
NOx 2.9049 10 N
CO 3.5265 100 N
PM10 0.6160 15 N
PM2.5 0.2360 15 N
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. 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 unmitigated results of the operational-related emissions modeling results from CalEEMod.

Table AIR-2: Project Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions (tons/year) Emissions Type Proposed Project Emissions SJVAPCD Threshold Above Threshold in Proposed Project?
ROG 2.1223 10 N
NOx 3.6900 10 N
CO 6.0351 100 N
PM10 1.5530 15 N
PM2.5 0.4446 15 N
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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 39
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. • 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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 40
• 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 adjacent to the Project site (to the east), on the opposite side of Airport Way.

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 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. 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 emissions, and off-site mobile emissions up to 0.25 miles from the Project site, combined with Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 41
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 operational DPM would be approximately 4.62, and from construction DPM 1.581, for a total of 6.20, well below the SJVAPCD threshold of 10 that would require development of air toxics Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that includes air dispersion modeling. 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 139 AM peak hour trips and 129 PM peak hour trips (for all vehicles), 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. 1 It should be noted that construction-generated sources of DPM emissions would be greater than 100 meters from the nearest sensitive receptor, on average, as measures by Google Earth.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 42
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.

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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 43
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 Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 44
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 currently is home to Riella Farms, which is a small family-owned agricultural operation that specializes in procuring beef, sheep, goat, and poultry. The business offices and livestock pens are mostly located in the southeastern quadrant of the Project site. This area lacks any quality habitat. There is open pasture located in the southwestern quadrant. This area is characterized as annual grassland, which provides some foraging habitat for wildlife in the vicinity. A rural residence is located in the northeastern quadrant. This area is a mix of developed residential property, with various landscaping features typical of a rural residential property.

There is an open pasture and a hay barn located in the northwestern quadrant. The open pasture is characterized as annual grassland, similar to the annual grassland in the southwestern quadrant. The hay barn is a developed structure that separates the north and south pastures.

Overall, the Project site is generally flat, with an elevation range of approximately 22 to 25 feet above sea level.

Developed industrial land exists to the immediate north. Existing agricultural land exists to the west and south. A drainage basin exists to the immediate west.

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.

No special status species were identified by during the field survey. In addition, biological surveys that were conducted as part of the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR determined that no designated critical habitat occurs within the entire Master Plan area.

Figure 8 shows the results of the CNDDB background search within a 9-quad area of the project site (i.e. approximately 630 square miles). Table BIO-1 provides a list of special-status plants and animals that occur within a 9-quad radius of the project site.

TABLE BIO-1: SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE, FISH, AND PLANT SPECIES WHICH MAY OCCUR WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE’S 9-QUAD RADIUS

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA/

SJMSCP)

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

INVERTEBRATES
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
T/--/Yes
Central Valley, central and south Coast
Ranges from Tehama County to Santa
Barbara County. Isolated populations
also in Riverside County
Common in vernal pools; they are also found in
sandstone rock outcrop pools
Vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
E/--/Yes Shasta County south to Merced County Vernal pools and ephemeral stock ponds Sacramento anthicid
beetle Anthicus
sacramento
--/--/No
Found in several locations along the
Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, from
Shasta to San Joaquin counties, and at
one site along the Feather River
Sand dune area, sand slipfaces among bamboo
and willow, but may not depend on these plants.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 45

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA/

SJMSCP)

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
Desmocerus
californicus dimorphus
T/--/Yes Stream side habitats below 3,000 feet
throughout the Central Valley
Riparian and oak savanna habitats with
elderberry shrubs; elderberries are the host plant
Crotch bumble bee
Bombus crotchii --/C/-- California
Crotch's bumblebee inhabits grassland and scrub
areas, requiring a hotter and drier environment
than other bumblebee species, and can only
tolerate a very narrow range of climatic
conditions
Western bumble bee
Bombus occidentalis --/C/--
Historically broadly distributed in
western North America. Bombus
occidentalis occurs along the Pacific
coast and western interior of North
America, from Arizona, New Mexico and
California, north through the Pacific
Northwest and into Alaska
Rangewide, habitats for this species include open
coniferous, deciduous and mixed-wood forests,
wet and dry meadows, montane meadows and
prairie grasslands, meadows bordering riparian
zones, and along roadsides in taiga adjacent to
wooded areas, urban parks, gardens and
agricultural areas, subalpine habitats and more
isolated natural areas
Conservancy fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta
conservatio
E/--/Yes There are eight distributed populations
of Conservancy fairy shrimp
Conservancy fairy shrimp inhabit rather large,
cool-water vernal pools with moderately turbid
water. The pools generally last until June.

However, the shrimp are gone long before then.

They have been collected from early November
to early April
Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella E/E/--
The California fairy shrimp is currently
known from the Central Valley and Coast
ranges of California
The California fairy shrimp has been documented
on most land forms, geologic formations, and soil
types supporting vernal pools in
California
Lytta moesta
Moestan blister beetle --/--/Yes
These beetles are found in the Central
Valley from Contra Costa County in the
north to Tulare and Kern counties in the
south
Information on this species is sparse, but some
beetles were collected on filaree.

AMPHIBIANS
California tiger
salamander
Ambystoma
californiense (A.
tigrinum c.)
T/SSC/Yes
Central Valley, including Sierra Nevada
foothills, up to approximately 1,000 feet,
and coastal region from Butte County
south to northeastern San Luis Obispo
County
Small ponds, lakes, or vernal pools in grass-lands
and oak woodlands for larvae; rodent burrows,
rock crevices, or fallen logs for cover for adults
and for summer dormancy
California red-legged
frog
Rana aurora draytoni
T/SSC/Yes
Found along the coast and coastal
mountain ranges of California from Marin
County to San Diego County and in the
Sierra Nevada from Tehama County to
Fresno County
Permanent and semi-permanent aquatic habitats,
such as creeks and cold-water ponds, with
emergent and submergent vegetation. May
estivate in rodent burrows or cracks during dry
periods
Foothill yellow-legged
frog
Rana boylii
--/C/Yes
These frogs occupy the western Sierra
Nevada north of the Monarch Divide (in
Fresno County) and the eastern slope of
the Sierra Nevada (east of the crest) from
Inyo County, through Mono County
(including the Glass Mountains), to areas
north of Lake Tahoe
Typical habitat includes lakes, ponds, marshes,
meadows, and streams at high elevations—
typically ranging from about 4,500 to 12,000 feet,
but can occur as low as about 3,500 feet in the
northern portions of their range
Western spadefoot
Spea hammondii --/--/--
Ranges throughout the central valley of
California as well as the coast south of
San Jose and some parts of the desert.

Grassland, scrub and chaparral locally but can
occur in oak woodlands.

BIRDS
Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia

BCC/SSC/
Yes
Lowlands throughout California,
including the Central Valley,
northeastern plateau, southeastern
deserts, and coastal areas. Rare along
south coast
Level, open, dry, heavily grazed or low stature
grassland or desert vegetation with available
burrows
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 46

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA/

SJMSCP)

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
Cackling (=Aleutian
Canada) goose
Branta hutchinsii
leucopareia
D/--/No This species is native to North America. It breeds in northern Canada and Alaska in a variety of tundra habitats.

California black rail
Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus
BCC/T/Yes
Permanent resident in the San Francisco
Bay and east-ward through the Delta into
Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties;
small populations in Marin, Santa Cruz,
San Luis Obispo, Orange, Riverside, and
Imperial Counties
Tidal salt marshes associated with heavy growth
of pickleweed; also occurs in brackish marshes or
freshwater marshes at low elevations
California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris
actia
--/--/Yes
Resident in northern Baja California
(south to about 30 degrees N latitude)
and northward through California in the
coast range north to Humboldt County
and in the San Joaquin Valley, except the
extreme southern end
Much habitat has been lost or degraded by
agricultural development
Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus

BCC/SSC/
Yes
Resident and winter visitor in lowlands
and foothills throughout California. Rare
on coastal slope north of Mendocino
County, occurring only in winter
Prefers open habitats with scattered shrubs,
trees, posts, fences, utility lines, or other perches
Song sparrow
(Modesto Population)
Melospiza melodia

BCC/SSC/
Yes
Restricted to California, where it is locally
numerous in the Sacramento Valley,
Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, and
northern San Joaquin Valley. Exact
boundaries of range uncertain.

Found in emergent freshwater marshes
dominated by tules (Scirpus spp.) and cattails
(Typha spp.) as well as riparian willow (Salix spp.)
thickets. They also nest in riparian forests of
Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) with a sufficient
understory of blackberry (Rubus spp.), along
vegetated irrigation canals and levees, and in
recently planted Valley Oak restoration sites.

Swainson’s hawk
Buteo swainsoni BCC/T/Yes
Lower Sacramento and San Joaquin
Valleys, the Klamath Basin, and Butte
Valley. Highest nesting densities occur
near Davis and Woodland, Yolo County
Nests in oaks or cottonwoods in or near riparian
habitats. Forages in grasslands, irrigated
pastures, and grain fields
Merlin
Falco columbarius --/--/Yes
Does not nest in California. Rare but
widespread winter visitor to the Central
Valley and coastal areas
Forages along coastline in open grasslands,
savannas, and woodlands. Often forages near
lakes and other wetlands
Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
BCC/C
(SSC)/Yes
Permanent resident in the Central Valley
from Butte County to Kern County.

Breeds at scattered coastal locations
from Marin County south to San Diego
County; and at scattered locations in
Lake, Sonoma, and Solano Counties. Rare
nester in Siskiyou, Modoc, and Lassen
Counties
Nests in dense colonies in emergent marsh
vegetation, such as tules and cattails, or upland
sites with blackberries, nettles, thistles, and
grainfields. Habitat must be large enough to
support 50 pairs. Probably requires water at or
near the nesting colony
Watershield
Brasenia schreberi --/--/No
It is widespread in North America, and is
found in South and Central America, the
West Indies, eastern Asia, Africa, and
eastern Australia
Lacustrine (in lakes or ponds), riverine (in rivers
or streams)
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
T
(BCC)/E/Y
es
Nests along the upper Sacramento, lower
Feather, south fork of the Kern,
Amargosa, Santa Ana, and Colorado
Rivers
Wide, dense riparian forests with a thick
understory of willows for nesting; sites with a
dominant cottonwood overstory are preferred
for foraging; may avoid valley oak riparian
habitats where scrub jays are abundant
White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
Open or cleared agricultural or range
lands, natural shrublands and grasslands,
lightly wooded areas
They can be found in the Central Valley and
southern coastal areas, open land around Goleta
including the Ellwood Mesa Open Space, marshes
in Humboldt County, and also around the San
Francisco Bay
Yellow-headed
blackbird
Xanthocephalus
--/SSC/Yes
Nests in freshwater emergent wetlands
with dense vegetation and deep water.

Often along borders of lakes or ponds.

Nests only where large insects such as odonatan
are abundant, nesting timed with maximum
emergence of aquatic insects.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 47

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA/

SJMSCP)

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
Least Bell's vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus E/E/No San Joaquin River refuge Dense shrubs and small trees along rivers and streams.

FISH
Delta smelt
Hypomesus
transpacificus
T/T/Yes
Primarily in the Sacramento–San Joaquin
Estuary but has been found as far
upstream as the mouth of the American
River on the Sacramento River and
Mossdale on the San Joaquin River; range
extends downstream to San Pablo Bay
Occurs in estuary habitat in the Delta where fresh
and brackish water mix in the salinity range of 2–
7 parts per thousand
Hardhead
Mylopharodon
conocephalus
--/SSC/No
Tributary streams in the San Joaquin
drainage; large tributary streams in the
Sacramento River and the main stem
Resides in low to mid-elevation streams and
prefer clear, deep pools and runs with slow
velocities. They also occur in reservoirs
Central Valley
steelhead
Oncorhynchus mykiss
T/--/No Sacramento River and tributary Central
Valley rivers.

Occurs in well-oxygenated, cool, riverine habitat
with water temperatures from 7.8°C to 18°C.

Habitat types are riffles, runs, and pools.

Longfin smelt
Spirinchus thaleichthys --/SSC/Yes
Occurs in estuaries along the California
coast. Adults concentrated in Suisun, San
Pablo, and North San Francisco Bays
Prior to spawning, these fish aggregate in
deepwater habitats available in the northern
Delta, including, primarily, the channel habitats
of Suisun Bay and the Sacramento River.

Spawning occurs in fresh water on the San
Joaquin River below Medford Island and on the
Sacramento River below Rio Vista

MAMMALS
Riparian brush rabbit
Sylvilagus bachmani
riparius
E/E/Yes
Limited to San Joaquin County at Caswell
State Park near the confluence of the
Stanislaus and San Joaquin Rivers and
Paradise Cut area on Union Pacific rightof-way lands
Native valley riparian habitats with large clumps
of dense shrubs, low-growing vines, and some tall
shrubs and trees
American badger
Taxidea taxus --/SSC/Yes
In California, badgers occur throughout
the state except in humid coastal forests
of northwestern California in Del Norte
and Humboldt Counties
Badgers occur in a wide variety of open, arid
habitats but are most commonly associated with
grasslands, savannas, mountain meadows, and
open areas of desert scrub; the principal habitat
requirements for the species appear to be
sufficient food (burrowing rodents), friable soils,
and relatively open, uncultivated ground
San Joaquin kit fox
Vulpes macrotis
mutica
E/T/Yes
Principally occurs in the San Joaquin
Valley and adjacent open foothills to the
west; recent records from 17 counties
extending from Kern County north to
Contra Costa County
Saltbush scrub, grassland, oak, savanna, and
freshwater scrub
Pallid Bat
Antrozous pallidus --/--/No
Pallid bats range from southern British
Columbia through Montana to central
Mexico.

Pallid bats roost in a variety of places but favor
rocky outcrops. They also occur in oak and pine
forested areas and open farmland. Roosting sites
are variable, depending on what is available. They
can be found roosting in caves, rock crevices,
mines, hollow trees, and buildings
San Joaquin Pocket
Mouse
Perognathus inornatus
--/--/Yes Primarily Central Valley in California Savanna, Grassland, Desert

REPTILES
California glossy snake
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
--/--/No
Glossy snakes are most common in
desert habitats but also
occur in chaparral, sagebrush, valleyfoothill hardwood, pine-juniper, and annual grass.

Primarily nocturnal, glossy snakes spend periods
of inactivity during the day and
during winter in mammal burrows and rock
outcrops, and to a lesser extent under surface
objects such as flat rocks and vegetation residue.

Individuals occasionally burrow in loose
soil.

Townsend's big-eared
bat
Corynorhinus
townsendii
--/--/Yes
A broad range in western North America,
from southern Canada to southern
Mexico.

Oak-hickory forests
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 48

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA/

SJMSCP)

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
Western pond turtle
Emys marmorata --/--/No
Western pond turtles (also known as
Pacific pond turtles and Pacific mud
turtles) are native to the west coast and
are found from Baja California, Mexico
north through Klickitat County,
Washington.

Western pond turtles use both aquatic and
terrestrial habitats. They are found in rivers,
lakes, streams, ponds, wetlands, vernal pools,
ephemeral creeks, reservoirs, agricultural ditches,
estuaries, and brackish waters.

Western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis
californicus
--/--/Yes
North America: arid and semiarid, rocky
canyon country habitats
Woodland - Mixed, Cliff, Shrubland/chaparral,
Suburban/orchard, Woodland - Conifer, Bare
rock/talus/scree, Savanna, Woodland -
Hardwood, Desert, Grassland/herbaceous
San Joaquin
coachwhip
Masticophis flagellum
ruddocki
--/--/Yes
In the United States, their range extends
as far west as the San Francisco Bay and
as far east as the Coastal Plain of North
Carolina.

Coachwhip snakes inhabit sites that are dry, open
terrain. The species can be found in deserts,
prairies, scrublands, juniper-grasslands,
woodlands, thorn-forests, farmlands, creek
valleys, chaparral, and, occasionally, swamplands.

Coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii --/--/No This lizard ranges throughout most of west-central and southwestern California This lizard occurs in a variety of habitats,
including scrubland, grassland, coniferous woods,
and broadleaf woodlands
Giant gartersnake
Thamnophis gigas T/T/Yes
Historically the range included much of
the floor of the Central Valley
(Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys) of
California, from Butte County in the
north to Kern County in the south, at
elevations from near sea level to 122
meters
Habitat of this highly aquatic species includes
primarily marshes and sloughs, sometimes lowgradient streams, ponds, and small lakes, with cattails, bulrushes, willows, or other emergent or
water-edge vegetation usually present and used
for basking and cover
PLANTS
Large-flowered
fiddleneck
Amsinckia grandiflora
E/E/Yes
Has a historic range along the Inner Coast
Range in Alameda, Contra Costa, and
San Joaquin counties.

In its natural occurrences, large-flowered
fiddleneck occupies north-facing slopes in the
upper elevations of grasslands near the blue oak
belt. Soil type, livestock grazing and air quality
have been suggested as limiting habitat features.

Heartscale
Atriplex cordulata var.
cordulata
--/--/No California Chenopod scrub; Meadows and seeps; Valley and foothill grassland (sandy)
Less saltscale
Atriplex minuscula --/--/No Central Valley; San Jose region Chenopod scrub; Playas; Valley and foothill grassland Big tarplant
Blepharizonia plumosa --/--/No Northern California Valley and foothill grassland Bristly Sedge
Carex comosa --/--/Yes Various locations throughout Northern California Coastal prairie; Marshes and swamps (lake
margins); Valley and foothill grassland
Palmate-bracted
bird's-beak
Chloropyron
palmatum
E/E/No Central and Northern California Chenopod scrub; Valley and foothill grassland Slough thistle
Cirsium crassicaule --/--/Yes Southern Central Valley, California Chenopod scrub; Marshes and swamps (sloughs); Riparian scrub Recurved larkspur
Delphinium
recurvatum
--/--/Yes Dispersed throughout California Chenopod scrub; Cismontane woodland; Valley and foothill grassland
Delta button-celery
Eryngium racemosum --/E/Yes Central Valley, California Riparian scrub (vernally mesic clay depressions) Diamond-petaled
California poppy
Eschscholzia
rhombipetala
--/--/Yes Dispersed throughout California Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline, clay) San Joaquin
spearscale
Extriplex joaquinana
--/--/--
Dispersed throughout Northern and
Central California
Chenopod scrub; Meadows and seeps; Playas;
Valley and foothill grassland
Woolly rose-mallow
Hibiscus lasiocarpos
var. occidentalis
--/--/-- Northern Central Valley, California Marshes and swamps (freshwater) Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 49

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA/

SJMSCP)

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
Delta tule pea
Lathyrus jepsonii var.
jepsonii
--/--/Yes Northern California Marshes and swamps (freshwater and brackish) Mason's lilaeopsis
Lilaeopsis masonii --/R/Yes Northern California Marshes and swamps (brackish or freshwater); Riparian scrub Showy golden madia
Madia radiata --/--/Yes Dispersed throughout southern and central California Cismontane woodland; Valley and foothill
grassland
Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii --/--/Yes Dispersed throughout California Marshes and swamps (assorted shallow
freshwater)
Suisun Marsh aster
Symphyotrichum
lentum
--/--/-- Northern California Marshes and swamps (brackish and freshwater) Wright's trichocoronis
Trichocoronis wrightii
var. wrightii
T/T/Yes San Bernardino Meadows and seeps; Marshes and swamps; Riparian forest; Vernal pools
Saline clover
Trifolium hydrophilum --/--/-- Dispersed throughout northern California Marshes and swamps; Valley and foothill grassland (mesic, alkaline); Vernal pools Caper-fruited
tropidocarpum
Tropidocarpum
capparideum
--/--/Yes Dispersed throughout central and
southern California
Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline hills)
STATUS EXPLANATIONS:

FEDERAL
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

PE = PROPOSED FOR ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

PT = PROPOSED FOR THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

C = CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR LISTING UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

D = DELISTED FROM FEDERAL LISTING STATUS.

