Manteca City Council
January 10, 2023

ATTACHMENT 8
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
3 November 2022
Mallorie Fenrich
City of Manteca
1215 West Center Street, Suite 201
Manteca, CA 95337
[email protected]

COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION, AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT,
SCH#2022100047, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse’s 4 October 2022 request, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Airport Business Centre North Project, located in San Joaquin County.

Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and groundwaters of the state; therefore, our comments will address concerns surrounding those issues.

I. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
The Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. In California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State’s water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.36, and the California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.38.

The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of ATTACHMENT 8
Airport Business Centre North Project - 2 - 3 November 2022 San Joaquin County
Administrative Law (OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have been approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three (3) years, a review of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness of existing standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, please visit our website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/ Antidegradation Considerations
All wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation Implementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_2018

05.pdf
In part it states:

Any discharge of waste to high quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or nuisance from occurring, but also to maintain the highest water quality possible consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State.

This information must be presented as an analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background concentrations and applicable water quality objectives.

The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and land discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permitting processes. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality.

II. Permitting Requirements
Construction Storm Water General Permit
Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.sht ml
ATTACHMENT 8
Airport Business Centre North Project - 3 - 3 November 2022 San Joaquin County
Phase I and II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits1 The Phase I and II MS4 permits require the Permittees reduce pollutants and runoff flows from new development and redevelopment using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). MS4 Permittees have their own development standards, also known as Low Impact Development (LID)/postconstruction standards that include a hydromodification component. The MS4 permits also require specific design concepts for LID/post-construction BMPs in the early stages of a project during the entitlement and CEQA process and the development plan review process.

For more information on which Phase I MS4 Permit this project applies to, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/storm_water/municipal_p ermits/
For more information on the Phase II MS4 permit and who it applies to, visit the State Water Resources Control Board at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/phase_ii_munici pal.shtml
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (916) 557-5250.

Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit – Water Quality Certification If an USACE permit (e.g., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality Certification, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
1 Municipal Permits = The Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Water System (MS4) Permit covers medium sized Municipalities (serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large sized municipalities (serving over 250,000 people). The Phase II MS4 provides coverage for small municipalities, including non-traditional Small MS4s, which include military bases, public campuses, prisons and hospitals.

ATTACHMENT 8
Airport Business Centre North Project - 4 - 3 November 2022 San Joaquin County
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/water_quality_certificatio n/
Waste Discharge Requirements – Discharges to Waters of the State If USACE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., “nonfederal” waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/waste_to_surface_wat er/
Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non-jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non-jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ (General Order 2004-0004). For more information on the General Order 2004-0004, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/200 4/wqo/wqo2004-0004.pdf
Dewatering Permit
If the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board’s Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-2018-0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.

For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2003/ wqo/wqo2003-0003.pdf
For more information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/waiv ers/r5-2018-0085.pdf
Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will ATTACHMENT 8
Airport Business Centre North Project - 5 - 3 November 2022 San Joaquin County
require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/gene ral_orders/r5-2016-0076-01.pdf
NPDES Permit
If the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the Central Valley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/help/permit/ If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4684 or [email protected].

Peter Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento
ATTACHMENT 8
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT 10 DIRECTOR
P.O. BOX 2048 | STOCKTON, CA 95201
(209) 948-7943 | FAX (209) 948-7179 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
October 31, 2022
10-SJ-5-PM R019.058
Airport Business Center North
SPC 22-45
IS-MND
Mallorie Fenrich
City of Manteca
Development Services Dept.
1215 W. Center Street, Ste 201
Manteca, CA 95337
Dear Ms. Fenrich:

The California Department of Transportation appreciates the opportunity to review the proposed Airport Business Center North at 3045, 3123, and 3157 N. Airport Way, Manteca. The project proposes a 360,000 square foot distribution building with 242 parking stalls and 93 trailer parking stalls. This site is in the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan and is directly north of the Airport Business Center at 2803 N. Airport Way, which Caltrans previously reviewed on April 21, 2021. The Department has the following comments:

1. The submittal did not include the electronic Synchro/Simtraffic files requested in our previous letter. Multiple attempts were made to contact Fehr and Peers to obtain these files but we have not received them. Therefore, we are unable to review the TIS and consider this submittal incomplete. Please submit these files to Caltrans for review prior to project approval and give us at least three weeks to respond.

2. Please provide a Traffic Impact Study to Caltrans for review and comment prior to project approval. The Traffic Impact Study should include the information requested in the comments below.

3. The IS-MND should include a table responding to each of the comments in our previous letter dated August 19, 2022. Those comments are listed below.

ATTACHMENT 8
Ms. Fenrich
October 31, 2022

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

4. Provide Traffic Trip Generation Figures and show trip percentage (cars and heavy trucks) on each of the following interchanges.
a. I-5/Lathrop Road interchange
b. SR 99/Lathrop Road interchange
c. I-5/Roth Road interchange

5. Provide peak hour queuing operation analysis for the interchanges mentioned in Comment 2 and provide mitigations of these impacts if any for the following scenarios using Synchro/Simtraffic version 11. If the project scenarios are to be phased over several years, the analysis should specify the years of each phase and analyze the operations impacts of each phase.
a. Existing Conditions
b. Project-Only Condition
c. Existing Conditions plus Project
d. Cumulative Conditions (Existing Conditions plus Other Approval and Pending Project without this project)
e. Cumulative Conditions with this project

6. Provide Figures to show AM (PM) Peak Hours traffic volumes and Tables to show the 95th Percentile queue length for AM (PM) Peak Hours for the following State facilities:
a. I-5/Lathrop Road interchange
b. SR 99/Lathrop Road interchange
c. I-5/Roth Road interchange

7. The 95th Percentile queue length should be based on Simtraffic 5 runs, four 15- minute intervals with 10-minute seeding period.

8. STAA Truck off-tracking analysis is required at all interchanges, intersections, and ramps mentioned in Comment 2. The analysis needs to show off-tracking does not encroach onto opposing lanes, will not kink within the turning paths, and will allow 2 ft lateral clearance provided between the truck wheel paths and edge of pavement, dikes, and curbs.

9. The following interchanges are signed for STAA Terminal Access. However, the City of Lathrop and City of Manteca need to work together regarding STAA truck access on Lathrop Road between Harlan Road and W. Frontage Road. a. I-5/Lathrop Road interchange: STAA Terminal Access located from I-5 to/from the east of I-5 and ending at Harlan Road. Please note that there is no existing STAA access east of Harlan Road.

ATTACHMENT 8
Ms. Fenrich
October 31, 2022

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” b. SR 99/Lathrop Road interchange: STAA Terminal Access located from SJ99 to/from the west of SR 99 to W. Frontage Road (to Delicato Winery).

Please note that there is no existing STAA access west of the W. Frontage Road.
c. I-5/Roth Road interchange: STAA Terminal Access located from I-5/Roth Road interchange to/from the east of I-5 to Airport Way.

10.The TIS summary section should include detailed improvements on State Facilities. If there are no improvements on State facilities, it should provide detailed reasons explaining why improvements on Sate facilities are not required.

11.SB 743 under CEQA requires local development land use projects to provide safe transportation, reduce per capital VMT, increase accessibility by mode share of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel, and reduce GHG emissions.

Caltrans also recommends the establishment of programs or methods to reduce VMT and support appropriate bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure.

12.The provided site plan shows eight bicycle parking spaces on the project site.

Caltrans recommends the consideration of bike lockers and employee facilities that would allow for showers and changing areas for those travelers that may be caught in inclement weather during their trip to work.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss our comments in more detail, please contact Nicholas Fung at (209) 948-7190 or myself at (209) 483-2582.

Sincerely,

TOM DUMAS
Chief, Office of Metropolitan Planning
ATTACHMENT 8

BLUM COLLINS & HO, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

AON CENTER
707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 4880
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
(213) 572-0400
November 2, 2022
Mallorie Fenrich, Associate Planner VIA EMAIL TO:

City of Manteca [email protected]
1215 West Center Street, Suite 201
Manteca, CA 95337
Subject: Comments on Airport Business Center North Project (SCH NO. 2022100047) Dear Ms. Fenrich:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Airport Business Center North Project. Please accept and consider these comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. Also, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA) formally requeststo be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877.