BCC = BIRD OF CONSERVATION CONCERN
STATE
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

C = CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR LISTING UNDER THE STATE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

FP = FULLY PROTECTED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE.

SSC = SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN IN CALIFORNIA.

Special Status Plant Species
There are twenty special status plants that are documented within a 9-quad radius of the project site, according to the CNDDB. Of the twenty species, there are three federal listed species and five state listed species. None of these plants were observed during field surveys.

Special Status Wildlife Species
Invertebrates: There are nine special-status invertebrates that are documented within a 9-quad radius of the project site according to the CNDDB. Habitat for special status invertebrates known in the region would include vernal pool, sand dunes, riparian, wooded/forested, meadows, or another undisturbed natural habitat, none of which were identified in the field survey. In addition, biological surveys that were conducted as part of the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR determined that none of these habitat conditions occur within the entire Master Plan area. The appropriate habitat for these species is not present, field surveys have not revealed presence, and database records do not show any recorded occurrences; therefore, these specialstatus invertebrates are expected to be affected by the proposed project.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 50
Reptile and amphibian species: There are four special-status amphibian that are documented within a 9-quad radius of the project site according to the CNDDB. There are also seven specialstatus amphibians that are documented within a 9-quad radius of the project site according to the CNDDB. Habitat for special status reptiles and amphibians known in the region would include ponds, lakes, vernal pool, marshes, meadows, scrub, chaparral, oak woodlands, forests, or another undisturbed natural habitat, none of which were identified in the field survey. In addition, biological surveys that were conducted as part of the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR determined that none of these habitat conditions occur within the entire Master Plan area. The appropriate habitat for these species is not present, field surveys have not revealed presence, and database records do not show any recorded occurrences; therefore, these specialstatus reptiles or amphibians are expected to be affected by the proposed project.

Birds: There are fourteen special-status birds that are documented in the CNDDB within a 9- quad radius of the project site.

Analysis: While the project site contains very limited nesting habitat, there are powerlines and trees located in the region that represent potentially suitable nesting habitat for a variety of special-status birds. Additionally, the disturbed land located on the project site represents potentially suitable nesting habitat for the ground-nesting birds where disturbance is less frequent. In general, most nesting occurs from late February and early March through late July and early August, depending on various environmental conditions. The CNDDB currently contains nesting records for Swainson's hawk and burrowing owl in the vicinity of the project site. In addition to the species described above, common raptors may nest in or adjacent to the project site.

The proposed project would eliminate some of the former agricultural areas on the project site, which serve as potential foraging habitat for birds throughout the year. Mitigation Measure BIO1a requires pre-construction surveys if ground clearing or vegetation removal activities occur during the nesting season (February 15 through August 31). If an active nest is located, a 250- foot buffer would be delineated and maintained around the nest until a qualified biologist has determined that fledging has occurred. Alternatively, CDFW can be consulted to determine if the protective buffer can be reduced based upon individual species responses to disturbance.

Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-1b requires that a pre-construction survey is conducted for burrowing owls by a qualified biologist in general accordance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 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. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1a and Mitigation Measure BIO-1b, the proposed project would fully mitigate all habitat impacts on covered special-status species.

Mammal: There are five special-status mammals that are documented within the 9-quad radius of the project site include. Habitat for special status mammals known in the region would include riparian, scrub, oak woodlands, forests, grasslands, desert, savanna, caves, or another undisturbed natural habitat, none of which were identified in the field survey. In addition, biological surveys that were conducted as part of the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR determined that none of these habitat conditions occur within the entire Master Plan area. The appropriate habitat for these species is not present, field surveys have not revealed presence, and database records do not show any recorded occurrences; therefore, these special-status mammals are expected to be affected by the proposed project.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 51
Conclusion: 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 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.

Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and BIO-1b, the proposed project would have a less than significant 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, CDFW 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 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 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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 52
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 listed below:

Conservation Element Policies
RC-P-31. Minimize impact of new development on native vegetation and wildlife. o Consistent: This Initial Study includes an in-depth analysis of impacts for sensitive plants and wildlife, as well as habitat. Where impacts are identified, mitigation measures are presented to minimize, avoid, or compensate to the extent practicable.

RC-P-33. Discourage the premature removal of orchard trees in advance of development, and discourage the removal of other existing healthy mature trees, both native and introduced. o Consistent: The proposed project will not require the removal of orchard trees.

RC-P-34. Protect special status species and other species that are sensitive to human activities. o Consistent: This Initial Study includes an in-depth analysis of impacts for sensitive plants and wildlife, as well as habitat. Where impacts are identified, mitigation measures are presented to minimize, avoid, or compensate to the extent practicable.

RC-P-35. Allow contiguous habitat areas.
o Consistent: Habitat areas in the vicinity of the project site include annual grasslands and agricultural plant communities which provide habitat for a variety of biological resources in the region. These areas occur throughout the region and are generally flat and well drained, and as a result are well suited for many crops. Alfalfa fields, hay, row crops, orchards, dominate the agricultural areas in the vicinity. The proposed project does not require contiguous habitat areas to change or convert to another use.

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. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact relative to this topic.

Response f): The proposed project is subject to the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). The SJMSCP is administered by a Joint Powers Authority consisting of members of the SJCOG, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). According to the SJMSCP, Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 53
adoption and implementation by local planning jurisdictions provides full compensation and mitigation for impacts to plants, fish and wildlife. Adoption and implementation of the SJMSCP also secures compliance pursuant to the state and federal laws such as CEQA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Planning and Zoning Law, the State Subdivision Map Act, the Porter-Cologne Act and the Cortese-Knox Act in regard to species covered under the SJMSCP.

Applicants pay mitigation fees on a per-acre basis. The entire County is mapped according to these categories so that landowners, project proponents and project reviewers are easily aware of the applicable SJMSCP fees for the proposed development. The appropriate fees are collected by the City and remitted to SJCOG for administration. SJCOG uses the funds to preserve open space land of comparable types throughout the County, often coordinating with other private or public land trusts to purchase conservation easements or buy land outright for preservation. The fees are automatically adjusted on an annual basis. The fees have been designed to sufficiently mitigation the impacts of projects on candidate, sensitive, and special status species. In addition, additional field surveying is required as part of the SJMSCP process prior to any construction activities.

Table BIO-2, below, provides a consistency analysis with the criteria set forth by the SJMSCP. As shown in the table, the proposed Master Plan is consistent with applicable criteria.

TABLE BIO-2: SJMSCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
NO. CRITERION CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
1 Coverage for the proposed project is
consistent with the overall SJMSCP biological
intent and conservation program.

Consistent: The Master Plan area is mapped as “Agriculture” by the SJMSCP.

The plan contemplates the conversion of 1,899 acres of agricultural land in Manteca to urban use over the 50-year life of the plan. The City of Manteca General Plan contemplates urban development within the Master Plan area; therefore, the conversion of this area from agricultural to urban use is accounted for in the SJMSCP. The SJMSCP requires payment of fees to permanently preserve agricultural land elsewhere in San Joaquin County at a ratio of 1:1. This requirement is codified in Mitigation Measure BIO-6.

Therefore, the proposed Master Plan is consistent with the overall SJMSCP biological intent and conservation program.
2 Coverage for the proposed project is
consistent with the SJMSCP Biological
Opinion.

Consistent: The SJMSCP Biological Opinion reflects the activities covered by the SJMSCP. Because the conversion of the Master Plan area from agricultural to urban use is accounted for in the SJMSCP, the Biological Opinion would reflect this activity. Furthermore, mitigation is required for all development activities that adversely affect special-status species and waterways, which is consistent with the SJMSCP. Therefore, the proposed Master Plan is consistent with the SJMSCP Biological Opinion. 3 Biological impacts and Incidental Take
associated with the proposed project are
within the scope of the environmental
analyses adopted in conjunction with the
SJMSCP.

Consistent: The Master Plan area is mapped as “Agriculture” by the SJMSCP.

The plan contemplates the conversion of 1,899 acres of agricultural land in Manteca to urban use over the 50-year life of the plan. The City of Manteca General Plan contemplates urban development within the Master Plan area; therefore, the conversion of this area from agricultural to urban use is accounted for in the SJMSCP. As such, the proposed Master Plan’s biological impacts are within the scope of the SJMSCP environmental analyses. 4 The project does not introduce significant
new biological conditions into the Plan area
(i.e., impacts of the proposed project are
less than or equal to those described in the
SJMSCP and its supporting environmental
documents).

Consistent: The Master Plan area is mapped as “Agriculture” by the SJMSCP.

The plan contemplates the conversion of 1,899 acres of agricultural land in Manteca to urban use over the 50-year life of the plan. The City of Manteca General Plan contemplates urban development within the Master Plan area; therefore, the conversion of this area from agricultural to urban use is accounted for in the SJMSCP. As such, the proposed Master Plan would not introduce significant new biological conditions into the SJMSCP boundaries. 5 The project acres have been analyzed based
on habitat type (e.g., Natural Land,
Agricultural Habitat Land or Multi-Purpose
project are less than or equal to those
described in the SJMSCP and its supporting
environmental documents).

Consistent: The Master Plan area is mapped as “Agriculture” by the SJMSCP.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 54
NO. CRITERION CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
6 The project meets at least one of the
following criteria:
• The project is adjacent to existing
city limits; or
• The project is adjacent to the
boundaries of defined
communities; or
• The project is adjacent to existing
airport facilities, or
• The project is within an area
designated as Freeway Service
Commercial, or
• The project is an expansion of an
existing industrial or urbanized
area in the unincorporated
county, or
• The project is proposed for
annexation to a jurisdiction.

Consistent: The Master Plan meets three of the listed criteria:

1. The Master Plan area is adjacent to the Manteca city limits.

2. The Master Plan would develop light industrial uses that would interface with the existing Union Pacific Railroad Lathrop Intermodal Terminal, which is located in unincorporated San Joaquin County. As such, it would represent an expansion of existing industrial or urbanized area in the unincorporated county.

3. The Master Plan area is proposed for annexation into the City of Manteca. 7 The project is not one of the projects
specifically exempted from SJMSCP
Coverage as identified in SJMSCP Section

8.2.2. Consistent: The Master Plan is not one of the projects specifically exempted from SJMSCP Coverage as identified in SJMSCP Section 8.2.2. 8 The project does not disrupt a corridor used
by the giant garter snake, riparian brush
rabbit, riparian woodrat, the San Joaquin kit
fox, or fisheries as identified in the SJMSCP.

Consistent: As indicated in Impact BIO-4, the Master Plan area is not suitable for use as a wildlife movement corridor by the giant garter snake, riparian brush rabbit, riparian woodrat, the San Joaquin kit fox, or any fish species. 9 The project does not interfere with the San
Joaquin River Wildlife Corridor as
established in Section 5.5.2.3.

Consistent: The Master Plan area is located more than 2.5 miles from the San Joaquin River Wildlife Corridor. Intervening urban development and infrastructure exists between the Master Plan area and the San Joaquin River.

As such, the development of the Master Plan would not interfere with the San Joaquin River Wildlife Corridor.
10 The project does not include installation of a
linear barrier to species dispersal as defined
in Section 5.5.8.

Consistent: The Master Plan does not propose any transportation improvements that would create a linear barrier to species dispersal (e.g., median barrier installation or freeway widening).
11 The Technical Advisory Committee may
consider and make additional findings for an
individual project to determine if SJMSCP
coverage for a project in this category is
consistent with the overall biological intent
of the SJMSCP and is consistent with the
Biological Opinion.

Consistent: The Master Plan does not contain any provisions that would preclude the Technical Advisory Committee from considering and making additional findings.

The proposed project does not conflict with the SJMSCP, as Mitigation Measure BIO-2 below requires participation in the plan. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Mitigation Adopted by the City
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: 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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 55
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 56
This page left intentionally blank.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 57
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 Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 58
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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 59
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 1,887,908 kWh/year, and annual natural gas usage at 2,280,500 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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 60
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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 61
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): 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 the west. Other faults that could potentially affect the proposed project include the Corral HollowCarnegie fault, the Greenville fault, the Antioch fault, and the Los Positas fault.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 62
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 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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 63
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. 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 (within the eastern portion of the project site), and Tinnin loamy course sand (within the western portions of the project site).

Future development of the project could expose people or structures to adverse effects associated with liquefaction and/or soil expansion. Construction of the 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 seismic-induced 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): According to the project site plans prepared for the proposed project, development of the proposed project would result in the creation of new impervious surface areas throughout the project site. The development of the project site would also cause ground disturbance of top soil. The ground disturbance would be limited to the areas proposed for grading and excavation, including the proposed internal roadways and drain infrastructure improvements. After grading and excavation, and prior to overlaying the disturbed ground surfaces with impervious surfaces and structures, the potential exists for wind and water erosion to occur, which could adversely affect downstream storm drainage facilities.

Without implementation of appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to prevention of soil erosion during construction, development of the project would 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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 64
Mitigation Adopted by the City
Implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1.

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): Known paleontological resources or sites are not located on the project site.

Additionally, unique geologic features are not located on the site. The site is currently undeveloped and surrounded by existing or future urban development. Additionally, as discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, 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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 65
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).

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 66
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 Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 67
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, 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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 68
Table GHG-1: Project Mitigated Construction and Operational GHG Emissions (metric tons/year) Year CO2e
Construction
2022 253.6
2023 1,009.4
2024 491.4
Operation
Annual 2,830.5
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.

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. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 requires the proposed Project to be consistent with CAP measure ENB-1, as provided below. It should be noted that, for the sake of a conservative analysis, and due to uncertainty of implementation, this mitigation measure not modeled within CalEEMod.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 69
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Prior to Project occupancy, the Project applicant shall ensure that the proposed Project building energy efficiency exceeds the current version of the Title 24 energy efficiency standards by at least 10%, as feasible. If the proposed Project cannot meet this reduction level, the Project applicant shall provide on-site solar photovoltaic (PV) or other non-building lighting or water savings equivalent to at least a 10% improvement in overall proposed Project energy efficiency savings, as feasible.

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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 70
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 Northwest Airport Way Master Plan area has previously been identified as having past and present uses that could potentially result in the exposure of persons and environment to hazardous materials. These issues potentially include soil impacts from hazardous materials storage vessels, agricultural chemicals, and septic systems. The project site could also potentially result in the exposure of persons and environment to hazardous materials from some or all of these sources. 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.

The Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR requires as mitigation that limited soil sampling is to be conducted to delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of the total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPH-D) present in the soils near the deep soil sample location. The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a, which would ensure that proper soil sampling would occur at the project site, as well as Mitigation Measure HAZ-1b, which would ensure that any onsite wells or septic systems intended to be removed shall Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 71
be destroyed under permit and inspection with San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department (as applicable).

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
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.

Conclusion
The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1a and HAZ-1b, which would ensure that the potential for the proposed project to create a significant hazard to the public or environment due to release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

The proposed project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1. Overall, with implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to these issues.

Mitigation Adopted by the City
Implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a: Prior to grading activities, the applicant shall conduct soil sampling in the livestock holding areas, and 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.

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

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 1.42 miles to the Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 72
southeast of the Project site, at its closest point. East Union High School, located east of the Project site, is also approximately 1.60 miles from the Project site. Joseph Widmer Elementary, located west of the Project site, is also approximately 1.20 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): 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 miles to the west 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 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 3.4 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).

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 73
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 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 Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 74
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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 75
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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 76
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 Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 77
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 Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 78
• 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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 79
Response c.iv), d): The southwestern corner 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.

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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 80
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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 81
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 82
This page left intentionally blank.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 83
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.

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. Therefore, impacts to land use compatibility would be less than significant.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 84
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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 85
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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 86
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
Dishwasher in Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime --40--
Theater, Large Conference 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 Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 87
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 and Surrounding Land Uses
• North: Existing commercial uses border the northern boundary. • East: South Airport Way and existing single family residential uses are located east of the project site.
• South: Existing farmland and commercial uses border the southern boundary of the overall project site.
• West: Commercial uses border the western boundary of the overall project site.

Existing General Ambient Noise Levels
To quantify the existing ambient noise environment in the Project Vicinity, a continuous (24- hour) noise level measurement was conducted on the project site on May 12th, 2022. The noise measurement location is shown on Figure 3.10-1 in the Noise Study (Appendix C). The noise level measurement survey results are provided in Table Noise-2. Appendix B of Appendix F shows the complete results of the noise monitoring survey.

The sound level meter was programmed to collect hourly noise level intervals at each site during the survey. The maximum value (Lmax) represents the highest noise level measured during an interval. The average value (Leq) represents the energy average of all of the noise measured during an interval. The median value (L50) represents the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during an interval.

The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the American National Standards Institute for Type 1 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4).

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 88
TABLE NOISE-1: SUMMARY OF EXISTING BACKGROUND NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA

SITE LOCATION DATE/TIME LDN

AVERAGE MEASURED HOURLY NOISE LEVELS, DB
DAYTIME (7AM-10PM) NIGHTTIME (10PM-7AM)
LEQ L50 LMAX LEQ L50 LMAX
Continuous (24-hour) Noise Level Measurements
LT-1
Eastern side of
project site, 160
feet to Airport
Way Centerline
5/12/2022 67 62 58 79 60 54 79
SOURCE: SAXELBY ACOUSTICS, 2022.

Existing and Future Traffic Noise Environment at Sensitive Receptors Off-Site Traffic Noise Impact Assessment Methodology
To predict existing and cumulative noise levels due to traffic, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used. The model is based upon the Calveno reference noise emission factors for automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free-flowing traffic conditions.

Traffic noise analysis was conducted for roadways which would affect sensitive receptors within the project area as well as receptors which lie outside of the overall project site. Traffic noise level changes are presented by roadway rather than by planning boundary.

Traffic volumes for existing conditions were obtained from the traffic data prepared for the project (Fehr & Peers, 2022). Truck percentages and vehicle speeds on the local area roadways were estimated from field observations.

Traffic noise levels are predicted at the sensitive receptors located at the closest typical setback distance along each project-area roadway segment. Where traffic noise barriers are predominately along a roadway segment, a -5 offset was added to the noise prediction model to account for various noise barrier heights. A -5 to dB offset was also applied where outdoor activity areas are shielded by intervening buildings. In some locations, sensitive receptors may be located at distances which vary from the assumed calculation distance and may experience shielding from intervening barriers or sound walls. However, the traffic noise analysis is believed to be representative of the majority of sensitive receptors located closest to the project-area roadway segments analyzed in this report.

Table Noise-3 shows the existing traffic noise levels in terms of Ldn at closest sensitive receptors along each roadway segment. A complete listing of the FHWA Model input data is contained in Appendix C of Appendix F.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 89
TABLE NOISE-2: EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS

ROADWAY SEGMENT

EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL,
DB LDN
Roth Road Between Intermodal and Airport Way 51.9
Roth Road Between Intermodal and McKinley Ave 66.0
Roth Road Between McKinley Ave. and Harlan Road 50.3
Roth Road Between Harlan Rd. and NB I-5 Off/OnRamps 54.3 Roth Road Between NB I-5 Off/On Ramps and SB I-5
Off/On Ramps 54.0
Airport Way French Camp Road and Roth Road 64.9
Airport Way Roth Road and Lovelace Road 61.4
Airport Way Lovelace Rd. and Daisywood Dr. 64.2
Airport Way Daisywood Dr. and Pinnacle Dr. 61.1
Airport Way Pinnacle Dr. and Lathrop Rd. 67.5
Airport Way Lathrop Rd. and Northgate Dr. 67.4
Airport Way Northgate Dr. and Louise Ave. 66.5
Airport Way Louise Ave. and Crom Ave. 65.2
Airport Way Crom Ave. and Yosemite Ave. 68.7
Lathrop Road Union Rd. and Airport Way 70.8
Lathrop Road Airport Way and McKinley Ave. 51.3
Lathrop Road McKinley Ave. and 5th Street 68.7
Lathrop Road 5th Street and Harlan Rd. 67.6
Lathrop Road Harlan Rd. and NB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 55.9
Lathrop Road Between NB I-5 Off/On Ramps and SB I-5
Off/On Ramps 49.5
Spartan Way SB I-5 Off/On Ramps and Golden Valley
Parkway 34.2
Intermodal Way Roth Road and 5.11 Tactical Building 31.9 Intermodal Way 5.11 Tactical Building and Tactical Way 29.9 SOURCE: FHWA-RD-77-108 WITH INPUTS FROM FEHR & PEERS AND SAXELBY ACOUSTICS. 2022.

Predicted Exterior Traffic Noise Levels
Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in ADT volumes on the local roadway network, and consequently, an increase in noise levels from traffic sources along affected segments. Tables Noise-4 and Noise-5 show the predicted traffic noise level increases on the local roadway network for Existing, Existing + Project, Cumulative No Project, and Cumulative + Project conditions. Appendix C of Appendix F provides the complete inputs and results of the FHWA traffic noise modeling.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 90
TABLE NOISE-3: EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS

ROADWAY SEGMENT

NOISE LEVELS (LDN, DB) AT NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

EXISTING
EXISTING +

PROJECT
CHANGE
EX. GP CRITERIA1

SIGNIFICANT UNDER
EX. GP?

PROPOSED GP
CRITERIA2

SIGNIFICANT UNDER
GP UPDATE?
Roth Road Between Intermodal and
Airport Way 51.9 51.9 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Roth Road Between Intermodal and
McKinley Ave 66.0 66.1 0.1
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Roth Road Between McKinley Ave.
and Harlan Road 50.3 50.4 0.1
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Roth Road Between Harlan Rd. and
NB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 54.3 54.4 0.1
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Roth Road
Between NB I-5 Off/On
Ramps and SB I-5 Off/On
Ramps

54.0 54.1 0.1
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Airport Way French Camp Road and
Roth Road 64.9 65.0 0.1
+5-10 dBA No
+3 dBA No
Airport Way Roth Road and Lovelace
Road 61.4 61.5 0.1
+5-10 dBA No
+3 dBA No
Airport Way Lovelace Rd. and
Daisywood Dr. 64.2 64.3 0.1
+5-10 dBA No
+3 dBA No
Airport Way Daisywood Dr. and
Pinnacle Dr. 61.1 61.6 0.5 +5-10 dBA No
+3 dBA No
Airport Way Pinnacle Dr. and Lathrop
Rd. 67.5 67.9 0.4
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Lathrop Rd. and
Northgate Dr. 67.4 67.6 0.2
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Northgate Dr. and Louise
Ave. 66.5 66.6 0.1
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Louise Ave. and Crom
Ave. 65.2 65.3 0.1
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Crom Ave. and Yosemite
Ave. 68.7 68.8 0.1
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Lathrop Road Union Rd. and Airport
Way 70.8 70.9 0.1
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Lathrop Road Airport Way and
McKinley Ave. 51.3 51.3 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Lathrop Road McKinley Ave. and 5th
Street 68.7 68.7 0.0
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Lathrop Road 5th Street and Harlan
Rd. 67.6 67.7 0.1
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Lathrop Road Harlan Rd. and NB I-5
Off/On-Ramps 55.9 55.9 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Lathrop Road
Between NB I-5 Off/On
Ramps and SB I-5 Off/On
Ramps

49.5 49.5 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Spartan Way SB I-5 Off/On Ramps and
Golden Valley Parkway 34.2 34.3 0.1
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Intermodal
Way
Roth Road and 5.11
Tactical Building 31.9 32.6 0.7
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 91
1 EXISTING GP CRITERIA - 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 2 PROPOSED GP CRITERIA - 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:
• 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.

SOURCE: FHWA-RD-77-108 WITH INPUTS FROM FEHR & PEERS AND SAXELBY ACOUSTICS. 2022.

TABLE NOISE-4: CUMULATIVE AND CUMULATIVE + PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS

ROADWAY SEGMENT

NOISE LEVELS (LDN, DB) AT NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

CUMULATIVE

CUMULATIVE
+ PROJECT
CHANGE
EX. GP CRITERIA1

SIGNIFICANT UNDER
EX. GP?

PROPOSED GP
CRITERIA2

SIGNIFICANT UNDER
GP UPDATE?
Roth Road Between Intermodal and
Airport Way 54.5 54.5 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Roth Road Between Intermodal and
McKinley Ave 68.6 68.7 0.1
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Roth Road Between McKinley Ave.
and Harlan Road 53.3 53.3 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Roth Road Between Harlan Rd. and
NB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 56.5 56.5 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Roth Road
Between NB I-5 Off/On
Ramps and SB I-5 Off/On
Ramps

59.8 59.9 0.1
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Airport Way French Camp Road and
Roth Road 68.7 68.8 0.1
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Roth Road and Lovelace
Road 66.1 66.1 0.0
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Lovelace Rd. and
Daisywood Dr. 67.8 67.9 0.1
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Daisywood Dr. and
Pinnacle Dr. 64.4 64.6 0.2
+5-10 dBA No
+3 dBA No
Airport Way Pinnacle Dr. and Lathrop
Rd. 72.0 72.1 0.1
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Lathrop Rd. and
Northgate Dr. 71.0 71.1 0.1
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Northgate Dr. and Louise
Ave. 69.4 69.5 0.1
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 92

ROADWAY SEGMENT

NOISE LEVELS (LDN, DB) AT NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

CUMULATIVE

CUMULATIVE
+ PROJECT
CHANGE
EX. GP CRITERIA1

SIGNIFICANT UNDER
EX. GP?

PROPOSED GP
CRITERIA2

SIGNIFICANT UNDER
GP UPDATE?
Airport Way Louise Ave. and Crom
Ave. 67.1 67.2 0.1
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Crom Ave. and Yosemite
Ave. 70.4 70.5 0.1
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Lathrop Road Union Rd. and Airport
Way 72.0 72.0 0.0
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Lathrop Road Airport Way and
McKinley Ave. 51.9 51.9 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Lathrop Road McKinley Ave. and 5th
Street 69.6 69.6 0.0
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Lathrop Road 5th Street and Harlan Rd. 68.5 68.6 0.1
+5-10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Lathrop Road Harlan Rd. and NB I-5
Off/On-Ramps 57.5 57.5 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Lathrop Road
Between NB I-5 Off/On
Ramps and SB I-5 Off/On
Ramps

53.3 53.3 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Spartan Way SB I-5 Off/On Ramps and
Golden Valley Parkway 41.4 41.4 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Intermodal Way Roth Road and 5.11
Tactical Building 33.5 34.0 0.5
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Intermodal Way 5.11 Tactical Building
and Tactical Way 32.7 33.3 0.6
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
1 EXISTING GP CRITERIA - 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 2 PROPOSED GP CRITERIA - 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:
• 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.

SOURCE: FHWA-RD-77-108 WITH INPUTS FROM FEHR & PEERS AND SAXELBY ACOUSTICS. 2022.

Based upon data in Tables Noise-4 and Noise-5, the proposed project is predicted to result in a maximum traffic noise level increase of 1.5 dB.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 93
Evaluation of Future Operational Noise at Off-Site Noise-Sensitive Receptors Operational Noise Levels
The primary noise generating components of the new commercial development would be truck movements, auto circulation, and loading dock activity. The following is a list of assumptions used for the noise modeling. The data used is based upon a combination of manufacturer’s provided data and Saxelby Acoustics data from similar operations.

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.).

Parking Lot Circulation: Based upon the project traffic study, the peak hour trips for the project would be 124 passenger vehicles and 23 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 prediction model. Inputs to the model included sound power levels for the proposed commercial uses, existing and proposed buildings, terrain type, and locations of sensitive receptors. These predictions are made in accordance with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 9613‐2:1996 (Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors). ISO 9613 is the most commonly used method for calculating exterior noise propagation. Figure 3.10-2 shows the noise level contours resulting from operation of the project.

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 Noise-6, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 94
TABLE NOISE-6: 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-7 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment.

TABLE NOISE-7: 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
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines. Federal Transit Administration. May 2006.

Regulatory Setting
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 Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 95
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-8: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NOISE EXPOSURE MOBILE NOISE SOURCES Land Use4 Outdoor Activity
Areas1
Interior Spaces
Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq/CNEL, dB3
Residential 602 45 --
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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 96
• 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-9: 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.

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:

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 97
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.
• 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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 98
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. • 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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 99
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.
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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 100
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 having 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.

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:
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.).

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 101
• 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.

TABLE NOISE-10: 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-11: 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
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 102
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.

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.

Vibration Standards
Vibration is like noise in that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. While vibration is related to noise, it differs in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception to the vibration will depend on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.

Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of peak particle velocities in inches per second.

Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of peak particle velocities.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 103
The City does not have specific policies pertaining to vibration levels. However, vibration levels associated with construction activities are addressed as potential noise impacts associated with project implementation.

Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by several factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. Table Noise-12 indicates that the threshold for damage to structures ranges from 0.2 to 0.6 peak particle velocity in inches per second (in/sec p.p.v). A threshold of

0.20 in/sec p.p.v. is considered to be a reasonable threshold for short‐term construction projects.

TABLE NOISE-5: EFFECTS OF VIBRATION ON PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS

PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY

HUMAN REACTION EFFECT ON BUILDINGS
MM/SEC. IN./SEC.

0.15-0.30 0.006-0.019 Threshold of perception; possibility of intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any
type

2.0 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of the vibration to
which ruins and ancient monuments should be
subjected

2.5 0.10 Level at which continuous vibrations
begin to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural” damage to
normal buildings

5.0 0.20
Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings (this agrees with the levels
established for people standing on
bridges and subjected to relative
short periods of vibrations)
Threshold at which there is a risk of
“architectural” damage to normal dwelling -
houses with plastered walls and ceilings.

Special types of finish such as lining of walls,
flexible ceiling treatment, etc., would minimize
“architectural” damage
10-15 0.4-0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant by
people subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable to some
people walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than normally
expected from traffic, but would cause
“architectural” damage and possibly minor
structural damage.

SOURCE: CALTRANS. TRANSPORTATION RELATED EARTHBORN VIBRATIONS. TAV-02-01-R9601 FEBRUARY 20, 2002.

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?
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 104
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.

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 105
• 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): According to Tables Noise-4 and Noise-5, the maximum noise level increase due to project traffic is predicted to be 1.1 dBA Ldn This is less than the +1.5 dBA to +5 dBA test of significance applied under the new General Plan polices and less than the +5-10 dBA test of significance under the existing General Plan. Therefore, this would be a less than significant impact.

Operational Noise at Sensitive Receptors
As shown in Figure 3.10-2 in the Noise Study, the project is predicted to expose nearby residence to noise levels up to 40 dBA Leq, during both daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The predicted project noise levels would meet the City of Manteca daytime and nighttime noise standards for stationary non-transportation noise sources of 50 dBA, Leq and 45 dBA, Leq, respectively. Therefore, this would be a less than significant impact.

It should be noted that maximum noise levels generated by the residential HVAC units and onsite vehicle circulation are predicted to be 20 dBA, or less, than the average (Leq) values. The City of Manteca 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 County’s standards. Based upon the predicted noise levels of 40 dBA, Leq at the nearest sensitive receptor, the predicted maximum noise levels would be 60 dBA, Lmax and comply with the City maximum standards.

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 east of the site, across South Airport Way.

As indicated in Table Noise-6, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 82 to 96 dB Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. The nearest receptor to the east is located approximately 200 feet to over 900 feet from project construction. At this distance construction noise would attenuate to 70-84 dBA Lmax. Existing noise levels measured along South Airport Way, at a similar setback distance, were found to be 74-85 dBA Lmax. Therefore, construction noise is predicted to be within the range of existing noise levels.

Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A significant project-generated 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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 106
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

Implementation of mitigation measures 1(a) and 1(b) would help to reduce constructiongenerated noise levels. With mitigation, this impact would be considered 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-7 data indicates 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 further than 26 feet 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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 107
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. 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 currently contains housing in the northeastern quadrant of the Project site. However, the demolition of the housing in the northeastern quadrant of the Project site would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people. Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 108
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 Dept. The Manteca Fire Dept. serves approximately 71,164 residents throughout approximately 17.2 square miles within the city limits. The Manteca Fire Dept. 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 1.7 miles travel distance to southeast.

The Manteca Fire Dept. 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 Dept. averaged a response time for Code 3 emergencies such as fires, medical calls or auto accidents at 4:20 minutes City-wide. The Dept. 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.

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:

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 109
• 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-P-44). • 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.

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.

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 110
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.

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 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 Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 111
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 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 Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 112
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.

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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 113
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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 114
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 report documents the results of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed Airport Business Centre North Project located at 3157 N. Airport Way. This TIA was prepared under contract to the City of Manteca Community Development Department.

The proposed project would construct an industrial warehousing / distribution building on the south-east corner of the Tactical Way / Airport Way intersection in the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Area. The proposed project would be located approximately 0.85-mile (4,500 feet) south of the Roth Road / Airport Way signalized intersection, and approximately 1.20 miles (6,300 feet) north of the Lathrop Road / Airport Way signalized intersection.

The proposed Airport Business Centre North Project would encompass 21.3 acres and would provide the following three access driveways:
• One driveway on Airport Way that will only be used by employees; • A second driveway on Tactical Way for employees; and
• A third driveway on Tactical Way (with a sliding gate) for trucks The Airport Business Centre North Project Site would provide a total of 242 automobile parking stalls located on the south, west, and north sides of the distribution building. On the west side of the Airport Business Centre North building, a total of 93 truck trailer parking stalls and 46 truck loading docks will be provided. The proposed project site would connect with the existing Tactical Drive, which would connect with the existing Intermodal Way, providing the primary access route for trucks to access the project site.

It should be noted that only employee traffic will be allowed to use Airport Way to access the parking lots located along Airport Way and Tactical Way. The project site is being constructed such that all truck traffic (delivery, California, and Surface Transportation Assistance Act – STAA) will be required to use Intermodal Way to and from the Interstate 5 / Roth Road interchange; thereby reducing the amount of project-generated traffic that would use Airport Way.

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 115
County and Caltrans District 10 (Stockton, CA). The purpose of the Roth Road Corridor Study is to develop a comprehensive plan for improvements from Interstate 5 (I-5) to the west and Airport Way to the east. This plan includes widening Roth Road west of Intermodal Way, realigning Harland Road, and making improvements at the I-5 / Roth Road interchange to serve projected traffic (cars and trucks) from existing and future land uses along the entire Roth Road Corridor.

Project Trip Generation
The following tables (Tables Trans-1 through Trans-4)Table presents the trip generation rates (Table Trans-1), projected trips generated by the proposed Airport Business Centre North Project for Weekday Daily, AM Peak Hour, and PM Peak Hour Conditions for All Vehicles (TransTable 2), Employee Vehicles – Passenger Cars, SUV and Light Duty Trucks (Trans-Table 3), and Delivery CA Legal / STAA Trucks (Trans-Table 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 being developed for the General Plan 2020/2040 Update.