1.0 Summary
The project proposes to construct and operate one 360,000-sf industrial building. The facility will operate as a distribution warehouse. The building would provide approximately 355,000 sf of warehouse space and 5,000 sf of office space. The building proposes 46 truck/trailer loading dock spaces, 93 truck/trailer parking stalls, and 242 passenger car parking stalls. The proposed Project site has a Zoning designation of Master Plan (MP), General Plan Land Use designation of Light Industrial (LI), and is located within the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan area that guides the development of industrial uses, community commercial uses, and associated site improvements on 390 acres. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan area (State Clearinghouse # 2010022024) in August 2010. Several EIR Addendums and Mitigated Negative Declarations have been completed for projects within the Master Plan area.

2.0 Project Description
ATTACHMENT 8
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022

The MND does not include a floor plan, detailed grading plan, or detailed site plan for the proposed project. The basic components of a Planning Application include a detailed site plan, floor plan, grading plan, elevations, and written narrative. The site plan provided in Figure 3: Site Plan does not provide any pertinent information such as the earthwork quantity notes, parking requirements, or floor area ratio calculations. This figure has been edited for public review and excludes pertinent information required for consistency analysis with applicable requirements. Figure 4:

Project Elevations has also been edited for public review and does not provide any information, such as the materials utilized or the building heights. Additionally, a grading plan and floor plans have not been provided for public review. The MND has excluded these required application items from public review and edited them into forms that do not represent them meaningfully, which does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)). Incorporation by reference (CEQA § 15150 (f)) is not appropriate as these documents contribute directly to analysis of the problem at hand. Providing this information is vital as the MND does not provide any details about the onsite/offsite grading required by the proposed project. An EIR must be prepared to include all application items for review, analysis, and comment by the public and decision makers.

2.1 Project Piecemealing & Tiering
The MND cites tiering criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 as it relates to the “Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR and the Addendum to the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR.” The MND states that 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/PlanningDivision-Documents.aspx.” However, this weblink does not provide the public with access to the Addendum to the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR, which does not comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 (f) that states “when tiering is used, the later EIRs or negative declarations shall refer to the prior EIR and state where a copy of the prior EIR may be examined” or CEQA Guidelines Section 21003(b) requirements for meaningful disclosure. Also, the Project Background states that “Several EIR Addendums and Mitigated Negative Declarations” have been prepared for the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR, which are not included either. An EIR must be prepared in order to provide an adequate, accurate informational document.

Further, Section 1.1.2: Purpose and Authority of the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Draft EIR1(August 2010) states that “this Draft EIR provides a project-level analysis of the 1 NAWMP DEIR
https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/CommunityDevelopment/Planning%20Division/Planning%20Division%20 Documents/Master%20And%20Specific%20Plans/Northwest%20Airport%20Way%20Master%20Plan/N W%20Airport%20Way%20Master%20Plan%20DEIR.pdf
ATTACHMENT 8
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022

environmental effects of the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan and the non-master plan annexations.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 (f) states that “a later EIR shall be required when the initial study or other analysis finds that the later project may cause significant effects on the environment that were not adequately addressed in the prior EIR.” The environmental analysis within the MND severely misrepresents the project and under-represents the project’s significant impacts. This on its face warrants the production of an EIR for the proposed project in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 (f). The production of an EIR is also necessary as significant new information has been produced since the August 2010 Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR, including the VMT analysis requirements enacted in 2020 by SB 743. These impacts were not addressed at all by the 2010 EIR and an EIR for the later tiered project (Airport Business Center North) must be produced.

Additionally, the MND does not accurately or adequately describe the project, meaning “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment” (CEQA § 15378). The proposed project is a piecemealed portion of a larger overall project in the immediate vicinity known as Centerpoint Intermodal Center Manteca2. This project includes at minimum the following known buildings:

1. Centerpoint South Project aka Pinnacle Commerce (SCH No. 2021040046; 99,514 sf of industrial warehouses developed by Centerpoint; Notice of Determination published March 8, 2022)

2. Centerpoint Building 3 (SCH No. 2010022024; 746,790 sf of industrial warehouse developed by Centerpoint; Notice of Determination published December 21, 2018)

3. Airport Business Centre Project (SCH No. 2021040045; 141,360 sf of industrial warehouse developed by Centerpoint; Notice of Determination published August 19, 2021) 2 Centerpoint Intermodal Center Manteca https://centerpoint.com/parks/centerpoint-intermodal-centermanteca/ ATTACHMENT 8
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022

4. Centerpoint Intermodal Way Extension Project (SCH No. 2020050580; Notice of Determination published June 22, 2022) to connect the constructed northern portion of Intermodal Way to the approved, but not yet constructed, portion of Intermodal Way along the western boundary of CenterPoint Container Yard 2. This project is required to provide vehicular access by extending roadways to all of the project sites in the Centerpoint Intermodal Center.

5. GBxManteca (SCH No. 2022060520; 295,176 sf industrial beverage distribution building developed by Centerpoint)
The site plan depicted here includes a partial building layout of the proposed Centerpoint Intermodal Center Manteca3. Centerpoint Intermodal Center Manteca is described as “a 190-acre 3 Centerpoint Intermodal Center Manteca https://centerpoint.com/parks/centerpoint-intermodal-centermanteca/ ATTACHMENT 8
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022

logistics center.” Other materials provide further details noting the park is a “190-acre campus accommodating up to 3.1M SF of warehouse and distribution space.4” Environmental Checklist
III. Air Quality, VI. Energy, and VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Please see attached document for SWAPE’s comprehensive technical analysis. The MND does not include for analysis relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed project. This is especially significant as the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.05, CalEPA s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, the proposed project s census tract (6077005119) ranks worse than 98% of the rest of the state overall in pollution burden. The surrounding community, including Discovery Challenge Academy, Central Valley Christian Academy, Widmer Elementary School, residences to the north, west, and east, and adjacent SB 535 Census Tracts 6077005135 (east), 6077003803 (north), 6077005127 (west), 6077005130 (west), 6077005129 (west), 6077005122 (south), bears the impact of multiple sources of pollution and is more polluted than average on every pollution indicator measured by CalEnviroScreen. For example, the project census tract ranks in the 100th percentile for groundwater threats, 98th percentile for drinking water impacts, 92nd percentile for hazardous waste impacts, 90th percentile for impacts from cleanup sites, and 87th percentile for impaired waters. The project census tract also ranks in the 57th percentile for ozone burden, the 53rd percentile for particulate matter (PM) 2.5 burden, 54th percentile for diesel PM burden, and the 56th percentile for traffic related impacts, which are all typically attributed to heavy vehicular activity in the area.

Further, the census tract is a diverse community including 39% Asian-American, 30% Hispanic, and 9% African-American residents, which are especially vulnerable to the impacts of pollution. The community has a high rate of low educational attainment, meaning 56% of the census tract over age 25 has not attained a high school diploma, which is an indication that they may lack health insurance or access to medical care. Medical care is vital for this census tract as it ranks in the 69th percentile for incidence of asthma and 55th percentile for incidence of cardiovascular disease. The community also has a high rate of linguistic isolation, meaning 58% of the census tract speaks little to no English and faces further challenges and inequities due to this.
4 Centerpoint https://centerpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/02-Manteca-Pad-Ready-2pg-R1.pdf 5 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 ATTACHMENT 8
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022

Additionally, the project s census tract (6077005119) and the census tracts adjacent to the project site (6077005135 (east), 6077003803 (north), 6077005127 (west), 6077005130 (west), 6077005129 (west), 6077005122 (south)) are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities6, which is not discussed or presented for analysis in the MND.

California s Building Energy Code Compliance Software (CBECC) is the State’s only approved energy compliance modeling software for non-residential buildings in compliance with Title 247.

CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. The CalEEMod-based modeling in Appendix A does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and under-reports the project s significant Energy impacts and fuel consumption to the public and decision makers. Since the MND did not accurately or adequately model the energy impacts in compliance with Title 24, a finding of significance must be made. An EIR with modeling using the approved software (CBECC) must be circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the project s significant environmental impacts. This is vital as the MND utilizes CalEEMod as a source in its methodology and analysis, which is clearly not the approved software.

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

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

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

3. C-P-49: The city shall require that new industrial development pay a fair share toward improvements required to accommodate heavy vehicles, including increased pavement wear. 6 OEHHA SB 535 Census Tracts https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535 7 California Energy Commission 2022 Energy Code Compliance Software https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022- building-energy-efficiency-1
ATTACHMENT 8
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022

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

Further, the MND does not provide an analysis of all applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, such as the applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The MND also does not provide any consistency analysis with the San Joaquin County Council of Governments (SJCOG) adopted 2018 RTP/SCS8. Due to errors in modeling and modeling without supporting evidence as noted throughout this comment letter, the proposed project has signifiant potential for inconsistency with Policy 1 to enhance the environment for existing and future generations and conserve energy, Strategy 3 to improve air quality by reducing transportation-related emissions, Strategy 4 to improve regional transportation system efficiency, and Strategy 8 to improve major transportation corridors to minimize impacts on rural roads. An EIR must be prepared to include accurate Air Quality/HRA, Energy, GHG, and VMT modeling and provide an analysis of potential inconsistency with the 2018 RTP/SCS document and the AQMP.

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

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

The MND does not provide any calculation of the employees generated by the proposed project during the construction phase or during project operations. The U.S. Energy Information Administration9 provides the following applicable employment generation rate for refrigerated warehouses:
8 SJCOG 2018 RTP/SCS https://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/4156/Final-Compiled-RTPSCS2018 9 US EIA Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, Table B1: Summary table: total and means of floorspace, number of workers, and hours of operation, 2018 https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2018/bc/html/b1.php ATTACHMENT 8
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022

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

Non-Refrigerated: 360,000 sf/ 1,224 = 295
Total: 295 employees
SJCOG’s Population, Household, and Employment Projections10 notes that the City will add approximately 5,624 jobs between 2020 - 2045. Utilizing the U.S. EIA calculation of 295 employees, the project represents 5.2% of the City s employment growth from 2020 - 2045. A single project accounting for this amount of the projected employment growth over 29 years represents a significant amount of growth. An EIR must be prepared to include this analysis, and also provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since 2020 and projects in the pipeline” to determine if the project will exceed SJCOG s employment growth forecast for the City. For example, other recent industrial projects such as GBxManteca (246 employees) combined with the proposed project will cumulatively generate 541 employees, which is 9.6% of the City’s employment growth forecast over 29 years and a large percentage to be attributed to only two development projects. Additionally, an EIR must also provide demographic and geographic information on the location of qualified workers to fill these positions in order to provide an accurate environmental analysis.

The MND states that “The Project site is currently vacant and does not contain housing. The proposed Project would not displace housing or people,” to conclude the project will have less than significant impacts. This is contradictory to the Project Description that states “A rural residence islocated in the northeastern quadrant.” The site contains existing housing and the MND has not adequately or accurately analyzed the project’s potentially significant environmental impacts. An EIR must be prepared to include information and analysis regarding the existing onsite housing at the project site in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.

XVII. Transportation
Appendix B: Traffic Impact Analysis presents the project’s trip generation forecast in Table 1:

Airport Business Centre North Project (3157 N. Airport Way) Trip Generation Rates. However, it does not specify the ITE Land Use Code that was utilized to model the proposed project. The Project Description states that the building will operate as a distribution facility, which corresponds 10 SJCOG’s 2018 RTP/SCS Appendix R- Population, Household, and Employment Projections https://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/3722/Final-2018-RTPSCS-Technical-Appendix-R--- Population-Household-and-Employment-Projections?bidId=
ATTACHMENT 8
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022

to ITE Land Use Code 155 High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse. An EIR must be prepared to state the ITE Land Use Code utilized to model the proposed project in the MND and the EIR must model the project as ITE Land Use Code 155 High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse in accordance with building operations as described in the Project Description.

The MND is internally inconsistent in its analysis of the proposed project, rendering it an inadequate informational document. The Transportation analysis concludes that Citywide VMT Per Industrial Employee will decrease by 0.6% from 75.3 to 74.8 VMT per employee.

Alternatively, the Population and Housing analysis relies upon the notion that operational jobs would be filled by local residents and “the surrounding communities” to conclude the project will have less than significant impacts. The Transportation analysis relies upon a workforce in close proximity to the project in order to artificially reduce impacts, yet the Population and Housing analysis relies on the entire available workforce/housing stock of the SJCOG area to provide and absorb its workforce and demonstrate there will be no significant impacts. The Transportation analysis must be revised to reflect longer trip distances that employees will realistically travel to work at the proposed project. The EIR must also include a construction worker employment trip analysis must also be included to adequately and accurately analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts.

The MND does not provide a threshold of significance related to VMT and utilizes the unsubstantiated finding that the project will reduce Citywide VMT from 75.3 miles per employee to 74.8 miles per employee as the reasoning for a less than significant project impact. The MND does not demonstrate how an alleged reduction of 0.5 vehicle miles traveled per employee meets the SB 743 requirements and will not result in a significant impact. This is misleading to the public and decision makers. An EIR must be prepared to include a legitimate VMT reduction and comply with CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure. This is vital as the Population and Housing analysis states that the project will be filled by “the existing labor force within Manteca and the surrounding communities,” and the geographic area of the surrounding communities is undefined.

Relying upon the labor force of the greater region and potentially the entire San Joaquin County area will serve to increase VMT per employee significantly.

The MND also states that “construction of the Airport Business Centre North Project will improve the jobs to housing balance in the City of Manteca” without providing any information on the current quantity of jobs or housing units in the City. There is also no information on the existing unemployment rates or the quantity of people that are qualified for work in the industrial sector.

An EIR must be prepared to provide meaningful evidence to support this claim, particularly as the MND relies on this unsupported assumption to conclude that the project “will result in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions reductions.”
ATTACHMENT 8
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022

Appendix B sources the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 2018 CEQA Guidelines Update and Technical Advisory11 as contributing to the methodology for VMT analysis. The VMT analysis does not state if any truck/trailer trips were included for analysis.

The MND does not provide a statutory source of exemption for medium/heavy trucks. The OPR s 2018 Technical Advisory which states that “here, the term automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles,specifically cars and light trucks.” However, the purpose of the OPR Technical Advisory document is purely advisory, stating in its introduction:
“The purpose of this document is to provide advice and recommendations, which agencies and other entities may use at their discretion. This document does not alter lead agency discretion in preparing environmental documents subject to CEQA. This document should not be construed as legal advice.”
The OPR document is not a legal interpretation, court decision, or amendment to the CEQA statute that clarifies the definition of automobile. The term “automobile” is not defined in the CEQA statute and application of the OPR interpretation is speculative and does not provide an analysis of the “worst-case scenario” for environmental impacts. Widespread public understanding and perception indicates that trucks, including medium/heavy-duty truck/trailer trips associated with the industrial nature of warehouse operations, are automobiles. An EIR must be prepared to include all truck/trailer activity for quantified VMT analysis. The operational nature of industrial/warehouse uses involves high rates of truck/trailer VMT due to traveling from large import hubs to regional distribution centers to smaller industrial parks and then to their final delivery destinations. Once employees arrive at work, they will conduct their jobs by driving delivery vans across the region as part of the daily operations as a distribution facility, which will drastically increase project-generated VMT. The project’s truck/trailer and delivery van activity is unable to utilize public transit or active transportation and it is misleading to the public and decision makers to exclude this activity from VMT analysis. An EIR must be prepared to reflect a quantified VMT analysis that includes all truck/trailer and delivery van activity to adequately and accurately analyze the potentially significant project transportation impacts.