Table Trans-1: 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)
360,000
Square Feet 3.77 0.39 0.27 0.12 0.39 0.13 0.25
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
Airport Business Center
North Project
360,000
Square Feet 1,358 139 97 42 139 48 91
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
Airport Business Center
North Project
360,000
Square Feet 1,088 116 93 23 124 36 88
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
Airport Business Center
North Project
360,000
Square Feet 270 23 4 19 15 12 3
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 116
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 Airport Business Centre North 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-four (24) study roadway segments in the project study area. The Project Trip Generation analysis showed that on a daily basis, the proposed Airport Business Centre North Project would add a total of 1,358 vehicles to the surrounding transportation network, consisting of 1,088 employee vehicles, and 270 California Legal or STAA Trucks. On a typical weekday, the proposed Airport Business Centre North Project would add 270 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 Airport Business Centre North Project would not result in any roadways operating below acceptable level of service thresholds on the surrounding transportation network. All twenty-four 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 Airport Business Centre North 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 9,863 D 163 1.7 %

2. Roth Road – Between Intermodal
Way and McKinley Avenue 9,600 D 9,925 D 325 3.4 %

3. Roth Road – Between McKinley
Avenue and Harlan Road 9,800 D 10,125 D 325 3.3 %

4. Roth Road – Between Harlan Road
and NB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 14,800 D 15,125 D 325 2.2 %

5. Roth Road – Between NB I-5
Off/On-Ramps and SB I-5 Off/OnRamps8,500 C 8,608 C 108 1.3 %

6. Airport Way – Between French
Camp Road and Roth Road 7,400 C 7,563 C 163 2.2 %

7. Airport Way – Between Roth Road
and Lovelace Road 6,700 C 6,918 C 218 3.3 %

8. Airport Way – Between Lovelace
Road and Daisywood Drive 7,000 C 7,218 C 218 3.1 %

9. Airport Way – Between Daisywood
Drive and Pinnacle Drive 7,500 D 8,370 D 870 11.6 %
Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 117

10. Airport Way – Between Pinnacle
Drive and Lathrop Road 8,800 D 9,670 D 870 9.9 %

11. Airport Way – Between Lathrop
Road and Northgate Drive 9,800 D 10,181 D 381 3.9 %

12. Airport Way – Between Northgate
Drive and Louise Avenue 10,500 D 10,881 D 381 3.6 %

13. Airport Way – Between Louise
Avenue and Crom Avenue 14,800 D 15,181 D 381 2.6 %

14. Airport Way – Between Crom
Avenue and Yosemite Avenue 15,600 D 15,981 D 381 2.4 %

15. Lathrop Road – Between Union
Road and Airport Way 16,700 D 16,972 D 272 1.6 %

16. Lathrop Road – Between Airport
Way and McKinley Avenue 21,400 D 21,618 D 218 1.0 %

17. Lathrop Road – Between McKinley
Avenue and 5th Street 21,000 D 21,196 D 196 0.9 %

18. Lathrop Road – Between 5th Street
and Harlan Road 20,600 D 20,796 D 196 1.0 %

19. Lathrop Road – Between Harlan
Road and NB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 24,500 D 24,696 D 196 0.8 %

20. Lathrop Road – Between NB I-5 Off
/On-Ramps and SB I-5 Off/OnRamps16,200 C 16,298 C 98 0.6 %

21. Spartan Way – Between SB I-5
Off/On -Ramps and Golden Valley
Parkway
9,200 C 9,222 C 22 0.2 %

22. Intermodal Way – Between Roth
Road and 5.11 Tactical Building 1,650 C 1,920 C 270 16.4 %

23. Intermodal Way – Between 5.11
Tactical Building and Tactical Way 950 C 1,220 C 270 28.4 %

24. Tactical Way – Between Airport
Way and Intermodal Way 135 C 189 C 54 40.0 %
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 Airport Business Centre North Project Weekday Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Conditions. Table Trans-6 presents the projected ADT volumes for twenty-four (24) 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 Airport Business Centre North Project would add a total of 1,358 vehicles to the surrounding transportation network, consisting of 1,088 employee vehicles, and 270 California Legal or STAA Trucks. On a typical weekday, the proposed Airport Business Centre North Project would add 270 California Legal or STAA Trucks on Intermodal Way between Roth Road and Interconnect Drive.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 118
The results of the roadway segment level of service analysis showed that the proposed Airport Business Centre North Project would not result in any roadways operating below acceptable level of service thresholds on the surrounding transportation network. All twenty-four 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 Airport Business Centre North 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 17,953 D 163 0.9 %

2. Roth Road – Between Intermodal
Way and McKinley Avenue 17,420 D 17,745 D 325 1.9 %

3. Roth Road – Between McKinley
Avenue and Harlan Road 19,380 D 19,705 D 325 1.7 %

4. Roth Road – Between Harlan Road
and NB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 24,600 D 24,925 D 325 1.3 %

5. Roth Road – Between NB I-5
Off/On-Ramps and SB I-5 Off/OnRamps32,610 D 32,718 D 108 0.3 %

6. Airport Way – Between French
Camp Road and Roth Road 17,640 C 17,803 C 163 0.9 %

7. Airport Way – Between Roth Road
and Lovelace Road 19,800 C 20,018 C 218 1.1 %

8. Airport Way – Between Lovelace
Road and Daisywood Drive 16,010 C 16,228 C 218 1.4 %

9. Airport Way – Between Daisywood
Drive and Pinnacle Drive 15,980 C 16,850 C 870 5.4 %

10. Airport Way – Between Pinnacle
Drive and Lathrop Road 24,980 D 25,850 D 870 3.5 %

11. Airport Way – Between Lathrop
Road and Northgate Drive 22,190 D 22,571 D 381 1.7 %

12. Airport Way – Between Northgate
Drive and Louise Avenue 20,840 D 21,221 D 381 1.8 %

13. Airport Way – Between Louise
Avenue and Crom Avenue 23,300 D 23,681 D 381 1.6 %

14. Airport Way – Between Crom
Avenue and Yosemite Avenue 23,180 D 23,561 D 381 1.6 %

15. Lathrop Road – Between Union
Road and Airport Way 21,650 D 21,922 D 272 1.3 %

16. Lathrop Road – Between Airport
Way and McKinley Avenue 24,460 D 24,678 D 218 0.9 %

17. Lathrop Road – Between McKinley
Avenue and 5th Street 26,030 D 26,226 D 196 0.8 %
Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 119

18. Lathrop Road – Between 5th Street
and Harlan Road 25,410 D 25,606 D 196 0.8 %

19. Lathrop Road – Between Harlan
Road and NB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 35,350 D 35,546 D 196 0.6 %

20. Lathrop Road – Between NB I-5 Off
/On-Ramps and SB I-5 Off/OnRamps39,330 D 39,428 D 98 0.2 %

21. Spartan Way – Between SB I-5
Off/On -Ramps and Golden Valley
Parkway
47,830 D 47,852 D 22 0.1 %

22. Intermodal Way – Between Roth
Road and 5.11 Tactical Building 2,380 C 2,650 C 270 11.3 %

23. Intermodal Way – Between 5.11
Tactical Building and Tactical Way 1,780 C 2,050 C 270 15.2 %

24. Tactical Way – Between Airport
Way and Intermodal Way 225 C 279 C 54 24.0 %
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 Airport Business Centre North 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 Airport Business Centre North Project would add a total of 96 vehicles to the surrounding transportation network, consisting of 53 employee vehicles, and 38 California Legal or STAA Trucks. During the PM peak hour, the proposed Airport Business Centre North Project would add a total of 78 vehicles to the surrounding transportation network, consisting of 57 employee vehicles, and 8 California Legal or STAA Trucks.

Table 7: Existing Level of Service Analysis – No Project versus With Airport Business Centre North 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 (Signa) 12.0 (13.1) B (B) 15.6 (15.9) B (B)

2. Roth Road / Intermodal Way
(Signal) 8.5 (9.2) A (A) 9.5 (9.9) A (A)

3. Roth Road / I-5 SB Ramps (SSSC) 18.5 (22.1) C (C) 22.5 (24.7) C (C)

4. Roth Road / I-5 NB Ramps (SSSC) 13.1 (15.7) B (C) 14.9 (17.1) B (C)

5. Airport Way / Lovelace Road
(Signal) 9.7 (9.0) A (A) 10.4 (9.9) B (A)
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 120

6. Airport Way / Daisywood Drive
(Signal) 6.7 (5.8) A (A) 7.5 (6.7) A (A)

7. Airport Way / Lathrop Road
(Signal) 26.6 (27.0) C (C) 29.4 (30.2) C (C)

8. Airport Way / Louise Avenue
(Signal) 28.5 (29.6) C (C) 30.2 (31.4) C (C)

9. Lathrop Road / I-5 SB Ramps
(Signal) 14.4 (17.8) B (B) 16.8 (19.1) B (B)

10. Lathrop Road / I-5 NB Ramps
(Signal) 13.1 (17.4) B (B) 14.8 (19.6) B (B)

11. Lathrop Road / Union Road
(Signal) 31.7 (30.8) C (C) 32.7 (32.8) C (C)

12. Lathrop Road / SR 99 SB Ramps /
Main Street (Signal) 21.1 (24.0) C (C) 22.5 (25.5) C (C)

13. Lathrop Road / SR 99 NB Ramps
(Signal) 10.1 (9.9) B (A) 11.0 (10.7) B (B)

14. Airport Way / Tactical Way (SSSC) 5.5 (7.2) A (B) 6.7 (8.7) 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
The results of the intersection level of service analysis showed that the proposed Airport Business Centre North 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.

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 Airport Business Centre North 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.

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 without the proposed Project:

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 121
• Union Road/Lathrop Road would operate unacceptably at LOS F during both AM peak hour and PM peak hours
The results of the intersection level of service analysis showed that the proposed Airport Business Centre North 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 under the Cumulative With Project Conditions.

Table Trans-8: Cumulative Level of Service Analysis – No Project versus With Airport Business Centre North 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) 23.6 (24.4) C (C)

2. Roth Road / Intermodal Way (Signal)2 10.2 (10.8) B (B) 11.4 (11.7) B (B)

3. Roth Road / I-5 SB Ramps (Signal) 2 13.9 (18.0) B (B) 14.6 (19.7) B (B)

4. Roth Road / I-5 NB Ramps (Signal) 2 13.2 (14.4) B (B) 14.0 (15.3) B (B)

5. Airport Way / Lovelace Road (Signal) 2 9.1 (9.2) A (A) 9.7 (9.7) A (A)

6. Airport Way / Daisywood Drive
(Signal) 2

6.9 (7.2) A (A) 7.7 (7.9) A (A)

7. Airport Way / Lathrop Road (Signal) 2 33.2 (32.6) C (C) 34.5 (34.1) C (C)

8. Airport Way / Louise Avenue (Signal) 2 26.2 (28.5) C (C) 28.0 (29.5) C (C)

9. Lathrop Road / I-5 SB Ramps (Signal) 2
3 17.8 (21.3) B (C) 18.4 (22.0) B (C)

10. Lathrop Road / I-5 NB Ramps (Signal) 2
3 34.1 (25.4) C (C) 34.7 (26.3) C (C)

11. Lathrop Road / Union Road (Signal) 89.8 (80.2) F (F) 90.3 (80.8) F (F)

12. Lathrop Road / SR 99 SB Ramps / Main
Street (Signal) 47.4 (45.3) D (D) 47.9 (45.9) D (D)

13. Lathrop Road / SR 99 NB Ramps
(Signal) 11.2 (10.8) B (B) 11.4 (11.1) B (B)

14. Airport Way / Tactical Way (SSSC) 10.6 (10.9) B (B) 11.2 (11.8) 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). 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
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 122
Recommended Conditions of Approval
The following conditions should be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the proposed project:
• Traffic COA #1 – The developer shall pay for the total cost of construction of the Proposed Private Drive on the west site of the project site and require all truck traffic (delivery, California, and Surface Transportation Assistance Act – STAA) to use Intermodal Drive to access the Airport Business Centre North Project.
• Traffic COA #2 – 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 #3 – 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 #4 – The developer shall work with the City of Manteca Engineering Department and Caltrans District 10 to document STAA Terminal Access Route from Interstate 5 to Roth Road / Intermodal Way and Tactical Way / Airport Business Centre truck turnaround area.
• Traffic COA #5 – The developer shall pay for the current PFIP fee as determined by the City of Manteca prior to issuance of building permits to mitigate the Union Road / Lathrop Road intersection under Cumulative Conditions. Based on the City of Manteca General Plan Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) Model. the project contributes 1.3 percent of the volume at this intersection under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, Therefore, the project’s fair share contribution would be 1.3 percent of the total cost of installing a new traffic signal controller and completing a traffic signal timing optimization study that was identified as COA#3 for the North Manteca Annexation Project.

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.

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 123
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.
• 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 high-quality 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 local-serving, 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 less-than-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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 124
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 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 Airport Business Centre North 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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 125
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 from the Manteca General Plan EIR and Cumulative With Airport Business Centre North Project VMT per industrial employee. According to the Manteca General Plan EIR, the 2019 Baseline VMT per industrial employee is 75.3. The results of the VMT analysis showed that the proposed Airport Business Centre North Project will result in a decrease in VMT when compared to baseline citywide, from 75.3 to 74.8 vehicle miles per employee. This represents a relatively flat 0.6% decrease when compared to baseline citywide average. It should be noted that the construction of the Airport Business Centre North Project will improve the jobs to housing balance in the City of Manteca and provide an overall benefit to reducing VMT per employee with fewer residents expected to leave the City for employment. This will result in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

Table Trans-9: Airport Business Centre North 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 Airport
Business Centre North Project 74.8 - 0.5 -0.6%
Note: Citywide VMT includes All industrial land Uses in the City of Manteca Source: City of Manteca Travel Demand Model - Fehr & Peers, 2022 The updated General Plan includes policies designed to reduce vehicle travel and vehicle miles traveled. The Circulation Element (Chapter 3.14) addresses providing adequate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities and opportunities, promoting non-vehicle travel modes, requiring development projects that accommodate or employ fifty (50) or more employees to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs, and ensuring regional coordination on trip and VMT reduction efforts. General Plan policies and actions that contribute to VMT reductions are identified below. These policies and actions minimize VMT impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

Additionally, it should be noted that, as discussed in the Regulatory Setting, Governors Executive Order N-79-20 requires that 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks be zero-emission by 2035. It shall be a further goal of the State that 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the State be zero-emission by 2045 for all operations, where feasible, and by 2035 for drayage trucks. It shall be further a goal of the State to transition to 100 percent zeroemission off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035, where feasible. Accordingly, the City of Manteca aims to develop a Zero Emissions Vehicle Market Development Strategy that ensures expeditious implementation of the systems of policies, programs and regulations necessary to achieve the order.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 126
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. Truck ingress/egress is directed to Intermodal Way from Tactical, which are internal roadways. Truck traffic would not occur on Airport Way. 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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 127
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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 128
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 Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 129
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 Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 130
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 21.3 acres of Light Industrial. Using this rate, the proposed Light Industrial uses on the Project site would generate approximately 21,300 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. The exact wastewater generated would be dependent on the business operation. It is noted that this wastewater generation number may provide to be a significant overestimate for a warehouse distribution facility; however, the end user is not known at this time. 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 Implementation Plan (PFIP) fees to develop the site, and adequate long-term wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve full Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 131
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 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 700 tons was calculated using non-residential construction waste generation rates provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 132
Table UTIL-2: Construction Solid Waste Generation
Activity Waste
Generation Rate Square Feet Waste Generation (Tons)
Construction 3.89 pounds per
square foot 360,000 700
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 864 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 360,000 864
Regardless, Mitigation Measure PSU-6b 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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 133
The addition of solid waste associated with the proposed Project, approximately 2.3 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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 134
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 Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 135
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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 136
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 limited to, general plans, specific plans, and local coastal plans, may be used in cumulative impact Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 137
analysis.” The City of Manteca maintains a list of ongoing commercial and industrial development, as provided in the “Ongoing Projects” list in Appendix F.

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.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 138
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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 139

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:

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 140
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.

Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 141
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
Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 142
APPENDIX A: AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL INFORMATION
Exhibit "B"
Manteca Airport Business Center North
San Joaquin County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Total gross lot size = 21.3 acres. 360,000 sf industrial building (unrefrigerated warehouse). 350 ksf warehouse; 10 ksf office. Based on gross lot size, assumes 13.04 acres of parking lot.

Construction Phase -
Demolition - Demolition of on-site buildings calculated to be approximately: 21,575 + 1,850 + 1,577 + 2,711 + 9,958 + 3,825 + 812 + 349 square feet = approx 42,657 square feet to be demolished.

Grading - Site will not require import/export, balanced on site.

Architectural Coating - This project does not contain interior coatings.

Vehicle Trips - 1,358 total daily vehicles, per Fehr & Peers (traffic consultant). Equivalent to 3.88 per 1000 sf per day.

Area Coating - 100 g/L for exterior coating limitations provided per rule 4601. No interior coatings for this project.

Land Use Change -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 350.00 1000sqft 8.03 350,000.00 0 Parking Lot 13.04 Acre 13.04 568,022.40 0
General Office Building 10.00 1000sqft 0.23 10,000.00 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 2024
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 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"
Sequestration -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Per SJVACPD requirements/rules for dust prohibition.

Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation - No interior paint.

Water Mitigation - Water conservation per current Title 24 requirements (i.e. low-floor indoor water use fixtures; water-efficient irrigation systems).