Further, the MND states that “The Baseline VMT and Cumulative Project VMT was developed using the City of Manteca travel demand model that was derived from the San Joaquin Council of Government’s (SJCOG) Regional Travel Demand Model. The model was developed in 2020 and calibrated to adjusted pre COVID-19 traffic counts.” However, the City of Manteca travel demand model software utilized is not included as a reference. An EIR must be prepared to state the name 11 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf ATTACHMENT 8
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022

of the City of Manteca TDM utilized and also provide a weblink to the software in order to comply with CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure and incorporation by reference because the City of Manteca TDM contributes directly to analysis of the problem at hand (CEQA § 15150 (f)).

XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
In analyzing the project’s cumulative impacts, the MND states that “the City of Manteca maintains a list of ongoing commercial and industrial development, as provided in the “Ongoing Projects” list in Appendix F.” However, there is no further information given and the list of ongoing development is not included. Notably, the list of appendices in the table of contents ends at Appendix D: MMRP for the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan and nothing is listed regarding an Appendix E or F. An EIR must be prepared that includes a cumulative analysis of the project in relation to the City’s growth management requirements as detailed in the General Plan in order to provide an adequate and accurate cumulative analysis.

Additionally, this section does not discuss any of the significant and unavoidable impacts generated by the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR/overall Centerpoint Intermodal Center.

The Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR concludes that the project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Agricultural Resources, Air Quality (cumulatively considerable), and Traffic (cumulatively considerable). Excluding this pertinent information from the cumulative analysis does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure and an EIR must be prepared.

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

Sincerely,
Gary Ho
Blum Collins & Ho, LLP
ATTACHMENT 8
Mallorie Fenrich
November 2, 2022

Attachments:

1. SWAPE Technical Analysis
ATTACHMENT 8
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
November 1, 2022
Gary Ho
Blum Collins LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 4880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: Comments on the Airport Business Centre North Project (SCH No. 2022100047) Dear Mr. Ho,
We have reviewed the October 2022 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Airport Business Centre North Project (“Project”) located in the City of Manteca (“City”). The Project proposes to construct a 360,00-square-foot (“SF”) warehouse building with 335 parking spaces on the

21.3-acre site.

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

Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The IS/MND’s air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) Version 2020.4.0 (p. 38). 1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the 1 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.

ATTACHMENT 8
2 values are inputted into the model, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are calculated, and “output files” are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project’s air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected.

When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality Technical Information (“AQ Information”) as Appendix A to the IS/MND, we found that several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions may be underestimated. An EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.

Failure to Consider Potential Cold Storage Requirements Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Manteca Airport Business Center North” model includes the entirety of the proposed warehouse land use space as “Unrefrigerated WarehouseNo Rail” (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 155).

As demonstrated in the excerpt above, the model does not include any refrigerated warehouse space whatsoever. However, this is incorrect, as the IS/MND mentions that the warehouse will operate as a distribution facility (p. 1). As such, the proposed distribution facility may require cold storage. Therefore, as refrigerated warehouse space is the most energy-intensive, the Project should have included all of the proposed warehouse space as cold storage in order to conduct the most conservative analysis.

This inconsistency presents an issue, as refrigerated warehouses release more criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions than non-refrigerated warehouses. First, warehouses equipped with cold storage, such as refrigerators and freezers, are known to consume more energy when compared to warehouses without cold storage.2 Second, warehouses equipped with cold storage typically require refrigerated trucks, which are known to idle for much longer when compared to unrefrigerated hauling trucks.3 Third, according to a July 2014 Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage presentation prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), hauling trucks that require refrigeration result in greater truck trip rates when compared to non-refrigerated hauling trucks.4 Furthermore, “CEQA requires the use of ‘conservative analysis’ to afford ‘fullest possible protection of 2 “Warehouses.” Business Energy Advisor, available at: https://ouc.bizenergyadvisor.com/article/warehouses. 3 “Estimation of Fuel Use by Idling Commercial Trucks.” Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board, January 2006, p. 8, available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245561735_Estimation_of_Fuel_Use_by_Idling_Commercial_Trucks. 4 “Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage” Presentation. SCAQMD Mobile Source Committee, July 2014, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-ratestudy-for-air-quality-analysis/finaltrucktripstudymsc072514.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 7, 9.

ATTACHMENT 8
3 the environment.’”5 As such, the model should have included the warehouse space as refrigerated in order account for the additional emissions that refrigeration requirements may generate.

By failing to account for potential cold storage requirements, the model may underestimate the Project’s operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared to account for the potential refrigerated warehouse needs.

Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Airport Business Centre North Project” model includes several reductions to the default architectural coating emission factors (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 156).

As demonstrated in the excerpt above, the residential and nonresidential interior architectural and area coating emission factors are each reduced from the default value of 150- to 0-grams per liter (“g/L”). As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.6 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justifications provided for these changes are:
“100 g/L for exterior coating limitations provided per rule 4601. No interior coatings for this project,” and “This project does not contain interior coatings.” (Appendix A, pp. 155).

Furthermore, the IS/MND includes Mitigation Measure (“MM”) AIR-1b which states:
“During the architectural coating phase for all Master Plan uses, paints with a volatile organic compound content less than 10 grams per liter shall be used” (p. 7).

However, the reductions to the architectural and area coating emission factors remains unsubstantiated as MM AIR-1b fails to require the Project use specific coatings. As such, the Project cannot simply assume that all coatings used during project construction and operation will have a VOC content of less than 10 g/L.

These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the architectural and area coating emission factors to calculate the Project’s reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound 5 “Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage” Presentation. SCAQMD Inland Empire Logistics Council, June 2014, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-triprate-study-for-air-quality-analysis/final-ielc_6-19-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 3. 6 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.

ATTACHMENT 8
4 (“ROG”/“VOC”) emissions.7 Thus, by including underestimated reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related and operational ROG/VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Failure to Substantiate Amount of Material Import or Export According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“Grading involves the cut and fill of land to ensure that the proper base and slope is created for the foundation.” 8
As demonstrated above, grading involves the use of material import (fill) and export (cut). However, the IS/MND fails to discuss construction or grading whatsoever. Furthermore, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Manteca Airport Business Center North” model fails to include any amount of material import or export. As such, the models may underestimate the amount of material import and export required during Project construction.

This potential underestimation presents an issue, as the inclusion of material import and export within the models is necessary to calculate emissions produced from material movement, which includes truck loading and unloading, as well as additional hauling truck trips.9 As the IS/MND fails to substantiate any amount of material import or export, the models may underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared to verify the amount of required material import and export and revise the models, if necessary.

Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact In an effort to more accurately estimate the Project’s construction-related emissions, we prepared an updated CalEEMod model, using the Project-specific information provided by the IS/MND. In our updated model, we omitted the unsubstantiated changes to the operational vehicle fleet mix and excluded the incorrect mobile- and water-related operational mitigation measures.10 Our updated analysis estimates that the Project’s construction-related VOC emissions exceed the applicable San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (“SJVAPCD”) threshold of 100 pounds per day (“lbs/day”) (see table below).11
7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 35, 40. 8 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 32. 9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 34. 10 See Attachment A for updated air modeling. 11 “San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.” SJVAPCD, June 2012, available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/FYI-329.pdf, p. 1.

ATTACHMENT 8
5 Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Model
VOC
(lbs/day)
SWAPE 262.5
SJVAPCD Threshold 100
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, construction-related VOC emissions, as estimated by SWAPE, exceed the applicable SJVAPCD significance threshold. Thus, our model demonstrates that the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not previously identified or addressed by the IS/MND. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the environment.

Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). Instead, the IS/MND conducts a screening analysis using the SJVAPCD’s Prioritization Calculator to evaluate the impacts from exposure to diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions generated by heavy-duty diesel trucks during Project construction and operation. Specifically, the IS/MND states:
“The results of the screening analysis show that the cancer and non-cancer risks associated with the proposed Project are below the SJVAPCD screening thresholds contained within their Prioritization Calculator. Specifically, the Prioritization Calculator estimates that the prioritization score associated with total cancer risk from proposed project operational DPM would be approximately 4.62, and from construction DPM 1.581, for a total of 6.20, well below the SJVAPCD threshold of 10 that would require development of air toxics Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that includes air dispersion modeling” (p. 40).