Operational Off-Road Equipment -
Fleet Mix - Fleet mix adjusted to reflect proportion of heavy-duty trucks (HHD) as a proportion of overall vehicle fleet (19.8822%) Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 150.00 0.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 150.00 0.00 tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior 150 0
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Interior 150 0
tblConstDustMitigation CleanPavedRoadPercentReduction 0 9 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 5 tblFleetMix HHD 0.02 0.20
tblFleetMix LDA 0.54 0.44
tblFleetMix LDT1 0.05 0.04
tblFleetMix LDT2 0.17 0.14
tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.02
tblFleetMix LHD2 6.2410e-003 5.1060e-003
tblFleetMix MCY 0.02 0.02
tblFleetMix MDV 0.15 0.12
tblFleetMix MH 3.5220e-003 2.8810e-003
tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 8.7350e-003
tblFleetMix OBUS 4.7100e-004 0.00
tblFleetMix SBUS 1.1190e-003 0.00
tblFleetMix UBUS 3.2500e-004 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.74 3.88
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.74 3.88
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.74 3.88
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

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 0.0972 1.2329 0.7408 2.6800e0030.7327 0.0442 0.7769 0.1790 0.0409 0.2199 0.0000 246.7937 246.7937 0.0380 0.0197 253.6185 2023 0.3748 2.9049 3.5265 0.0108 0.5995 0.1019 0.7013 0.1620 0.0958 0.2578 0.0000 988.0697 988.0697 0.0888 0.0641 1,009.391 8 2024 0.9357 1.3587 1.7613 5.2800e0030.2536 0.0456 0.2992 0.0688 0.0429 0.1117 0.0000 481.3163 481.3163 0.0445 0.0302 491.4125 Maximum 0.9357 2.9049 3.5265 0.0108 0.7327 0.1019 0.7769 0.1790 0.0958 0.2578 0.0000 988.0697 988.0697 0.0888 0.0641 1,009.391 8 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 0.0972 1.2329 0.7408 2.6800e0030.3489 0.0442 0.3931 0.0859 0.0409 0.1268 0.0000 246.7935 246.7935 0.0380 0.0197 253.6184 2023 0.3748 2.9049 3.5265 0.0108 0.5141 0.1019 0.6160 0.1403 0.0958 0.2360 0.0000 988.0693 988.0693 0.0888 0.0641 1,009.391 5 2024 0.9357 1.3587 1.7613 5.2800e0030.2347 0.0456 0.2803 0.0642 0.0429 0.1070 0.0000 481.3161 481.3161 0.0445 0.0302 491.4123 Maximum 0.9357 2.9049 3.5265 0.0108 0.5141 0.1019 0.6160 0.1403 0.0958 0.2360 0.0000 988.0693 988.0693 0.0888 0.0641 1,009.391 5 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"
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 30.77 0.00 27.46 29.16 0.00 20.28 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 10-15-2022 1-14-2023 1.5370 1.5370
2 1-15-2023 4-14-2023 0.8013 0.8013
3 4-15-2023 7-14-2023 0.7965 0.7965
4 7-15-2023 10-14-2023 0.8077 0.8077
5 10-15-2023 1-14-2024 0.8155 0.8155
6 1-15-2024 4-14-2024 0.7702 0.7702
7 4-15-2024 7-14-2024 0.6845 0.6845
8 7-15-2024 9-30-2024 0.7073 0.7073
Highest 1.5370 1.5370
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

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 1.5174 3.0000e0053.4200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 6.6700e0036.6700e0032.0000e0050.0000 7.1000e003 Energy 0.0123 0.1118 0.0939 6.7000e0048.5000e0038.5000e0038.5000e0038.5000e0030.0000 296.3725 296.3725 0.0306 5.6600e003298.8229 Mobile 0.5926 3.5782 5.9378 0.0230 1.5132 0.0313 1.5445 0.4064 0.0297 0.4361 0.0000 2,168.855 2 2,168.855
2 0.0639 0.2256 2,237.684
9 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 68.6718 0.0000 68.6718 4.0584 0.0000 170.1316 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 26.2416 41.7636 68.0052 2.7020 0.0645 154.7648 Total 2.1223 3.6900 6.0351 0.0237 1.5132 0.0398 1.5530 0.4064 0.0383 0.4446 94.9134 2,506.998 1 2,601.911
5 6.8550 0.2957 2,861.411
4 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

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 1.5174 3.0000e0053.4200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 6.6700e0036.6700e0032.0000e0050.0000 7.1000e003 Energy 0.0123 0.1118 0.0939 6.7000e0048.5000e0038.5000e0038.5000e0038.5000e0030.0000 296.3725 296.3725 0.0306 5.6600e003298.8229 Mobile 0.5926 3.5782 5.9378 0.0230 1.5132 0.0313 1.5445 0.4064 0.0297 0.4361 0.0000 2,168.855 2 2,168.855
2 0.0639 0.2256 2,237.684
9 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 68.6718 0.0000 68.6718 4.0584 0.0000 170.1316 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 20.9933 33.4599 54.4532 2.1616 0.0516 123.8614 Total 2.1223 3.6900 6.0351 0.0237 1.5132 0.0398 1.5530 0.4064 0.0383 0.4446 89.6651 2,498.694 4 2,588.359
5 6.3146 0.2828 2,830.507
9 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 Demolition Demolition 10/15/2022 11/11/2022 5 20
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 11/12/2022 11/25/2022 5 10 3 Grading Grading 11/26/2022 1/13/2023 5 35
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 5.53 0.33 0.52 7.88 4.36 1.08 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/14/2023 6/14/2024 5 370 5 Paving Paving 6/15/2024 7/12/2024 5 20
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/13/2024 8/9/2024 5 20 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor 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
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 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 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 540,000; Non-Residential Outdoor: 180,000; Striped Parking Area:
34,081 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 105
Acres of Paving: 13.04
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Soil Stabilizer
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Clean Paved Roads
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
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
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 4,218.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 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 9 389.00 152.00 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 Architectural Coating 1 78.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

3.2 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 0.4636 0.0000 0.4636 0.0702 0.0000 0.0702 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0264 0.2572 0.2059 3.9000e0040.0124 0.0124 0.0116 0.0116 0.0000 33.9902 33.9902 9.5500e0030.0000 34.2289 Total 0.0264 0.2572 0.2059 3.9000e0040.4636 0.0124 0.4760 0.0702 0.0116 0.0817 0.0000 33.9902 33.9902 9.5500e0030.0000 34.2289 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 8.0500e0030.3237 0.0612 1.3000e0030.0360 3.2500e0030.0392 9.8900e0033.1100e0030.0130 0.0000 124.7463 124.7463 8.7000e0040.0196 130.6149 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 4.7000e0043.3000e0043.7300e0031.0000e0051.1900e0031.0000e0051.2000e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.2000e0040.0000 0.9702 0.9702 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9797 Total 8.5200e0030.3240 0.0649 1.3100e0030.0372 3.2600e0030.0404 0.0102 3.1200e0030.0133 0.0000 125.7165 125.7165 9.0000e0040.0197 131.5946 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

3.2 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 0.2086 0.0000 0.2086 0.0316 0.0000 0.0316 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0264 0.2572 0.2059 3.9000e0040.0124 0.0124 0.0116 0.0116 0.0000 33.9902 33.9902 9.5500e0030.0000 34.2289 Total 0.0264 0.2572 0.2059 3.9000e0040.2086 0.0124 0.2210 0.0316 0.0116 0.0431 0.0000 33.9902 33.9902 9.5500e0030.0000 34.2289 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 8.0500e0030.3237 0.0612 1.3000e0030.0335 3.2500e0030.0368 9.2900e0033.1100e0030.0124 0.0000 124.7463 124.7463 8.7000e0040.0196 130.6149 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 4.7000e0043.3000e0043.7300e0031.0000e0051.1000e0031.0000e0051.1100e0032.9000e0041.0000e0053.0000e0040.0000 0.9702 0.9702 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9797 Total 8.5200e0030.3240 0.0649 1.3100e0030.0346 3.2600e0030.0379 9.5800e0033.1200e0030.0127 0.0000 125.7165 125.7165 9.0000e0040.0197 131.5946 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

3.3 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 0.0983 0.0000 0.0983 0.0505 0.0000 0.0505 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e0048.0600e0038.0600e0037.4200e0037.4200e0030.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8549 Total 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e0040.0983 8.0600e0030.1064 0.0505 7.4200e0030.0579 0.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8549 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 2.8000e0042.0000e0042.2400e0031.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 7.2000e0041.9000e0040.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.5821 0.5821 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.5878 Total 2.8000e0042.0000e0042.2400e0031.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 7.2000e0041.9000e0040.0000 1.9000e0040.0000 0.5821 0.5821 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.5878 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

3.3 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 0.0442 0.0000 0.0442 0.0227 0.0000 0.0227 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e0048.0600e0038.0600e0037.4200e0037.4200e0030.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8549 Total 0.0159 0.1654 0.0985 1.9000e0040.0442 8.0600e0030.0523 0.0227 7.4200e0030.0302 0.0000 16.7197 16.7197 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8549 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 2.8000e0042.0000e0042.2400e0031.0000e0056.6000e0040.0000 6.6000e0041.8000e0040.0000 1.8000e0040.0000 0.5821 0.5821 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.5878 Total 2.8000e0042.0000e0042.2400e0031.0000e0056.6000e0040.0000 6.6000e0041.8000e0040.0000 1.8000e0040.0000 0.5821 0.5821 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.5878 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

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 0.1310 0.0000 0.1310 0.0474 0.0000 0.0474 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0453 0.4855 0.3630 7.8000e0040.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 68.1683 68.1683 0.0221 0.0000 68.7194 Total 0.0453 0.4855 0.3630 7.8000e0040.1310 0.0204 0.1514 0.0474 0.0188 0.0662 0.0000 68.1683 68.1683 0.0221 0.0000 68.7194 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 7.9000e0045.5000e0046.2200e0032.0000e0051.9900e0031.0000e0052.0000e0035.3000e0041.0000e0055.4000e0040.0000 1.6169 1.6169 5.0000e0055.0000e0051.6329 Total 7.9000e0045.5000e0046.2200e0032.0000e0051.9900e0031.0000e0052.0000e0035.3000e0041.0000e0055.4000e0040.0000 1.6169 1.6169 5.0000e0055.0000e0051.6329 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

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 0.0589 0.0000 0.0589 0.0213 0.0000 0.0213 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0453 0.4855 0.3630 7.8000e0040.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 68.1682 68.1682 0.0221 0.0000 68.7193 Total 0.0453 0.4855 0.3630 7.8000e0040.0589 0.0204 0.0794 0.0213 0.0188 0.0401 0.0000 68.1682 68.1682 0.0221 0.0000 68.7193 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 7.9000e0045.5000e0046.2200e0032.0000e0051.8400e0031.0000e0051.8500e0034.9000e0041.0000e0055.0000e0040.0000 1.6169 1.6169 5.0000e0055.0000e0051.6329 Total 7.9000e0045.5000e0046.2200e0032.0000e0051.8400e0031.0000e0051.8500e0034.9000e0041.0000e0055.0000e0040.0000 1.6169 1.6169 5.0000e0055.0000e0051.6329 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

3.4 Grading - 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
Fugitive Dust 0.0858 0.0000 0.0858 0.0226 0.0000 0.0226 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0166 0.1726 0.1403 3.1000e0047.1200e0037.1200e0036.5500e0036.5500e0030.0000 27.2676 27.2676 8.8200e0030.0000 27.4881 Total 0.0166 0.1726 0.1403 3.1000e0040.0858 7.1200e0030.0929 0.0226 6.5500e0030.0291 0.0000 27.2676 27.2676 8.8200e0030.0000 27.4881 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 2.9000e0041.9000e0042.2700e0031.0000e0058.0000e0040.0000 8.0000e0042.1000e0040.0000 2.2000e0040.0000 0.6259 0.6259 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.6317 Total 2.9000e0041.9000e0042.2700e0031.0000e0058.0000e0040.0000 8.0000e0042.1000e0040.0000 2.2000e0040.0000 0.6259 0.6259 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.6317 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

3.4 Grading - 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
Fugitive Dust 0.0386 0.0000 0.0386 0.0102 0.0000 0.0102 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0166 0.1726 0.1403 3.1000e0047.1200e0037.1200e0036.5500e0036.5500e0030.0000 27.2676 27.2676 8.8200e0030.0000 27.4880 Total 0.0166 0.1726 0.1403 3.1000e0040.0386 7.1200e0030.0457 0.0102 6.5500e0030.0167 0.0000 27.2676 27.2676 8.8200e0030.0000 27.4880 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 2.9000e0041.9000e0042.2700e0031.0000e0057.3000e0040.0000 7.4000e0042.0000e0040.0000 2.0000e0040.0000 0.6259 0.6259 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.6317 Total 2.9000e0041.9000e0042.2700e0031.0000e0057.3000e0040.0000 7.4000e0042.0000e0040.0000 2.0000e0040.0000 0.6259 0.6259 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.6317 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

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 0.1966 1.7981 2.0305 3.3700e0030.0875 0.0875 0.0823 0.0823 0.0000 289.7559 289.7559 0.0689 0.0000 291.4791 Total 0.1966 1.7981 2.0305 3.3700e0030.0875 0.0875 0.0823 0.0823 0.0000 289.7559 289.7559 0.0689 0.0000 291.4791 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 0.0201 0.8406 0.2474 3.8100e0030.1256 5.3700e0030.1309 0.0363 5.1400e0030.0414 0.0000 366.0722 366.0722 1.8000e0030.0553 382.6095 Worker 0.1412 0.0934 1.1061 3.3200e0030.3873 1.9100e0030.3892 0.1030 1.7600e0030.1047 0.0000 304.3481 304.3481 9.2700e0038.7400e003307.1834 Total 0.1613 0.9340 1.3535 7.1300e0030.5129 7.2800e0030.5202 0.1393 6.9000e0030.1462 0.0000 670.4202 670.4202 0.0111 0.0641 689.7929 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

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 0.1966 1.7981 2.0305 3.3700e0030.0875 0.0875 0.0823 0.0823 0.0000 289.7556 289.7556 0.0689 0.0000 291.4788 Total 0.1966 1.7981 2.0305 3.3700e0030.0875 0.0875 0.0823 0.0823 0.0000 289.7556 289.7556 0.0689 0.0000 291.4788 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 0.0201 0.8406 0.2474 3.8100e0030.1176 5.3700e0030.1230 0.0343 5.1400e0030.0395 0.0000 366.0722 366.0722 1.8000e0030.0553 382.6095 Worker 0.1412 0.0934 1.1061 3.3200e0030.3572 1.9100e0030.3591 0.0956 1.7600e0030.0973 0.0000 304.3481 304.3481 9.2700e0038.7400e003307.1834 Total 0.1613 0.9340 1.3535 7.1300e0030.4748 7.2800e0030.4820 0.1299 6.9000e0030.1368 0.0000 670.4202 670.4202 0.0111 0.0641 689.7929 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
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 0.0883 0.8066 0.9700 1.6200e0030.0368 0.0368 0.0346 0.0346 0.0000 139.1095 139.1095 0.0329 0.0000 139.9319 Total 0.0883 0.8066 0.9700 1.6200e0030.0368 0.0368 0.0346 0.0346 0.0000 139.1095 139.1095 0.0329 0.0000 139.9319 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 9.4000e0030.4037 0.1164 1.8000e0030.0603 2.6000e0030.0629 0.0174 2.4900e0030.0199 0.0000 172.9849 172.9849 8.3000e0040.0261 180.7900 Worker 0.0625 0.0394 0.4909 1.5400e0030.1859 8.6000e0040.1868 0.0494 7.9000e0040.0502 0.0000 141.0230 141.0230 3.9900e0033.8700e003142.2762 Total 0.0719 0.4431 0.6073 3.3400e0030.2462 3.4600e0030.2497 0.0669 3.2800e0030.0701 0.0000 314.0079 314.0079 4.8200e0030.0300 323.0662 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
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 0.0883 0.8066 0.9700 1.6200e0030.0368 0.0368 0.0346 0.0346 0.0000 139.1093 139.1093 0.0329 0.0000 139.9317 Total 0.0883 0.8066 0.9700 1.6200e0030.0368 0.0368 0.0346 0.0346 0.0000 139.1093 139.1093 0.0329 0.0000 139.9317 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 9.4000e0030.4037 0.1164 1.8000e0030.0565 2.6000e0030.0591 0.0165 2.4900e0030.0190 0.0000 172.9849 172.9849 8.3000e0040.0261 180.7900 Worker 0.0625 0.0394 0.4909 1.5400e0030.1714 8.6000e0040.1723 0.0459 7.9000e0040.0467 0.0000 141.0230 141.0230 3.9900e0033.8700e003142.2762 Total 0.0719 0.4431 0.6073 3.3400e0030.2279 3.4600e0030.2314 0.0624 3.2800e0030.0656 0.0000 314.0079 314.0079 4.8200e0030.0300 323.0662 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

3.6 Paving - 2024
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 9.8800e0030.0953 0.1463 2.3000e0044.6900e0034.6900e0034.3100e0034.3100e0030.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e0030.0000 20.1885 Paving 0.0171 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0270 0.0953 0.1463 2.3000e0044.6900e0034.6900e0034.3100e0034.3100e0030.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e0030.0000 20.1885 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 4.0000e0042.5000e0043.1500e0031.0000e0051.1900e0031.0000e0051.2000e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.2000e0040.0000 0.9063 0.9063 3.0000e0052.0000e0050.9144 Total 4.0000e0042.5000e0043.1500e0031.0000e0051.1900e0031.0000e0051.2000e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.2000e0040.0000 0.9063 0.9063 3.0000e0052.0000e0050.9144 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

3.6 Paving - 2024
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 9.8800e0030.0953 0.1463 2.3000e0044.6900e0034.6900e0034.3100e0034.3100e0030.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e0030.0000 20.1884 Paving 0.0171 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0270 0.0953 0.1463 2.3000e0044.6900e0034.6900e0034.3100e0034.3100e0030.0000 20.0265 20.0265 6.4800e0030.0000 20.1884 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 4.0000e0042.5000e0043.1500e0031.0000e0051.1000e0031.0000e0051.1100e0032.9000e0041.0000e0053.0000e0040.0000 0.9063 0.9063 3.0000e0052.0000e0050.9144 Total 4.0000e0042.5000e0043.1500e0031.0000e0051.1000e0031.0000e0051.1100e0032.9000e0041.0000e0053.0000e0040.0000 0.9063 0.9063 3.0000e0052.0000e0050.9144 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
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 0.7442 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8100e0030.0122 0.0181 3.0000e0056.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0040.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e0040.0000 2.5569 Total 0.7460 0.0122 0.0181 3.0000e0056.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0040.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e0040.0000 2.5569 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 2.0900e0031.3200e0030.0164 5.0000e0056.2100e0033.0000e0056.2400e0031.6500e0033.0000e0051.6800e0030.0000 4.7129 4.7129 1.3000e0041.3000e0044.7547 Total 2.0900e0031.3200e0030.0164 5.0000e0056.2100e0033.0000e0056.2400e0031.6500e0033.0000e0051.6800e0030.0000 4.7129 4.7129 1.3000e0041.3000e0044.7547 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
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 0.7442 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8100e0030.0122 0.0181 3.0000e0056.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0040.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e0040.0000 2.5568 Total 0.7460 0.0122 0.0181 3.0000e0056.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0040.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e0040.0000 2.5568 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 2.0900e0031.3200e0030.0164 5.0000e0055.7300e0033.0000e0055.7600e0031.5300e0033.0000e0051.5600e0030.0000 4.7129 4.7129 1.3000e0041.3000e0044.7547 Total 2.0900e0031.3200e0030.0164 5.0000e0055.7300e0033.0000e0055.7600e0031.5300e0033.0000e0051.5600e0030.0000 4.7129 4.7129 1.3000e0041.3000e0044.7547 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

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 0.5926 3.5782 5.9378 0.0230 1.5132 0.0313 1.5445 0.4064 0.0297 0.4361 0.0000 2,168.855 2 2,168.855
2 0.0639 0.2256 2,237.684
9 Unmitigated 0.5926 3.5782 5.9378 0.0230 1.5132 0.0313 1.5445 0.4064 0.0297 0.4361 0.0000 2,168.855 2 2,168.855
2 0.0639 0.2256 2,237.684
9 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
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 1,358.00 1,358.00 1358.00 3,964,696 3,964,696 General Office Building 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1,358.00 1,358.00 1,358.00 3,964,696 3,964,696
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 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

9.50 7.30 7.30 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3
General Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Parking Lot 0.536987 0.052416 0.169237 0.150872 0.026159 0.006241 0.012518 0.016886 0.000471 0.000325 0.023246 0.001119 0.003522 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