As demonstrated above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact based on the estimated prioritization score of 6.20. However, the IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect.

Regardless of the SJVAPCD’s Prioritization Calculator, the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) recommends that all warehouse products conduct a quantitative HRA. Specifically, the State of California Department of Justice recommends that warehouse projects prepare a quantitative HRA pursuant to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air district guidelines.12 OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for 12 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6.

ATTACHMENT 8
6 Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015. This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically, OEHHA recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks.13 Furthermore, according to OEHHA:
“Exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project. In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs (OEHHA, 2009).”14 Thus, as the Project’s anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month Thus, as the Project’s anticipated construction duration will likely exceed the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA, as corroborated by SWAPE’s CalEEMod model, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire construction period.15 Furthermore, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate the individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).16 While the Project documents fail to provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, operation of the Project also exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the entire 30-year residential exposure duration, as indicated by OEHHA guidance. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, an EIR should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions.

Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.17 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”). 18, 19 A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.
13 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 14 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 15 See Attachment A for expected construction duration. 16 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 2-4. 17 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” U.S. EPA, April 2011, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf 18 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 19 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 8
7 We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction and operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the IS/MND’s CalEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life. The IS/MND’s construction CalEEMod emissions indicate that construction activities will generate approximately 278 pounds of DPM over the 664-day construction period.20 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 277.9 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
664 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00219 grams per second (“g/s”).

Subtracting the 664-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 28.18 years. SWAPE’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 80 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 79.6 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
365 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00114 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated as a 21.3-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 415- by 208-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.

An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of Manteca was obtained from U.S. 2020 Census data.21 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The U.S. EPA suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures.22 According to the IS/MND the closest sensitive receptors are the rural residential properties located adjacent to the Project site (p. 40). However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the MEIR is located approximately 200 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 1.214 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 20 See Attachment B for calculations. 21 “Manteca.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2020, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0645484. 22 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019_OCR.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 8
8 200 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.1214 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the singlehour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 0.6325 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 200 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.06325 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.

We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SJVAPCD.23 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including highpoint estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the daily breathing rates (“BR/BW”), exposure duration (“ED”), age sensitivity factors (“ASF”), fraction of time at home (“FAH”), and exposure frequency (“EF”) utilized for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:

Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)24
Age
Sensitivity
Factor25
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home26
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)27
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 0.85 350 24
Infant (0 - 2) 1090 10 2 0.85 350 24
Child (2 - 16) 572 3 14 0.72 350 24
Adult (16 - 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
23 “Update to District’s Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA’s Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document.” SJVAPCD, May 2015, available at: https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/staff-report-5-28-15.pdf. 24 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/riskassessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 25 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 26 “Risk Assessment Procedures.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7. 27 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24.

ATTACHMENT 8
9 For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify do se for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm:

𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 = 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × �
𝐵𝐵
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:

𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐹𝐹 ×
𝐸𝐸
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 664-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years), and the first 1.57 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 0.43 years of the infantile stage of life, as well as the entire child (2 – 16) and adult (16 – 30 years) stages of life. The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.

ATTACHMENT 8
10 The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.1214 1.40E-06
Construction 1.57 0.1214 2.66E-05
Operation 0.43 0.0633 3.80E-06
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 3.04E-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0633 1.65E-05
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0633 2.54E-06
Lifetime 30 5.08E-05
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 200 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 1.4, 30.4, 16.5, and 2.54 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 50.8 in one million. The infant and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SJVAPCD threshold of 20 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND.

Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between Project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts. According to the U.S. EPA:
“EPA’s Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments iteratively using a tiered approach to ‘strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement’ (U.S.

EPA, 1992).

In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier) of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening-level assessment).

The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screeninglevel assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.” As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. Thus, as our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project ATTACHMENT 8
11 could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, an EIR analysis should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant air quality and health risk impacts that should be mitigated further. As such, in an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’sAir Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) as described below: 28 SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045
Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-AQ-1:

In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Minimize land disturbance.
b) Suspend grading and earth moving when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soil is wet enough to prevent dust plumes.
c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt.
d) Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately. e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved surfaces and stabilize any temporary roads. f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. g) Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway.
h) Revegetate disturbed land, including vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road vehicular activities.
j) Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB-approved fleet.
k) Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. 28 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 –

4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir.

ATTACHMENT 8
12 l) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes—saves fuel and reduces emissions. m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust; watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service.

Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site. q) Require projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools to use Tier 4 equipment for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp) unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. r) Projects located within the South Coast Air Basin should consider applying for South Coast AQMD “SOON” funds which provides funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially available low-emission heavyduty engines to achieve near-term reduction of NOx emissions from in-use off-road diesel vehicles. s) Projects located within AB 617 communities should review the applicable Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) for additional mitigation that can be applied to individual projects. t) Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools, including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE), and Why Air Quality Matters programs.
u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors).

Furthermore, additionally mitigation measures can be found in the Department of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices document.29 Therefore, to further reduce the Project’s emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made:
• Requiring off-road construction equipment to be zero-emission, where available, and all dieselfueled off-road construction equipment, to be equipped with CARB Tier IV-compliant engines or better, and including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts, with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities. • Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
• Requiring on-road heavy-duty haul trucks to be model year 2010 or newer if diesel-fueled. 29 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6 – 9.

ATTACHMENT 8
13 • Providing electrical hook ups to the power grid, rather than use of diesel-fueled generators, for electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools whenever feasible.
• Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area. • Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for particulates or ozone for the project area.
• Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than two minutes. • Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications.
• Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts. • Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings that have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L.
• Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction employees.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for construction employees.
• Requiring that all facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025. Facility operators shall maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. • Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030.
• Requiring on-site equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be electric with the necessary electrical charging stations provided.
• Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations.
• Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use.
• Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the air district, and the building manager.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, air filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the project.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project, and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not ATTACHMENT 8
14 mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air.
• Constructing electric truck charging stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
• Constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door, if the warehouse use could include refrigeration.
• Constructing electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of parking spaces at the project.
• Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity, such as equal to the building’s projected energy needs. • Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel. • Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks. • Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages singleoccupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation, including carpooling, public transit, and biking.
• Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking. • Achieving certification of compliance with LEED green building standards. • Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations. • Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route. • Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project area.
• Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB-approved courses. Also require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. • Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and requiring tenants to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers. • Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.

These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation.

Furthermore, as it is policy of the State that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045, we emphasize the applicability of incorporating solar power system into the Project design. Until the feasibility of incorporating on-site renewable energy production is considered, the Project should not be approved.