0.439290 0.042880 0.138447 0.123423 0.021400 0.005106 0.008735 0.198822 0.000000 0.000000 0.019017 0.000000 0.002881 General Office Building 0.536987 0.052416 0.169237 0.150872 0.026159 0.006241 0.012518 0.016886 0.000471 0.000325 0.023246 0.001119 0.003522

5.0 Energy Detail
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 174.6764 174.6764 0.0283 3.4300e003176.4036 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 174.6764 174.6764 0.0283 3.4300e003176.4036 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0123 0.1118 0.0939 6.7000e0048.5000e0038.5000e0038.5000e0038.5000e0030.0000 121.6962 121.6962 2.3300e0032.2300e003122.4193 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0123 0.1118 0.0939 6.7000e0048.5000e0038.5000e0038.5000e0038.5000e0030.0000 121.6962 121.6962 2.3300e0032.2300e003122.4193

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

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
163000 8.8000e0047.9900e0036.7100e0035.0000e0056.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0040.0000 8.6983 8.6983 1.7000e0041.6000e0048.7500 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 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

2.1175e
+006

0.0114 0.1038 0.0872 6.2000e0047.8900e0037.8900e0037.8900e0037.8900e0030.0000 112.9979 112.9979 2.1700e0032.0700e003113.6694 Total 0.0123 0.1118 0.0939 6.7000e0048.5000e0038.5000e0038.5000e0038.5000e0030.0000 121.6962 121.6962 2.3400e0032.2300e003122.4193 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

2.1175e
+006

0.0114 0.1038 0.0872 6.2000e0047.8900e0037.8900e0037.8900e0037.8900e0030.0000 112.9979 112.9979 2.1700e0032.0700e003113.6694 Total 0.0123 0.1118 0.0939 6.7000e0048.5000e0038.5000e0038.5000e0038.5000e0030.0000 121.6962 121.6962 2.3400e0032.2300e003122.4193 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
General Office
Building
96600 8.9378 1.4500e0031.8000e0049.0262
Parking Lot 198808 18.3945 2.9800e0033.6000e00418.5763 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

1.5925e
+006
147.3441 0.0238 2.8900e003148.8011
Total 174.6764 0.0283 3.4300e003176.4036
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

1.5925e
+006
147.3441 0.0238 2.8900e003148.8011
Total 174.6764 0.0283 3.4300e003176.4036
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"
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 1.5174 3.0000e0053.4200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 6.6700e0036.6700e0032.0000e0050.0000 7.1000e003 Unmitigated 1.5174 3.0000e0053.4200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 6.6700e0036.6700e0032.0000e0050.0000 7.1000e003

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

0.0744 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

1.4427 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.2000e0043.0000e0053.4200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 6.6700e0036.6700e0032.0000e0050.0000 7.1000e003 Total 1.5174 3.0000e0053.4200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 6.6700e0036.6700e0032.0000e0050.0000 7.1000e003 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"
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

0.0744 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

1.4427 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.2000e0043.0000e0053.4200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 6.6700e0036.6700e0032.0000e0050.0000 7.1000e003 Total 1.5174 3.0000e0053.4200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 6.6700e0036.6700e0032.0000e0050.0000 7.1000e003 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 54.4532 2.1616 0.0516 123.8614
Unmitigated 68.0052 2.7020 0.0645 154.7648

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

1.77734 /

1.08934

1.8065 0.0581 1.3900e0033.6741
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

80.9375 /
0 66.1988 2.6439 0.0631 151.0907
Total 68.0052 2.7020 0.0645 154.7648
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

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

1.42187 /

1.02289

1.4942 0.0465 1.1100e0032.9888
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

64.75 / 0 52.9590 2.1151 0.0505 120.8726
Total 54.4532 2.1616 0.0516 123.8614
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 68.6718 4.0584 0.0000 170.1316
Unmitigated 68.6718 4.0584 0.0000 170.1316
Category/Year

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

9.3 1.8878 0.1116 0.0000 4.6770
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
329 66.7840 3.9468 0.0000 165.4546
Total 68.6719 4.0584 0.0000 170.1316
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

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

9.3 1.8878 0.1116 0.0000 4.6770
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
329 66.7840 3.9468 0.0000 165.4546
Total 68.6719 4.0584 0.0000 170.1316
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
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 37 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

11.0 Vegetation
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 38 of 38 Date: 8/26/2022 1:56 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit "B"

ͳ͵ʹ

ǣ

Exhibit "B"
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 Exhibit "B"
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-way): 0.25 miles As measured by Google Maps (conservative estimate)

2. # of trucks trips per day: 270 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:

0.945236723 g/day-all vehicles

0.002083888 lbs/day-all vehicles

0.760619041 lbs/year-all vehicles 0.743716
Max Hr Emissions
270.00 Peak hour truck trips (assumes all trips occur in the same hour, for a highly conservative estimate)

0.945236723 g/hr-all vehicles

0.002083888 lbs/hr-all vehicles
Exhibit "B"
Mobile Truck Emissions pounds per gram: 0.002205
Off-site (0.25 miles distance off-site modeled per guidance as provided by the SJVAPCD) hours per day: 24 Line Source Volume #1:

Assumptions: Factor: Source:

1. Total travel distance per truck trip (one-day): 0.25 miles SJVAPCD recommendation (i.e. to model off-site truck travel up to 0.25 miles from the Project site)

2. # of trucks trips per day: 270 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:

1.460101275 g/day-all vehicles

0.003218968 lbs/day-all vehicles

1.174923493 lbs/year-all vehicles 0.574407
Max Hr Emissions
270.00 Peak hour truck trips (assumes all trips occur in the same hour, for a highly conservative estimate)

1.460101275 g/hr-all vehicles

0.003218968 lbs/hr-all vehicles
Exhibit "B"
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
135 # of trucks/day Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022
2 Idle Points per truck/day Note: Assumption
Therefore: 0.07875 g/day-all trucks

28.74375 g/year-all trucks

0.063369046 lbs/year-all trucks
Max Hr Emissions
# Peak hour truck trips (assumes all trips occur in the same hour, for a highly conservative estimate)

0.07875 g/hr-all vehicles

0.0001736 lbs/hr-all vehicles
Exhibit "B"
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

0.0958 191.6
Total Amoritized over 70 Years

2.737142857 lbs/year 2.737143
Exhibit "B"
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 4.62E+00 6.85E-03 0.00E+00 4.62E+00
100R<250 0.250 1.15E+00 1.71E-03 0.00E+00 1.15E+00
250R<500 0.040 1.85E-01 2.74E-04 0.00E+00 1.85E-01
500R<1000 0.011 5.08E-02 7.53E-05 0.00E+00 5.08E-02
1000R<1500 0.003 1.39E-02 2.05E-05 0.00E+00 1.39E-02
1500R<2000 0.002 9.23E-03 1.37E-05 0.00E+00 9.23E-03
2000<R 0.001 4.62E-03 6.85E-06 0.00E+00 4.62E-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 1.99891158 0.00547647 2.28E-04 4.62E+00 6.85E-03 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 4.62E+00 6.85E-03 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
Exhibit "B"
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 6.32E+00 9.37E-03 0.00E+00 6.32E+00
100R<250 0.250 1.58E+00 2.34E-03 0.00E+00 1.58E+00
250R<500 0.040 2.53E-01 3.75E-04 0.00E+00 2.53E-01
500R<1000 0.011 6.96E-02 1.03E-04 0.00E+00 6.96E-02
1000R<1500 0.003 1.90E-02 2.81E-05 0.00E+00 1.90E-02
1500R<2000 0.002 1.26E-02 1.87E-05 0.00E+00 1.26E-02
2000<R 0.001 6.32E-03 9.37E-06 0.00E+00 6.32E-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 2.737142857 0.00547647 3.12E-04 6.32E+00 9.37E-03 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 6.32E+00 9.37E-03 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.

Matthew Cegielski November 2, 2020
Exhibit "B"

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 143
APPENDIX B: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Exhibit "B"

TRANSPORTATION

IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT

FOR THE

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
AT 3157 N. AIRPORT WAY

IN MANTECA, CA
Prepared for
De Novo Planning Group
City of Manteca
Prepared by
Fehr & Peers
Transportation Consultants
September 28, 2022
The Fountains in Roseville 1013 Galleria Blvd. Suite 255 | Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 773-1900 Fax (916) 773-2015 www.fehrandpeers.com
Exhibit "B"
Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

2. Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................ 1

3. Senate Bill 743 and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) ................................................................ 3

4. Airport Business Centre North Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis .......................................... 5

5. Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions .................................... 6

6. Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative Conditions .............................. 8

7. Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions .............................................. 10

8. Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Cumulative Conditions ........................................ 11

9. Recommended Conditions of Approval .............................................................................. 12 Exhibit "B"
1 | Page

INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed Airport Business Centre North Project located at 3157 N. Airport Way. This TIA was prepared under contract to the City of Manteca Community Development Department and in coordination with the land use and environmental DeNovo Planning Group.

The proposed project would construct an industrial warehousing / distribution building on the south-east corner of the Tactical Way / Airport Way intersection in the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Area. The proposed project would be located approximately 0.85 mile (4,500 feet ) south of the Roth Road / Airport Way signalized intersection, and approximately 1.20 miles (6,300 feet) north of the Lathrop Road / Airport Way signalized intersection.

The proposed Airport Business Centre North Project would encompass 21.3 acres and would provide the following three access driveways:
 One driveway on Airport Way that will only be used by employees;  A second driveway on Tactical Way for employees; and
 A third driveway on Tactical Way (with a sliding gate) for trucks.

The Airport Business Centre North Project Site will provide a total of 242 automobile parking stalls located on the south, west, and north sides of the distribution building. On the west side of the Airport Business Centre North building, a total of 93 truck trailer parking stalls and 46 truck loading docks will be provided. The proposed project site would connect with the existing Tactical Drive, which would connect with the existing Intermodal Way, providing the primary access route for trucks to access the project site.

In addition to the proposed Airport Business Centre North truck traffic restriction on Airport Way, a separate Roth Road Corridor Study is currently being prepared by the San Joaquin Council of Government (SJCOG) in coordination with the City of Lathrop, City of Manteca, San Joaquin County and Caltrans District 10 (Stockton, CA). The purpose of the Roth Road Corridor Study is to develop a comprehensive plan for improvements from Interstate 5 (I-5) to the west and Airport Way to the east. This plan includes widening Roth Road west of Intermodal Way, realigning Harland Road, and making improvements at the I-5 / Roth Road interchange to serve projected traffic (cars and trucks) from existing and future land uses along the entire Roth Road Corridor.

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Table presents the trip generation rates (Table 1), projected trips generated by the proposed Airport Business Centre North Project for Weekday Daily, AM Peak Hour, and PM Peak Hour Conditions for All Vehicles (Table 2), Employee Vehicles – Passenger Cars, SUV and Light Duty Trucks (Table 3), and Delivery CA Legal / STAA Trucks ((Table 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 being developed for the General Plan 2020/2040 Update.

Exhibit "B"
2 | Page
Table 1: Airport Business Centre North Project (3157 N. Airport Way) 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)
360,000
Square Feet 3.77 0.39 0.27 0.12 0.39 0.13 0.25
Notes:
1 Trip rates are based on the Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2021).

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022
Table 2: Airport Business Centre North Project (3157 N. Airport Way) 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
Airport Business Center
North Project
360,000
Square Feet 1,358 139 97 42 139 48 91
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022
Table 3: Airport Business Centre North Project (3157 N. Airport Way) 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
Airport Business Center
North Project
360,000
Square Feet 1,088 116 93 23 124 36 88
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022
Table 4: Airport Business Centre North Project (3157 N. Airport Way) 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
Airport Business Center
North Project
360,000
Square Feet 270 23 4 19 15 12 3
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022
Exhibit "B"
3 | Page
SENATE BILL 743 AND VEHICLES MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
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.

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.

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 high-quality 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.

Exhibit "B"
4 | Page
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 local-serving, 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 less-than-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.

Caltrans supports streamlining for projects that meet these screening thresholds because they help achieve VMT reduction and mode shift goals.

Exhibit "B"
5 | Page

AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH VEHICLES MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS The proposed Airport Business Centre North 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.

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 5 presents modeled Baseline Citywide from the Manteca General Plan EIR and Cumulative With Airport Business Centre North Project VMT per industrial employee. According to the Manteca General Plan EIR, the 2019 Baseline VMT per industrial employee is 75.3. The results of the VMT analysis showed that the proposed Airport Business Centre North Project will result in a decrease in VMT when compared to baseline citywide, from

75.3 to 74.8 vehicle miles per employee.

This represents a relatively flat 0.6% decrease when compared to baseline city-wide average. It should be noted that the construction of the Airport Business Centre North Project will improve the jobs to housing balance in the City of Manteca and provide an overall benefit to reducing VMT per employee with fewer residents expected to leave the City for employment. This will result fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

Table 5: Airport Business Centre North 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 Airport
Business Centre North Project 74.8 - 0.5 -0.6%
Note: Citywide VMT includes All industrial land Uses in the City of Manteca Source: City of Manteca Travel Demand Model - Fehr & Peers, 2022 The updated General Plan includes policies designed to reduce vehicle travel and vehicle miles traveled. The Circulation Element (Chapter 3.14) addresses providing adequate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities and opportunities, promoting non-vehicle travel modes, requiring development projects that accommodate or employ fifty (50) or more employees to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs, and ensuring regional coordination on trip and VMT reduction efforts. General Plan policies and actions that contribute to VMT reductions are identified below. These policies and actions minimize VMT impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

Exhibit "B"
6 | Page
Additionally, it should be noted that, as discussed in the Regulatory Setting, Governors Executive Order N-79-20 requires that 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks be zero-emission by 2035. It shall be a further goal of the State that 100 percent of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the State be zero-emission by 2045 for all operations, where feasible, and by 2035 for drayage trucks. It shall be further a goal of the State to transition to 100 percent zero-emission off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035, where feasible. Accordingly, the City of Manteca aims to develop a Zero Emissions Vehicle Market Development Strategy that ensures expeditious implementation of the systems of policies, programs and regulations necessary to achieve the order.

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 Airport Business Centre North 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 6 presents the existing weekday ADT volumes for twenty-four (24) study roadway segments in the project study area. The Project Trip Generation analysis showed that on a daily basis, the proposed Airport Business Centre North Project would add a total of 1,358 vehicles to the surrounding transportation network, consisting of 1,088 employee vehicles, and 270 California Legal or STAA Trucks. On a typical weekday, the proposed Airport Business Centre North Project would add 270 California Legal or STAA Trucks on Intermodal Way between Roth Road and Interconnect Drive.

Table 6: Existing Level of Service Analysis – No Project versus With Airport Business Centre North 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 9,863 D 163 1.7 %

2. Roth Road – Between Intermodal Way
and McKinley Avenue 9,600 D 9,925 D 325 3.4 %

3. Roth Road – Between McKinley
Avenue and Harlan Road 9,800 D 10,125 D 325 3.3 %

4. Roth Road – Between Harlan Road
and NB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 14,800 D 15,125 D 325 2.2 %

5. Roth Road – Between NB I-5 Off/OnRamps and SB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 8,500 C 8,608 C 108 1.3 %

6. Airport Way – Between French Camp
Road and Roth Road 7,400 C 7,563 C 163 2.2 %
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
Exhibit "B"
7 | Page
Table 6 (Continued): Existing Level of Service Analysis – No Project versus With Airport Business Centre North 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

7. Airport Way – Between Roth Road
and Lovelace Road 6,700 C 6,918 C 218 3.3 %

8. Airport Way – Between Lovelace Road
and Daisywood Drive 7,000 C 7,218 C 218 3.1 %

9. Airport Way – Between Daisywood
Drive and Pinnacle Drive 7,500 D 8,370 D 870 11.6 %

10. Airport Way – Between Pinnacle Drive
and Lathrop Road 8,800 D 9,670 D 870 9.9 %

11. Airport Way – Between Lathrop Road
and Northgate Drive 9,800 D 10,181 D 381 3.9 %

12. Airport Way – Between Northgate
Drive and Louise Avenue 10,500 D 10,881 D 381 3.6 %

13. Airport Way – Between Louise Avenue
and Crom Avenue 14,800 D 15,181 D 381 2.6 %

14. Airport Way – Between Crom Avenue
and Yosemite Avenue 15,600 D 15,981 D 381 2.4 %

15. Lathrop Road – Between Union Road
and Airport Way 16,700 D 16,972 D 272 1.6 %

16. Lathrop Road – Between Airport Way
and McKinley Avenue 21,400 D 21,618 D 218 1.0 %

17. Lathrop Road – Between McKinley
Avenue and 5th Street 21,000 D 21,196 D 196 0.9 %

18. Lathrop Road – Between 5th Street
and Harlan Road 20,600 D 20,796 D 196 1.0 %

19. Lathrop Road – Between Harlan Road
and NB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 24,500 D 24,696 D 196 0.8 %

20. Lathrop Road – Between NB I-5 Off
/On-Ramps and SB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 16,200 C 16,298 C 98 0.6 %

21. Spartan Way – Between SB I-5 Off/On
-Ramps and Golden Valley Parkway 9,200 C 9,222 C 22 0.2 %

22. Intermodal Way – Between Roth Road
and 5.11 Tactical Building 1,650 C 1,920 C 270 16.4 %

23. Intermodal Way – Between 5.11
Tactical Building and Tactical Way 950 C 1,220 C 270 28.4 %

24. Tactical Way – Between Airport Way
and Intermodal Way 135 C 189 C 54 40.0 %
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
Exhibit "B"
8 | Page
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 Airport Business Centre North Project Weekday Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Conditions. Table 7 presents the projected ADT volumes for twenty-four (24) study roadway segments in the project study area using the City of Manteca / City of Lathrop Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) Model.