ATTACHMENT 8
15 An EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Updated CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment B: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment C: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment D: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment E: Paul Rosenfeld CV
ATTACHMENT 8
Manteca Airport Business Center North
San Joaquin County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Land Use - See SWAPE's comments on "Failure to Consider Potential Cold Storage Requirements" Construction Phase - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Grading - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 10.00 1000sqft 0.23 10,000.00 0 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 350.00 1000sqft 8.03 350,000.00 0 Parking Lot 13.04 Acre 13.04 568,022.40 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
2 Wind Speed (m/s) 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 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Attachment A
ATTACHMENT 8
Architectural Coating - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Vehicle Trips - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Fleet Mix - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
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
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 3.88
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 3.88
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 3.88
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 0.0891 0.9092 0.6796 1.3900e0030.2331 0.0410 0.2741 0.0989 0.0378 0.1367 0.0000 122.0474 122.0474 0.0371 1.0000e004123.0036 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 2.8129 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 2.8129 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 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 0.0891 0.9092 0.6796 1.3900e0030.2328 0.0410 0.2738 0.0989 0.0378 0.1367 0.0000 122.0472 122.0472 0.0371 1.0000e004123.0035 2023 0.3748 2.9049 3.5265 0.0108 0.5613 0.1019 0.6632 0.1527 0.0958 0.2484 0.0000 988.0693 988.0693 0.0888 0.0641 1,009.391 5 2024 2.8129 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 2.8129 2.9049 3.5265 0.0108 0.5613 0.1019 0.6632 0.1527 0.0958 0.2484 0.0000 988.0693 988.0693 0.0888 0.0641 1,009.391 5 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8
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 5.28 0.00 4.50 4.27 0.00 2.78 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 1.1988 1.1988
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 0.8186 0.8186
8 7-15-2024 9-30-2024 2.4504 2.4504
Highest 2.4504 2.4504
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 1.7052 3.0000e0053.4200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 6.6700e0036.6700e0032.0000e0050.0000 7.1000e003 Energy 3.0100e0030.0274 0.0230 1.6000e0042.0800e0032.0800e0032.0800e0032.0800e0030.0000 663.0279 663.0279 0.1030 0.0130 669.4664 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 2.3008 3.6056 5.9642 0.0232 1.5132 0.0334 1.5466 0.4064 0.0318 0.4382 94.9134 2,873.653 4 2,968.566
8 6.9274 0.3030 3,232.054
9 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 1.7052 3.0000e0053.4200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 6.6700e0036.6700e0032.0000e0050.0000 7.1000e003 Energy 3.0100e0030.0274 0.0230 1.6000e0042.0800e0032.0800e0032.0800e0032.0800e0030.0000 663.0279 663.0279 0.1030 0.0130 669.4664 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 2.3008 3.6056 5.9642 0.0232 1.5132 0.0334 1.5466 0.4064 0.0318 0.4382 94.9134 2,873.653 4 2,968.566
8 6.9274 0.3030 3,232.054
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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8
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 7 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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 3.9000e0040.0124 0.0124 0.0116 0.0116 0.0000 33.9902 33.9902 9.5500e0030.0000 34.2289 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
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 0.00 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 8 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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 4.7000e0043.3000e0043.7300e0031.0000e0051.1900e0031.0000e0051.2000e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.2000e0040.0000 0.9702 0.9702 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9797 Total 4.7000e0043.3000e0043.7300e0031.0000e0051.1900e0031.0000e0051.2000e0033.2000e0041.0000e0053.2000e0040.0000 0.9702 0.9702 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9797 Unmitigated Construction Off-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
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 3.9000e0040.0124 0.0124 0.0116 0.0116 0.0000 33.9902 33.9902 9.5500e0030.0000 34.2289 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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 4.7000e0043.3000e0043.7300e0031.0000e0051.1000e0031.0000e0051.1100e0032.9000e0041.0000e0053.0000e0040.0000 0.9702 0.9702 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9797 Total 4.7000e0043.3000e0043.7300e0031.0000e0051.1000e0031.0000e0051.1100e0032.9000e0041.0000e0053.0000e0040.0000 0.9702 0.9702 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9797 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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
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 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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

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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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
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 68.1682 68.1682 0.0221 0.0000 68.7193 Total 0.0453 0.4855 0.3630 7.8000e0040.1310 0.0204 0.1514 0.0474 0.0188 0.0662 0.0000 68.1682 68.1682 0.0221 0.0000 68.7193 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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

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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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
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 27.4880 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 27.4880 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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

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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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
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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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

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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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
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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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

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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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
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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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

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 2.6214 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 2.6232 0.0122 0.0181 3.0000e0056.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0040.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e0040.0000 2.5569 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 2.6214 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 2.6232 0.0122 0.0181 3.0000e0056.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0046.1000e0040.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e0040.0000 2.5568 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8
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 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
General Office Building 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 1,358.00 1,358.00 1358.00 3,964,696 3,964,696 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 General Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Refrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

9.50 7.30 7.30 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 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 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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8
Refrigerated 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

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 633.2242 633.2242 0.1024 0.0124 639.4856 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 633.2242 633.2242 0.1024 0.0124 639.4856 NaturalGas
Mitigated

3.0100e0030.0274 0.0230 1.6000e0042.0800e0032.0800e0032.0800e0032.0800e0030.0000 29.8037 29.8037 5.7000e0045.5000e00429.9808 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

3.0100e0030.0274 0.0230 1.6000e0042.0800e0032.0800e0032.0800e0032.0800e0030.0000 29.8037 29.8037 5.7000e0045.5000e00429.9808

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
395500 2.1300e0030.0194 0.0163 1.2000e0041.4700e0031.4700e0031.4700e0031.4700e0030.0000 21.1054 21.1054 4.0000e0043.9000e00421.2308 Total 3.0100e0030.0274 0.0230 1.7000e0042.0800e0032.0800e0032.0800e0032.0800e0030.0000 29.8037 29.8037 5.7000e0045.5000e00429.9808 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
395500 2.1300e0030.0194 0.0163 1.2000e0041.4700e0031.4700e0031.4700e0031.4700e0030.0000 21.1054 21.1054 4.0000e0043.9000e00421.2308 Total 3.0100e0030.0274 0.0230 1.7000e0042.0800e0032.0800e0032.0800e0032.0800e0030.0000 29.8037 29.8037 5.7000e0045.5000e00429.9808 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

6.5485e
+006
605.8919 0.0980 0.0119 611.8831
Total 633.2242 0.1025 0.0124 639.4856
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

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 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

6.5485e
+006
605.8919 0.0980 0.0119 611.8831
Total 633.2242 0.1025 0.0124 639.4856
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8
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 1.7052 3.0000e0053.4200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 6.6700e0036.6700e0032.0000e0050.0000 7.1000e003 Unmitigated 1.7052 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

0.2621 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 1.7052 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 31 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

0.2621 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 1.7052 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 32 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 68.0052 2.7020 0.0645 154.7648
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
Refrigerated
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 33 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

80.9375 /
0 66.1988 2.6439 0.0631 151.0907
Total 68.0052 2.7020 0.0645 154.7648
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8
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
Refrigerated
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 35 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
Refrigerated
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 36 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

11.0 Vegetation
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 37 of 37 Date: 11/1/2022 1:37 PM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8
Manteca Airport Business Center North
San Joaquin County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Land Use - See SWAPE's comments on "Failure to Consider Potential Cold Storage Requirements" Construction Phase - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Grading - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 10.00 1000sqft 0.23 10,000.00 0 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 350.00 1000sqft 8.03 350,000.00 0 Parking Lot 13.04 Acre 13.04 568,022.40 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
2 Wind Speed (m/s) 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 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8
Architectural Coating - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Vehicle Trips - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Fleet Mix - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
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
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 3.88
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 3.88
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 3.88
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
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 lb/day lb/day
2022 3.6959 38.8834 29.6001 0.0636 19.8049 1.6357 21.4182 10.1417 1.5049 11.6259 0.0000 6,165.353 3 6,165.353
3 1.9487 4.0500e0036,215.275
5 2023 3.3869 34.5505 28.5603 0.0861 9.3679 1.4253 10.7932 3.6973 1.3113 5.0086 0.0000 8,677.663 6 8,677.663
6 1.9482 0.5597 8,861.972
0 2024 262.5521 20.4823 27.2102 0.0846 4.2256 0.6710 4.8967 1.1442 0.6316 1.7758 0.0000 8,526.954 8 8,526.954
8 0.7166 0.5460 8,706.887
1 Maximum 262.5521 38.8834 29.6001 0.0861 19.8049 1.6357 21.4182 10.1417 1.5049 11.6259 0.0000 8,677.663 6 8,677.663
6 1.9487 0.5597 8,861.972
0 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 lb/day lb/day
2022 3.6959 38.8834 29.6001 0.0636 19.7933 1.6357 21.4066 10.1388 1.5049 11.6231 0.0000 6,165.353 3 6,165.353
3 1.9487 4.0500e0036,215.275
5 2023 3.3869 34.5505 28.5603 0.0861 9.3550 1.4253 10.7803 3.6942 1.3113 5.0054 0.0000 8,677.663 6 8,677.663
6 1.9482 0.5597 8,861.972
0 2024 262.5521 20.4823 27.2102 0.0846 3.9097 0.6710 4.5807 1.0667 0.6316 1.6982 0.0000 8,526.954 8 8,526.954
8 0.7166 0.5460 8,706.887
1 Maximum 262.5521 38.8834 29.6001 0.0861 19.7933 1.6357 21.4066 10.1388 1.5049 11.6231 0.0000 8,677.663 6 8,677.663
6 1.9487 0.5597 8,861.972
0 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8
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 1.02 0.00 0.92 0.56 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Area 9.3451 3.5000e0040.0380 0.0000 1.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0040.0816 0.0816 2.1000e0040.0870 Energy 0.0165 0.1500 0.1260 9.0000e0040.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 180.0161 180.0161 3.4500e0033.3000e003181.0859 Mobile 3.7480 18.7181 33.8235 0.1304 8.5660 0.1719 8.7379 2.2946 0.1634 2.4580 13,535.23 12 13,535.23
12 0.3687 1.3538 13,947.88
73 Total 13.1096 18.8685 33.9875 0.1313 8.5660 0.1834 8.7494 2.2946 0.1750 2.4696 13,715.32 90 13,715.32
90 0.3724 1.3571 14,129.06
01 Unmitigated 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 lb/day lb/day
Area 9.3451 3.5000e0040.0380 0.0000 1.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0040.0816 0.0816 2.1000e0040.0870 Energy 0.0165 0.1500 0.1260 9.0000e0040.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 180.0161 180.0161 3.4500e0033.3000e003181.0859 Mobile 3.7480 18.7181 33.8235 0.1304 8.5660 0.1719 8.7379 2.2946 0.1634 2.4580 13,535.23 12 13,535.23
12 0.3687 1.3538 13,947.88
73 Total 13.1096 18.8685 33.9875 0.1313 8.5660 0.1834 8.7494 2.2946 0.1750 2.4696 13,715.32 90 13,715.32
90 0.3724 1.3571 14,129.06
01 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 6 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Clean Paved Roads
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
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 0.00 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 7 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Total 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0533 0.0300 0.4190 1.1400e0030.1232 6.3000e0040.1239 0.0327 5.8000e0040.0333 115.4571 115.4571 3.3400e0033.0300e003116.4447 Total 0.0533 0.0300 0.4190 1.1400e0030.1232 6.3000e0040.1239 0.0327 5.8000e0040.0333 115.4571 115.4571 3.3400e0033.0300e003116.4447 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 0.0000 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Total 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 0.0000 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0533 0.0300 0.4190 1.1400e0030.1136 6.3000e0040.1142 0.0303 5.8000e0040.0309 115.4571 115.4571 3.3400e0033.0300e003116.4447 Total 0.0533 0.0300 0.4190 1.1400e0030.1136 6.3000e0040.1142 0.0303 5.8000e0040.0309 115.4571 115.4571 3.3400e0033.0300e003116.4447 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 1.6126 1.6126 1.4836 1.4836 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 19.6570 1.6126 21.2696 10.1025 1.4836 11.5860 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0639 0.0360 0.5028 1.3700e0030.1479 7.5000e0040.1486 0.0392 6.9000e0040.0399 138.5485 138.5485 4.0000e0033.6400e003139.7337 Total 0.0639 0.0360 0.5028 1.3700e0030.1479 7.5000e0040.1486 0.0392 6.9000e0040.0399 138.5485 138.5485 4.0000e0033.6400e003139.7337 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 1.6126 1.6126 1.4836 1.4836 0.0000 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 19.6570 1.6126 21.2696 10.1025 1.4836 11.5860 0.0000 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0639 0.0360 0.5028 1.3700e0030.1363 7.5000e0040.1371 0.0364 6.9000e0040.0371 138.5485 138.5485 4.0000e0033.6400e003139.7337 Total 0.0639 0.0360 0.5028 1.3700e0030.1363 7.5000e0040.1371 0.0364 6.9000e0040.0371 138.5485 138.5485 4.0000e0033.6400e003139.7337 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 9.2036 1.6349 10.8385 3.6538 1.5041 5.1579 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0710 0.0400 0.5586 1.5200e0030.1643 8.3000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.7000e0040.0444 153.9427 153.9427 4.4500e0034.0500e003155.2596 Total 0.0710 0.0400 0.5586 1.5200e0030.1643 8.3000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.7000e0040.0444 153.9427 153.9427 4.4500e0034.0500e003155.2596 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 9.2036 1.6349 10.8385 3.6538 1.5041 5.1579 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0710 0.0400 0.5586 1.5200e0030.1514 8.3000e0040.1523 0.0404 7.7000e0040.0412 153.9427 153.9427 4.4500e0034.0500e003155.2596 Total 0.0710 0.0400 0.5586 1.5200e0030.1514 8.3000e0040.1523 0.0404 7.7000e0040.0412 153.9427 153.9427 4.4500e0034.0500e003155.2596 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.3217 34.5156 28.0512 0.0621 1.4245 1.4245 1.3105 1.3105 6,011.477 7 6,011.477
7 1.9442 6,060.083
6 Total 3.3217 34.5156 28.0512 0.0621 9.2036 1.4245 10.6281 3.6538 1.3105 4.9643 6,011.477 7 6,011.477
7 1.9442 6,060.083
6 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0651 0.0349 0.5092 1.4700e0030.1643 7.9000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.2000e0040.0443 148.9370 148.9370 3.9700e0033.7100e003150.1429 Total 0.0651 0.0349 0.5092 1.4700e0030.1643 7.9000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.2000e0040.0443 148.9370 148.9370 3.9700e0033.7100e003150.1429 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.3217 34.5156 28.0512 0.0621 1.4245 1.4245 1.3105 1.3105 0.0000 6,011.477 7 6,011.477
7 1.9442 6,060.083
6 Total 3.3217 34.5156 28.0512 0.0621 9.2036 1.4245 10.6281 3.6538 1.3105 4.9643 0.0000 6,011.477 7 6,011.477
7 1.9442 6,060.083
6 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0651 0.0349 0.5092 1.4700e0030.1514 7.9000e0040.1522 0.0404 7.2000e0040.0412 148.9370 148.9370 3.9700e0033.7100e003150.1429 Total 0.0651 0.0349 0.5092 1.4700e0030.1514 7.9000e0040.1522 0.0404 7.2000e0040.0412 148.9370 148.9370 3.9700e0033.7100e003150.1429 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 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 lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.1655 6.4387 1.9499 0.0305 1.0301 0.0429 1.0730 0.2966 0.0411 0.3377 3,225.629 8 3,225.629
8 0.0161 0.4874 3,371.286
7 Worker 1.2666 0.6784 9.9029 0.0287 3.1955 0.0153 3.2108 0.8476 0.0141 0.8617 2,896.823 8 2,896.823
8 0.0771 0.0722 2,920.279
3 Total 1.4321 7.1171 11.8528 0.0592 4.2256 0.0582 4.2839 1.1442 0.0551 1.1993 6,122.453 6 6,122.453
6 0.0932 0.5597 6,291.566
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 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 lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.1655 6.4387 1.9499 0.0305 0.9641 0.0429 1.0070 0.2804 0.0411 0.3215 3,225.629 8 3,225.629
8 0.0161 0.4874 3,371.286
7 Worker 1.2666 0.6784 9.9029 0.0287 2.9456 0.0153 2.9609 0.7863 0.0141 0.8003 2,896.823 8 2,896.823
8 0.0771 0.0722 2,920.279
3 Total 1.4321 7.1171 11.8528 0.0592 3.9097 0.0582 3.9679 1.0667 0.0551 1.1218 6,122.453 6 6,122.453
6 0.0932 0.5597 6,291.566
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Total 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 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 lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.1617 6.4426 1.9115 0.0300 1.0301 0.0433 1.0734 0.2966 0.0414 0.3380 3,175.503 3 3,175.503
3 0.0154 0.4793 3,318.726
8 Worker 1.1664 0.5959 9.1318 0.0277 3.1955 0.0144 3.2099 0.8476 0.0133 0.8609 2,795.752 6 2,795.752
6 0.0690 0.0667 2,817.352
6 Total 1.3281 7.0385 11.0434 0.0577 4.2256 0.0577 4.2834 1.1442 0.0547 1.1989 5,971.255 9 5,971.255
9 0.0843 0.5460 6,136.079
4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 0.0000 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Total 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 0.0000 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 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 lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.1617 6.4426 1.9115 0.0300 0.9641 0.0433 1.0074 0.2804 0.0414 0.3218 3,175.503 3 3,175.503
3 0.0154 0.4793 3,318.726
8 Worker 1.1664 0.5959 9.1318 0.0277 2.9456 0.0144 2.9600 0.7863 0.0133 0.7995 2,795.752 6 2,795.752
6 0.0690 0.0667 2,817.352
6 Total 1.3281 7.0385 11.0434 0.0577 3.9097 0.0577 3.9674 1.0667 0.0547 1.1213 5,971.255 9 5,971.255
9 0.0843 0.5460 6,136.079
4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 1.7082 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.6964 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0450 0.0230 0.3521 1.0700e0030.1232 5.6000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.1000e0040.0332 107.8054 107.8054 2.6600e0032.5700e003108.6383 Total 0.0450 0.0230 0.3521 1.0700e0030.1232 5.6000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.1000e0040.0332 107.8054 107.8054 2.6600e0032.5700e003108.6383 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 1.7082 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.6964 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0450 0.0230 0.3521 1.0700e0030.1136 5.6000e0040.1141 0.0303 5.1000e0040.0308 107.8054 107.8054 2.6600e0032.5700e003108.6383 Total 0.0450 0.0230 0.3521 1.0700e0030.1136 5.6000e0040.1141 0.0303 5.1000e0040.0308 107.8054 107.8054 2.6600e0032.5700e003108.6383 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 262.1374 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 262.3182 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.2339 0.1195 1.8311 5.5500e0030.6408 2.8900e0030.6436 0.1700 2.6600e0030.1726 560.5879 560.5879 0.0138 0.0134 564.9190 Total 0.2339 0.1195 1.8311 5.5500e0030.6408 2.8900e0030.6436 0.1700 2.6600e0030.1726 560.5879 560.5879 0.0138 0.0134 564.9190 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 262.1374 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 262.3182 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.2339 0.1195 1.8311 5.5500e0030.5906 2.8900e0030.5935 0.1577 2.6600e0030.1603 560.5879 560.5879 0.0138 0.0134 564.9190 Total 0.2339 0.1195 1.8311 5.5500e0030.5906 2.8900e0030.5935 0.1577 2.6600e0030.1603 560.5879 560.5879 0.0138 0.0134 564.9190 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 3.7480 18.7181 33.8235 0.1304 8.5660 0.1719 8.7379 2.2946 0.1634 2.4580 13,535.23 12 13,535.23
12 0.3687 1.3538 13,947.88
73 Unmitigated 3.7480 18.7181 33.8235 0.1304 8.5660 0.1719 8.7379 2.2946 0.1634 2.4580 13,535.23 12 13,535.23
12 0.3687 1.3538 13,947.88
73 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
General Office Building 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 1,358.00 1,358.00 1358.00 3,964,696 3,964,696 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 General Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Refrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