Table 7: Cumulative Level of Service Analysis – No Project versus With Airport Business Centre North 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 17,953 D 163 0.9 %

2. Roth Road – Between Intermodal Way
and McKinley Avenue 17,420 D 17,745 D 325 1.9 %

3. Roth Road – Between McKinley
Avenue and Harlan Road 19,380 D 19,705 D 325 1.7 %

4. Roth Road – Between Harlan Road
and NB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 24,600 D 24,925 D 325 1.3 %

5. Roth Road – Between NB I-5 Off/OnRamps and SB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 32,610 D 32,718 D 108 0.3 %

6. Airport Way – Between French Camp
Road and Roth Road 17,640 C 17,803 C 163 0.9 %

7. Airport Way – Between Roth Road
and Lovelace Road 19,800 C 20,018 C 218 1.1 %

8. Airport Way – Between Lovelace Road
and Daisywood Drive 16,010 C 16,228 C 218 1.4 %

9. Airport Way – Between Daisywood
Drive and Pinnacle Drive 15,980 C 16,850 C 870 5.4 %
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
Exhibit "B"
9 | Page
Table 7 (Continued): Cumulative Level of Service Analysis – No Project versus With Airport Business Centre North 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

10. Airport Way – Between Pinnacle Drive
and Lathrop Road 24,980 D 25,850 D 870 3.5 %

11. Airport Way – Between Lathrop Road
and Northgate Drive 22,190 D 22,571 D 381 1.7 %

12. Airport Way – Between Northgate
Drive and Louise Avenue 20,840 D 21,221 D 381 1.8 %

13. Airport Way – Between Louise Avenue
and Crom Avenue 23,300 D 23,681 D 381 1.6 %

14. Airport Way – Between Crom Avenue
and Yosemite Avenue 23,180 D 23,561 D 381 1.6 %

15. Lathrop Road – Between Union Road
and Airport Way 21,650 D 21,922 D 272 1.3 %

16. Lathrop Road – Between Airport Way
and McKinley Avenue 24,460 D 24,678 D 218 0.9 %

17. Lathrop Road – Between McKinley
Avenue and 5th Street 26,030 D 26,226 D 196 0.8 %

18. Lathrop Road – Between 5th Street
and Harlan Road 25,410 D 25,606 D 196 0.8 %

19. Lathrop Road – Between Harlan Road
and NB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 35,350 D 35,546 D 196 0.6 %

20. Lathrop Road – Between NB I-5 Off
/On-Ramps and SB I-5 Off/On-Ramps 39,330 D 39,428 D 98 0.2 %

21. Spartan Way – Between SB I-5 Off/On
-Ramps and Golden Valley Parkway 47,830 D 47,852 D 22 0.1 %

22. Intermodal Way – Between Roth Road
and 5.11 Tactical Building 2,380 C 2,650 C 270 11.3 %

23. Intermodal Way – Between 5.11
Tactical Building and Tactical Way 1,780 C 2,050 C 270 15.2 %

24. Tactical Way – Between Airport Way
and Intermodal Way 225 C 279 C 54 24.0 %
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
Exhibit "B"
10 | Page
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 Airport Business Centre North 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 8 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 Airport Business Centre North Project would add a total of 96 vehicles to the surrounding transportation network, consisting of 53 employee vehicles, and 38 California Legal or STAA Trucks. During the PM peak hour, the proposed Airport Business Centre North Project would add a total of 78 vehicles to the surrounding transportation network, consisting of 57 employee vehicles, and 8 California Legal or STAA Trucks.

Table 8: Existing Level of Service Analysis – No Project versus With Airport Business Centre North 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) 15.6 (15.9) B (B)

2. Roth Road / Intermodal Way (Signal) 8.5 (9.2) A (A) 9.5 (9.9) A (A)

3. Roth Road / I-5 SB Ramps (SSSC) 18.5 (22.1) C (C) 22.5 (24.7) C (C)

4. Roth Road / I-5 NB Ramps (SSSC) 13.1 (15.7) B (C) 14.9 (17.1) B (C)

5. Airport Way / Lovelace Road (Signal) 9.7 (9.0) A (A) 10.4 (9.9) B (A)

6. Airport Way / Daisywood Drive
(Signal) 6.7 (5.8) A (A) 7.5 (6.7) A (A)

7. Airport Way / Lathrop Road (Signal) 26.6 (27.0) C (C) 29.4 (30.2) C (C)

8. Airport Way / Louise Avenue (Signal) 28.5 (29.6) C (C) 30.2 (31.4) C (C)

9. Lathrop Road / I-5 SB Ramps (Signal) 14.4 (17.8) B (B) 16.8 (19.1) B (B)

10. Lathrop Road / I-5 NB Ramps (Signal) 13.1 (17.4) B (B) 14.8 (19.6) B (B)

11. Lathrop Road / Union Road (Signal) 31.7 (30.8) C (C) 32.7 (32.8) C (C)

12. Lathrop Road / SR 99 SB Ramps /
Main Street (Signal) 21.1 (24.0) C (C) 22.5 (25.5) C (C)

13. Lathrop Road / SR 99 NB Ramps
(Signal) 10.1 (9.9) B (A) 11.0 (10.7) B (B)

14. Airport Way / Tactical Way (SSSC) 5.5 (7.2) A (B) 6.7 (8.7) A (B) Notes:

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022
Exhibit "B"
11 | Page
The results of the intersection level of service analysis showed that the proposed Airport Business Centre North 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.

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 Airport Business Centre North 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 9 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.

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 without the proposed Project:
 Union Road/Lathrop Road would operate unacceptably at LOS F during both AM peak hour and PM peak hours
The results of the intersection level of service analysis showed that the proposed Airport Business Centre North 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 under the Cumulative With Project Conditions.

Table 9: Cumulative Level of Service Analysis – No Project versus With Airport Business Centre North 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) 23.6 (24.4) C (C)

2. Roth Road / Intermodal Way (Signal) 2 10.2 (10.8) B (B) 11.4 (11.7) B (B)

3. Roth Road / I-5 SB Ramps (Signal) 2 13.9 (18.0) B (B) 14.6 (19.7) B (B) Notes:

Bold indicates unacceptable operations.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022
Exhibit "B"
12 | Page
Table 9 (Continued): Cumulative Level of Service Analysis – No Project versus With Airport Business Centre North 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)

4. Roth Road / I-5 NB Ramps (Signal) 2 13.2 (14.4) B (B) 14.0 (15.3) B (B)

5. Airport Way / Lovelace Road (Signal) 2 9.1 (9.2) A (A) 9.7 (9.7) A (A)

6. Airport Way / Daisywood Drive (Signal) 2 6.9 (7.2) A (A) 7.7 (7.9) A (A)

7. Airport Way / Lathrop Road (Signal) 2 33.2 (32.6) C (C) 34.5 (34.1) C (C)

8. Airport Way / Louise Avenue (Signal) 2 26.2 (28.5) C (C) 28.0 (29.5) C (C)

9. Lathrop Road / I-5 SB Ramps (Signal) 2 3 17.8 (21.3) B (C) 18.4 (22.0) B (C)

10. Lathrop Road / I-5 NB Ramps (Signal) 2 3 34.1 (25.4) C (C) 34.7 (26.3) C (C)

11. Lathrop Road / Union Road (Signal) 89.8 (80.2) F (F) 90.3 (80.8) F (F)

12. Lathrop Road / SR 99 SB Ramps / Main
Street (Signal) 47.4 (45.3) D (D) 47.9 (45.9) D (D)

13. Lathrop Road / SR 99 NB Ramps (Signal) 11.2 (10.8) B (B) 11.4 (11.1) B (B)

14. Airport Way / Tactical Way (SSSC) 10.6 (10.9) B (B) 11.2 (11.8) B (B) Notes:

Bold indicates unacceptable operations.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The following conditions should be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the proposed project:
 Traffic COA #1 – The developer shall pay for the total cost of construction of the Proposed Private Drive on the west site of the project site and require all truck traffic (delivery, California, and Surface Transportation Assistance Act – STAA) to use Intermodal Drive to access the Airport Business Centre North Project.  Traffic COA #2 – 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.

Exhibit "B"
13 | Page
 Traffic COA #3 – 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 to improve the Roth Road Corridor in the City of Manteca, City of Lathrop, and San Joaquin County.  Traffic COA #4 – The developer shall work with the City of Manteca Engineering Department and Caltrans District 10 to document STAA Terminal Access Route from Interstate 5 to Roth Road / Intermodal Way and Tactical Way / Airport Business Centre truck turnaround area.  Traffic COA #5 – The developer shall pay for the current PFIP fee as determined by the City of Manteca prior to issuance of building permits to mitigate the Union Road / Lathrop Road intersection under Cumulative Conditions. Based on the City of Manteca General Plan Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) Model, the project contributes 1.3 percent of the volume at this intersection under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, Therefore, the project’s fair share contribution would be 1.3 percent of the total cost of installing a new traffic signal controller and completing a traffic signal timing optimization study that was identified as COA#3 for the North Manteca Annexation Project.

Exhibit "B"

INITIAL STUDY AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT
PAGE 144
APPENDIX C: NOISE STUDY
Exhibit "B"
Environmental Noise Assessment
Airport Business Centre 2
City of Manteca, California
May 26, 2022
Project #220411
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) Exhibit "B"

3.10 NOISE

3.10-2 Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project Table of Contents

3.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ......................................................................................... 3 KEY TERMS ..................................................................................................................................... 3 FUNDAMENTALS OF ACOUSTICS.......................................................................................................... 4 EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE............................................................................................................ 5 EXISTING AND FUTURE NOISE AND VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTS............................................................... 6 EVALUATION OF FUTURE OPERATIONAL NOISE ON PROPOSED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES.......... 7 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................ 14 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................... 14

3.10.2 REGULATORY SETTING.............................................................................................. 15 FEDERAL.......................................................................................................................................15 STATE ..........................................................................................................................................15 CITY OF MANTECA ......................................................................................................................... 15 GOALS .........................................................................................................................................18 POLICIES.......................................................................................................................................18 IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................................................... 20 VIBRATION STANDARDS .................................................................................................................. 24

3.10.3 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES..................................................................... 26 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................................................. 26 List of Figures
Figure 3.10‐1: Noise Measurement Locations...................................................................................31 Figure 3.10‐2: Commercial Operational Noise Contours (Leq) ...........................................................33 List of Tables
Table 3.10‐1: Typical Noise Levels.......................................................................................................5 Table 3.10‐2: Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data........................................7 Table 3.10‐3: Existing Traffic Noise Levels .........................................................................................8 Table 3.10‐4: Existing and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels...................................................9 Table 3.10‐5: Cumulative and Cumulative + Project Traffic Noise Levels.......................................11 Table 3.10‐6: Construction Equipment Noise....................................................................................14 Table 3.10‐7: Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment ................................................14 Table 3.10‐8: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure Mobile Noise Sources ......................................16 Table 3.10‐9: Performance Standards for Stationary Noise Sources.................................................17 Table 3.10‐10: Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings.............................................................25 Appendices
Appendix A: Acoustical Terminology
Appendix B: Continuous Ambient Noise Measurement Results

Exhibit "B"
NOISE 3.10
Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project 3.10-3 This section provides a general description of the existing noise sources in the project vicinity, a discussion of the regulatory setting, and identifies potential noise impacts associated with the proposed project. Project impacts are evaluated relative to applicable noise level criteria and to the existing ambient noise environment. Mitigation measures have been identified forsignificant noise‐ related impacts.

3.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

KEY TERMS
Acoustics The science of sound.

Ambient Noise The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given area consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre‐project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study.

Attenuation The reduction of noise.

A‐Weighting A frequency‐response adjustment of a sound level meter that conditions the output signal to approximate human response. A‐weighted dB values are expressed as dBA.

Decibel or dB Fundamental unit of sound, defined asten times the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared.

CNEL Community noise equivalent level. Defined as the 24‐hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 ‐ 10 p.m.) weighted by a factor of three and nighttime hours weighted by a factor of 10 prior to averaging.

Frequency The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic acoustic signal, expressed in cycles per second or Hertz.

Impulsive Sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay.

Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting.

Leq Equivalent or energy‐averaged sound level.

Lmax The highest root‐mean‐square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time.

L(n) The sound level exceeded a described percentile over a measurement period.

For instance, an hourly L50 is the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during the one hour period.

Loudness A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound.

Noise Unwanted sound.

SEL Sound exposure levels. A rating, in decibels, of a discrete event, such as an aircraft flyover or train passby, that compresses the total sound energy into a one‐second event.

Exhibit "B"

3.10 NOISE

3.10-4 Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project

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).

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 dB) 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. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of A‐weighted levels, but are expressed as dB, unless otherwise noted.

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 dB is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70‐dB sound is half as loud as an 80‐dB sound, and twice as loud as a 60‐dB sound.

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 to measure the ambient noise level 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 (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 a 24‐hour average, it tendsto disguise short‐term variationsin the noise environment. CNEL issimilarto Ldn, but includes Exhibit "B"
NOISE 3.10
Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project 3.10-5 a +5‐dB penalty for evening noise. Table 3.10‐1 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common situations.

TABLE 3.10‐1: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS

COMMON OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES NOISE LEVEL (DB) 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
Dishwasher in Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime --40-- Theater, Large Conference 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.

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 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 1 dB change cannot be perceived;  Outside of the laboratory, a 3‐dB change is considered a just‐perceivable difference;  A change in level of at least 5‐dB is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and
Exhibit "B"

3.10 NOISE

3.10-6 Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project  A 10‐dB 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 dB 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 and Surrounding Land Uses
North: Existing commercial uses border the northern boundary.

East: South Airport Way and existing single family residential uses are located east of the project site.

South: Existing farmland and commercial uses border the southern boundary of the overall project site.

West: Commercial uses border the western boundary of the overall project site.

Existing Ambient Noise Levels
To quantify the existing ambient noise environment in the Project Vicinity, a continuous (24‐hour) noise level measurement was conducted on the project site on May 12th, 2022. The noise measurement location is shown on Figure 3.10‐1. The noise level measurement survey results are provided in Table 3.10‐2. Appendix B of Appendix F shows the complete results of the noise monitoring survey.

The sound level meter was programmed to collect hourly noise level intervals at each site during the survey. The maximum value (Lmax) represents the highest noise level measured during an interval.

The average value (Leq) representsthe energy average of all of the noise measured during an interval.

The median value (L50) represents the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during an interval.

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 an LDL Model CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the American National Standards Institute for Type 1 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4).

Exhibit "B"
NOISE 3.10
Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project 3.10-7 TABLE 3.10‐2: SUMMARY OF EXISTING BACKGROUND NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA

SITE LOCATION DATE/TIME LDN

AVERAGE MEASURED HOURLY NOISE LEVELS, DB
DAYTIME (7AM‐10PM) NIGHTTIME (10PM‐7AM)
LEQ L50 LMAX LEQ L50 LMAX
Continuous (24‐hour) Noise Level Measurements
LT‐1
Eastern side of
project site, 160
feet to Airport
Way Centerline
5/12/2022 67 62 58 79 60 54 79
SOURCE: SAXELBY ACOUSTICS, 2022.

Existing and Future Traffic Noise Environment at Sensitive Receptors

OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
To predict existing and cumulative noise levels due to traffic, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD‐77‐108) was used. The model is based upon the Calveno reference noise emission factors for automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free‐flowing traffic conditions.

Traffic noise levels are predicted at the sensitive receptors located at the closest typical setback distance along each project‐area roadway segment. Where traffic noise barriers are predominately along a roadway segment, a ‐5 offset was added to the noise prediction model to account for various noise barrier heights. A ‐5 to dB offset was also applied where outdoor activity areas are shielded by intervening buildings. In some locations, sensitive receptors may be located at distances which vary from the assumed calculation distance and may experience shielding from intervening barriers or sound walls. However, the traffic noise analysis is believed to be representative of the majority of sensitive receptors located closest to the project‐area roadway segments analyzed in this report.

Table 3.10‐3 shows the existing traffic noise levels in terms of Ldn at closest sensitive receptors along each roadway segment. A complete listing of the FHWA Model input data is contained in Appendix C of Appendix F.

Exhibit "B"

3.10 NOISE

3.10-8 Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project TABLE 3.10‐3: EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS

ROADWAY SEGMENT

54.3 Roth Road Between NB I‐5 Off/On Ramps and SB I‐5
Off/On Ramps

54.0 Airport Way French Camp Road and Roth Road 64.9
Airport Way Roth Road and Lovelace Road 61.4
Airport Way Lovelace Rd. and Daisywood Dr. 64.2
Airport Way Daisywood Dr. and Pinnacle Dr. 61.1
Airport Way Pinnacle Dr. and Lathrop Rd. 67.5
Airport Way Lathrop Rd. and Northgate Dr. 67.4
Airport Way Northgate Dr. and Louise Ave. 66.5
Airport Way Louise Ave. and Crom Ave. 65.2
Airport Way Crom Ave. and Yosemite Ave. 68.7
Lathrop Road Union Rd. and Airport Way 70.8
Lathrop Road Airpory Way and McKinley Ave. 51.3
Lathrop Road McKinley Ave. and 5th Street 68.7
Lathrop Road 5th Street and Harlan Rd. 67.6
Lathrop Road Harlan Rd. and NB I‐5 Off/On‐Ramps 55.9
Lathrop Road Between NB I‐5 Off/On Ramps and SB I‐5
Off/On Ramps

49.5 Spartan Way SB I‐5 Off/On Ramps and Golden Valley
Parkway 34.2
Intermodal Way Roth Road and 5.11 Tactical Building 31.9 Intermodal Way 5.11 Tactical Building and Tacical Way 29.9 SOURCE: FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 WITH INPUTS FROM FEHR & PEERS AND SAXELBY ACOUSTICS. 2022.

Exhibit "B"
NOISE 3.10
Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project 3.10-9

PREDICTED EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in ADT volumes on the local roadway network, and consequently, an increase in noise levels from traffic sources along affected segments. Tables 3.10‐4 and 3.10‐5 show the predicted traffic noise level increases on the local roadway network for Existing, Existing + Project, Cumulative No Project, and Cumulative + Project conditions. Appendix C of Appendix F provides the complete inputs and results of the FHWA traffic noise modeling.

TABLE 3.10‐4: EXISTING AND EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS

ROADWAY SEGMENT

NOISE LEVELS (LDN, DB) AT NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

EXISTING
EXISTING +

PROJECT
CHANGE
EX. GP CRITERIA1 SIGNIFICANT UNDER
EX. GP?

PROPOSED GP
CRITERIA2

SIGNIFICANT UNDER
GP UPDATE?
Roth Road Between Intermodal
and Airport Way

51.9 51.9 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Roth Road Between Intermodal
and McKinley Ave

66.0 66.1 0.1
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Roth Road Between McKinley Ave.
and Harlan Road

50.3 50.4 0.1
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Roth Road
Between Harlan Rd.
and NB I‐5 Off/On‐
Ramps

54.3 54.4 0.1
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Roth Road
Between NB I‐5 Off/On
Ramps and SB I‐5
Off/On Ramps

54.0 54.1 0.1
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Airport Way French Camp Road and
Roth Road

64.9 65.0 0.1
+5‐10 dBA No
+3 dBA No
Airport Way Roth Road and Lovelace
Road

61.4 61.5 0.1
+5‐10 dBA No
+3 dBA No
Airport Way Lovelace Rd. and
Daisywood Dr.

64.2 64.3 0.1
+5‐10 dBA No
+3 dBA No
Airport Way Daisywood Dr. and
Pinnacle Dr.

61.1 61.6 0.5
+5‐10 dBA No
+3 dBA No
Airport Way Pinnacle Dr. and
Lathrop Rd.

67.5 67.9 0.4
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Lathrop Rd. and
Northgate Dr.

67.4 67.6 0.2
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Northgate Dr. and
Louise Ave.

66.5 66.6 0.1
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way 65.2 65.3 0.1 +5‐10 dBA No
Exhibit "B"

3.10 NOISE

3.10-10 Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project

ROADWAY SEGMENT

NOISE LEVELS (LDN, DB) AT NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

EXISTING
EXISTING +

PROJECT
CHANGE
EX. GP CRITERIA1 SIGNIFICANT UNDER
EX. GP?

PROPOSED GP
CRITERIA2

SIGNIFICANT UNDER
GP UPDATE?
Louise Ave. and Crom
Ave.
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Crom Ave. and
Yosemite Ave.

68.7 68.8 0.1
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Lathrop Road Union Rd. and Airport
Way

70.8 70.9 0.1
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Lathrop Road Airpory Way and
McKinley Ave.

51.3 51.3 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Lathrop Road McKinley Ave. and 5th
Street

68.7 68.7 0.0
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Lathrop Road 5th Street and Harlan
Rd.

67.6 67.7 0.1
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Lathrop Road Harlan Rd. and NB I‐5
Off/On‐Ramps

55.9 55.9 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Lathrop Road
Between NB I‐5 Off/On
Ramps and SB I‐5
Off/On Ramps

49.5 49.5 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Spartan Way
SB I‐5 Off/On Ramps
and Golden Valley
Parkway

34.2 34.3 0.1
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Intermodal
Way
Roth Road and 5.11
Tactical Building

31.9 32.6 0.7
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
1 EXISTING GP CRITERIA ‐ 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 2 PROPOSED GP CRITERIA ‐ 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:
 WHEN EXISTING NOISE LEVELS ARE LESS THAN 60 DB, A 5 DB INCREASE IN NOISE WILL BE CONSIDERED SUBSTANTIAL; Exhibit "B"
NOISE 3.10
Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project 3.10-11  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.

SOURCE: FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 WITH INPUTS FROM FEHR & PEERS AND SAXELBY ACOUSTICS. 2022.

TABLE 3.10‐5: CUMULATIVE AND CUMULATIVE + PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS

ROADWAY SEGMENT

NOISE LEVELS (LDN, DB) AT NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

CUMULATIVE

CUMULATIVE
+ PROJECT
CHANGE
EX. GP CRITERIA1 SIGNIFICANT UNDER
EX. GP?

PROPOSED GP
CRITERIA2

SIGNIFICANT UNDER
GP UPDATE?
Roth Road Between Intermodal
and Airport Way

54.5 54.5 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Roth Road Between Intermodal
and McKinley Ave

68.6 68.7 0.1
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Roth Road Between McKinley
Ave. and Harlan Road

53.3 53.3 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Roth Road
Between Harlan Rd.
and NB I‐5 Off/On‐
Ramps

56.5 56.5 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Roth Road
Between NB I‐5
Off/On Ramps and SB
I‐5 Off/On Ramps

59.8 59.9 0.1
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Airport Way French Camp Road
and Roth Road

68.7 68.8 0.1
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Roth Road and
Lovelace Road 66.1 66.1 0.0
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Lovelace Rd. and
Daisywood Dr.

67.8 67.9 0.1
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Daisywood Dr. and
Pinnacle Dr.

64.4 64.6 0.2
+5‐10 dBA No
+3 dBA No
Airport Way Pinnacle Dr. and
Lathrop Rd.

72.0 72.1 0.1
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Lathrop Rd. and
Northgate Dr.

71.0 71.1 0.1
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Northgate Dr. and
Louise Ave.

69.4 69.5 0.1
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Louise Ave. and Crom
Ave.

67.1 67.2 0.1
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Airport Way Crom Ave. and
Yosemite Ave. 70.4 70.5 0.1
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Lathrop Road Union Rd. and Airport
Way

72.0 72.0 0.0
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Exhibit "B"

3.10 NOISE

3.10-12 Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project

ROADWAY SEGMENT

NOISE LEVELS (LDN, DB) AT NEAREST SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

CUMULATIVE

CUMULATIVE
+ PROJECT
CHANGE
EX. GP CRITERIA1 SIGNIFICANT UNDER
EX. GP?

PROPOSED GP
CRITERIA2

SIGNIFICANT UNDER
GP UPDATE?
Lathrop Road Airpory Way and
McKinley Ave.

51.9 51.9 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Lathrop Road McKinley Ave. and 5th
Street

69.6 69.6 0.0
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Lathrop Road 5th Street and Harlan
Rd.

68.5 68.6 0.1
+5‐10 dBA No
+1.5 dBA No
Lathrop Road Harlan Rd. and NB I‐5
Off/On‐Ramps

57.5 57.5 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Lathrop Road
Between NB I‐5
Off/On Ramps and SB
I‐5 Off/On Ramps

53.3 53.3 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Spartan Way
SB I‐5 Off/On Ramps
and Golden Valley
Parkway

41.4 41.4 0.0
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Intermodal Way Roth Road and 5.11
Tactical Building

33.5 34.0 0.5
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
Intermodal Way 5.11 Tactical Building
and Tacical Way

32.7 33.3 0.6
>60 dBA No
+5 dBA No
1 EXISTING GP CRITERIA ‐ 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 2 PROPOSED GP CRITERIA ‐ 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:
 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.

SOURCE: FHWA‐RD‐77‐108 WITH INPUTS FROM FEHR & PEERS AND SAXELBY ACOUSTICS. 2022.

Exhibit "B"
NOISE 3.10
Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project 3.10-13 Based upon data in Tables 3.10‐4 and 3.10‐5, the proposed project is predicted to result in a maximum traffic noise level increase of 1.5 dB.

EVALUATION OF FUTURE OPERATIONAL NOISE AT OFF-SITE NOISESENSITIVE RECEPTORS Operational Noise Levels
The primary noise generating components of the new commercial development would be truck movements, auto circulation, and loading dock activity. The following is a list of assumptions used for the noise modeling. The data used is based upon a combination of manufacturer’s provided data and Saxelby Acoustics data from similar operations.

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 measurementsindicate 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.).

PARKING LOT CIRCULATION
Based upon the project traffic study, the peak hour trips for the project would be 124 passenger vehicles and 23 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 prediction model. Inputs to the model included sound power levels for the proposed commercial uses, existing and proposed buildings, terrain type, and locations of sensitive receptors. These predictions are made in accordance with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 9613‐2:1996 (Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors). ISO 9613 is the most commonly used method for calculating exterior noise propagation. Figure 3.10‐2 shows the noise level contours resulting from operation of the project.

Exhibit "B"

3.10 NOISE

3.10-14 Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project

CONSTRUCTION NOISE ENVIRONMENT
During the construction of the proposed project, including roads, water, and sewer lines and related infrastructure, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the project vicinity. As indicated in Table 3.10‐6, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet.

TABLE 3.10‐6: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE

TYPE OF EQUIPMENT

MAXIMUM LEVEL, DB
25 FEET 50 FEET
Backhoe 84 78
Compactor 89 83
Compressor (air) 84 78
Concrete Saw 96 90
Dozer 88 82
Dump Truck 82 76
Excavator 87 81
Generator 87 81
Jackhammer 94 89
Pneumatic Tools 91 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 happen during construction when activities such as grading, utilities placement, and road construction occur. Table 3.10‐7 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction placement.

TABLE 3.10‐7: VIBRATION LEVELS FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

TYPE OF EQUIPMENT
PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY @ 25 FEET
(INCHES/SECOND)
PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY @ 100 FEET
(INCHES/SECOND)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.011
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.010
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.000
Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 0.011
Jackhammer 0.035 0.004
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.009
Vibratory Compactor/roller 0.210 0.026
SOURCE: FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, TRANSIT NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES, MAY 2006 Exhibit "B"
NOISE 3.10
Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project 3.10-15

3.10.2 REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL
There are no federal regulations related to noise that apply to the proposed project.

STATE
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, indicate that a significant noise impact may occur if a project exposes persons to noise or vibration levels in excess of local general plans or noise ordinance standards, or cause a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels. CEQA standards are discussed more below under the Thresholds of Significance section.

California State Building Codes
The State Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 of the State of California Code of Regulations establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within new buildings which house people, including hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses and dwellings other than single‐family dwellings. Title 24 mandates that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB Ldn or CNEL in any habitable room.

Title 24 also mandates that for structures containing noise‐sensitive uses to be located where the Ldn or CNEL exceeds 60 dB, an acoustical analysis must be prepared to identify mechanisms for limiting exterior noise to the prescribed allowable interiorlevels. If the interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be kept closed, the design for the structure must also specify a ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment

CITY OF MANTECA
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‐2. Protect the quality of life in the community and the tourism economy from noise generated by incompatible land uses.

Exhibit "B"

3.10 NOISE

3.10-16 Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project  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 3.10‐8].  N‐P‐4: The City shall require stationary noise sources proposed adjacent to noise sensitive uses to be mitigated so as to not exceed the noise level performance standards in Table 9‐2 [Table 3.10‐9].

TABLE 3.10‐8: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NOISE EXPOSURE MOBILE NOISE SOURCES LAND USE4 OUTDOOR ACTIVITY
AREAS1

INTERIOR SPACES
LDN/CNEL, DB LEQ/CNEL, DB3
Residential 602 45 ‐‐
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: 1OUTDOOR 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 NOISE‐REDUCTION 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. 4WHERE A PROPOSED USE ISNOT 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.

Exhibit "B"
NOISE 3.10
Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project 3.10-17  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 sourcessatisfiesthe noise levelstandards of Table 9‐2 [Table 3.10‐9]. Noise mitigation may be required to meet Table 9‐2 [Table 3.10‐ 9] performance standards.

TABLE 3.10‐9: 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 [Table 3.10‐9] standards, the City shall regulate construction‐related noise impacts on adjacent uses.

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. Factorsto 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.

Exhibit "B"

3.10 NOISE

3.10-18 Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project The City of Manteca General Plan – Proposed General Plan Update 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 levelsremain 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.

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:
 Be the responsibility of the applicant.
 Be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics.  Include representative noise level measurements with sufficient sampling periods and locations to adequately describe local conditions and the predominant noise sources.
 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 Exhibit "B"
NOISE 3.10
Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project 3.10-19 Element.
 Recommend appropriate mitigation measures to achieve compliance with the adopted policies and standards of the Noise Element.
 Estimate noise exposure after the prescribed mitigation measures have been implemented.
 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 noise‐ sensitive 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.

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:
 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  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  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.

Exhibit "B"

3.10 NOISE

3.10-20 Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project 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 “quietzones” consistent with the federal regulations.

IMPLEMENTATION
S‐5a Require an acoustical analysis that complies with the requirements of S‐5.7 where:
 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.  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:
 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.
 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.
 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 proceduresshall be used,such as drillsrather 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.

Exhibit "B"
NOISE 3.10
Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project 3.10-21 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 lessthan 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:
 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.

S‐5e Control noise at the source through use of insulation, berms, building design and orientation, bufferspace,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 Exhibit "B"

3.10 NOISE

3.10-22 Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project 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.

TABLE S‐1: 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 - -
1 Where a proposed use is not specifically listed, the use shall comply with the standards for the most similar use as determined by the City.
2 Outdoor 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 Exhibit "B"
NOISE 3.10
Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project 3.10-23 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 S‐2: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES, INCLUDING AFFECTED PROJECTS1,2,3,4

NOISE LEVEL DESCRIPTOR

DAYTIME NIGHTTIME
7 AM TO 10 PM 10 PM TO 7 AM
Hourly Leq, dBA 55 45
1 Each 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.
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. 3 Stationary 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.

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 propertiesin 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 Exhibit "B"

3.10 NOISE

3.10-24 Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project 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

VIBRATION STANDARDS
Vibration islike noise in that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. While vibration is related to noise, it differs in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception to the vibration will depend on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.

Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of peak particle velocities in inches per second. Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of peak particle velocities.

The City does not have specific policies pertaining to vibration levels. However, vibration levels associated with construction activities are addressed as potential noise impacts associated with project implementation.

Human and structuralresponse to different vibration levelsisinfluenced by several factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. Table 3.10‐10 indicates that the threshold for damage to structures ranges from

0.2 to 0.6 peak particle velocity in inches per second (in/sec p.p.v). A threshold of 0.20 in/sec p.p.v. is considered to be a reasonable threshold for short‐term construction projects.

Exhibit "B"
NOISE 3.10
Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project 3.10-25 TABLE 3.10‐10: EFFECTS OF VIBRATION ON PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS

PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY

HUMAN REACTION EFFECT ON BUILDINGS
MM/SEC. IN./SEC.

0.15‐0.30 0.006‐0.019 Threshold of perception; possibility of intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any
type

2.0 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of the vibration to
which ruins and ancient monuments should
be subjected

2.5 0.10 Level at which continuous vibrations
begin to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural” damage to
normal buildings

Special types of finish such as lining of walls,
flexible ceiling treatment, etc., would
minimize “architectural” damage
10‐15 0.4‐0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant by
people subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable to some
people walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than normally
expected from traffic, but would cause
“architectural” damage and possibly minor
structural damage.

SOURCE: CALTRANS. TRANSPORTATION RELATED EARTHBORN VIBRATIONS. TAV‐02‐01‐R9601 FEBRUARY 20, 2002.

Exhibit "B"

3.10 NOISE

3.10-26 Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project

3.10.3 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?
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 have a substantial increase. Generally, a 3 dB increase in noise Exhibit "B"
NOISE 3.10
Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project 3.10-27 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.

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;
 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.

Exhibit "B"

3.10 NOISE

3.10-28 Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT 1: 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?
According to Tables 3.10‐4 and 3.10‐5, the maximum noise level increase due to project traffic is predicted to be 1.1 dBA Ldn This is less than the +1.5 dBA to +5 dBA test ofsignificance applied under the new General Plan polices and less than the +5‐10 dBA test of significance under the existing General Plan. Therefore, this would be a less than significant impact.

OPERATIONAL NOISE INCREASES
As shown in Figure 3.10‐2, the project is predicted to expose nearby residence to noise levels up to 40 dBA Leq, during both daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The predicted project noise levels would meet the City of Manteca daytime and nighttime noise standards for stationary non‐transportation noise sources of 50 dBA, Leq and 45 dBA, Leq, respectively. Therefore, this would be a less than significant impact.

It should be noted that maximum noise levels generated by the residential HVAC units and on‐site vehicle circulation are predicted to be 20 dBA, or less, than the average (Leq) values. The City of Manteca maximum (Lmax) nighttime noise levelstandard 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 County’s standards. Based upon the predicted noise levels of 40 dBA, Leq at the nearest sensitive receptor, the predicted maximum noise levels would be 60 dBA, Lmax and comply with the City maximum standards.

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 east of the site, across South Airport Way.

As indicated in Table 3.10‐6, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 82 to 96 dB Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. The nearest receptor to the east is located approximately 200 feet to over 900 feet from project construction. At this distance construction noise would attenuate to 70‐84 dBA Lmax. Existing noise levels measured along South Airport Way, at a similarsetback distance, were found to be 74‐85 dBA Lmax. Therefore, construction noise is predicted to be within the range of existing noise levels.

Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A significant project‐generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with Exhibit "B"
NOISE 3.10
Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project 3.10-29 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

Therefore, with implementation of MM 3.10‐1, temporary construction noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE(S)
 Mitigation Measure 1(a): Construction activitiesshall 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 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.

Implementation of mitigation measures 1(a) and 1(b) would help to reduce construction‐ generated noise levels. With mitigation, this impact would be considered less‐than‐significant.

Exhibit "B"

3.10 NOISE

3.10-30 Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project IMPACT 2: WOULD THE PROJECT GENERATE EXCESSIVE GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION OR GROUNDBORNE NOISE LEVELS?
Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building structural damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration risessignificantly above the threshold of perception.

Building damage can take the form of cosmetic or structural.

The Table 3.10‐7 data indicates 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 further than 26 feet 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.

IMPACT 3: 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?
There are no airports within two miles of the project vicinity. Therefore, thisimpact is not applicable to the proposed project.

Exhibit "B"
Airport Business Center 2
City of Manteca, California
Figure 3.10-1
Noise Measurement Sites
Exhibit "B"

3.10 NOISE

3.10-32 Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project This page left intentionally blank.

Exhibit "B"
50 dBA
35 dBA
Airport Business Center 2
City of Manteca, California
Figure 3.10-2
Project Noise Contours (dBA Leq)
49 dBA48 dBA47 dBA46 dBA45 dBA
40 dBA
32 dBA
Exhibit "B"

3.10 NOISE

3.10-34 Environmental Impact Report – Airport Business Centre 2 Project This page left intentionally blank.

Exhibit "B"
Appendix A: Acoustical Terminology
Acoustics The science of sound.

Ambient Noise The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given space consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre‐project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study.

ASTC Apparent Sound Transmission Class. Similar to STC but includes sound from flanking paths and correct for room reverberation. A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.

Attenuation The reduction of an acoustic signal.

A‐Weighting A frequency‐response adjustment of a sound level meter that conditions the output signal to approximate human response.

Decibel or dB Fundamental unit of sound, A Bell is defined as the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared. A Decibel is one‐tenth of a Bell.

CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as the 24‐hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 ‐ 10 p.m.) weighted by +5 dBA and nighttime hours weighted by +10 dBA.

DNL See definition of Ldn.

IIC Impact Insulation Class. An integer‐number rating of how well a building floor attenuates impact sounds, such as footsteps. A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.

Frequency The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic signal, expressed in cycles per second or hertz (Hz).

Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting.

Leq Equivalent or energy‐averaged sound level.

Lmax The highest root‐mean‐square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time.

L(n) The sound level exceeded a described percentile over a measurement period. For instance, an hourly L50 is the sound level exceeded 50% of the time during the one‐hour period.

Loudness A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound.

NIC Noise Isolation Class. A rating of the noise reduction between two spaces. Similar to STC but includes sound from flanking paths and no correction for room reverberation.

NNIC Normalized Noise Isolation Class. Similar to NIC but includes a correction for room reverberation.

Noise Unwanted sound.

NRC Noise Reduction Coefficient. NRC is a single‐number rating of the sound‐absorption of a material equal to the arithmetic mean of the sound‐absorption coefficients in the 250, 500, 1000, and 2,000 Hz octave frequency bands rounded to the nearest multiple of 0.05. It is a representation of the amount of sound energy absorbed upon striking a particular surface. An NRC of 0 indicates perfect reflection; an NRC of 1 indicates perfect absorption.

Manteca City CouncilJanuary 10, 2023

Manteca City Council
January 10, 2023