9.50 7.30 7.30 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 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 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 Refrigerated 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

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 lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0165 0.1500 0.1260 9.0000e0040.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 180.0161 180.0161 3.4500e0033.3000e003181.0859 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0165 0.1500 0.1260 9.0000e0040.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 180.0161 180.0161 3.4500e0033.3000e003181.0859

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
General Office
Building
446.575 4.8200e0030.0438 0.0368 2.6000e0043.3300e0033.3300e0033.3300e0033.3300e00352.5383 52.5383 1.0100e0039.6000e00452.8505 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 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
1083.56 0.0117 0.1062 0.0892 6.4000e0048.0700e0038.0700e0038.0700e0038.0700e003127.4778 127.4778 2.4400e0032.3400e003128.2354 Total 0.0165 0.1500 0.1260 9.0000e0040.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 180.0161 180.0161 3.4500e0033.3000e003181.0859 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

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 lb/day lb/day
General Office
Building

0.446575 4.8200e0030.0438 0.0368 2.6000e0043.3300e0033.3300e0033.3300e0033.3300e00352.5383 52.5383 1.0100e0039.6000e00452.8505 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 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

1.08356 0.0117 0.1062 0.0892 6.4000e0048.0700e0038.0700e0038.0700e0038.0700e003127.4778 127.4778 2.4400e0032.3400e003128.2354 Total 0.0165 0.1500 0.1260 9.0000e0040.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 180.0161 180.0161 3.4500e0033.3000e003181.0859 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8
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 lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.3451 3.5000e0040.0380 0.0000 1.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0040.0816 0.0816 2.1000e0040.0870 Unmitigated 9.3451 3.5000e0040.0380 0.0000 1.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0040.0816 0.0816 2.1000e0040.0870

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 lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

1.4364 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

7.9052 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.5100e0033.5000e0040.0380 0.0000 1.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0040.0816 0.0816 2.1000e0040.0870 Total 9.3451 3.5000e0040.0380 0.0000 1.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0040.0816 0.0816 2.1000e0040.0870 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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 lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

1.4364 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

7.9052 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.5100e0033.5000e0040.0380 0.0000 1.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0040.0816 0.0816 2.1000e0040.0870 Total 9.3451 3.5000e0040.0380 0.0000 1.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0040.0816 0.0816 2.1000e0040.0870 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

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 30 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:54 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8
Manteca Airport Business Center North
San Joaquin County, Winter
Project Characteristics - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Land Use - See SWAPE's comments on "Failure to Consider Potential Cold Storage Requirements" Construction Phase - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Off-road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Grading - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 10.00 1000sqft 0.23 10,000.00 0 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 350.00 1000sqft 8.03 350,000.00 0 Parking Lot 13.04 Acre 13.04 568,022.40 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
2 Wind Speed (m/s) 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 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8
Architectural Coating - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Vehicle Trips - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Fleet Mix - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
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
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.12 3.88
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.70 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.12 3.88
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 2.12 3.88
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
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 lb/day lb/day
2022 3.6913 38.8919 29.5416 0.0635 19.8049 1.6357 21.4182 10.1417 1.5049 11.6259 0.0000 6,150.462 1 6,150.462
1 1.9492 4.6000e0036,200.564
8 2023 3.3828 34.5578 28.5095 0.0834 9.3679 1.4253 10.7932 3.6973 1.3113 5.0086 0.0000 8,404.497 4 8,404.497
4 1.9487 0.5709 8,592.399
1 2024 262.5384 21.0527 26.4039 0.0820 4.2256 0.6712 4.8968 1.1442 0.6317 1.7759 0.0000 8,264.253 6 8,264.253
6 0.7170 0.5564 8,447.510
7 Maximum 262.5384 38.8919 29.5416 0.0834 19.8049 1.6357 21.4182 10.1417 1.5049 11.6259 0.0000 8,404.497 4 8,404.497
4 1.9492 0.5709 8,592.399
1 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 lb/day lb/day
2022 3.6913 38.8919 29.5416 0.0635 19.7933 1.6357 21.4066 10.1388 1.5049 11.6231 0.0000 6,150.462 1 6,150.462
1 1.9492 4.6000e0036,200.564
8 2023 3.3828 34.5578 28.5095 0.0834 9.3550 1.4253 10.7803 3.6942 1.3113 5.0054 0.0000 8,404.497 4 8,404.497
4 1.9487 0.5709 8,592.399
1 2024 262.5384 21.0527 26.4039 0.0820 3.9097 0.6712 4.5808 1.0667 0.6317 1.6984 0.0000 8,264.253 6 8,264.253
6 0.7170 0.5564 8,447.510
7 Maximum 262.5384 38.8919 29.5416 0.0834 19.7933 1.6357 21.4066 10.1388 1.5049 11.6231 0.0000 8,404.497 4 8,404.497
4 1.9492 0.5709 8,592.399
1 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8
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 1.02 0.00 0.92 0.56 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Area 9.3451 3.5000e0040.0380 0.0000 1.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0040.0816 0.0816 2.1000e0040.0870 Energy 0.0165 0.1500 0.1260 9.0000e0040.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 180.0161 180.0161 3.4500e0033.3000e003181.0859 Mobile 3.1585 20.3321 34.0983 0.1255 8.5660 0.1723 8.7383 2.2946 0.1638 2.4584 13,043.32 57 13,043.32
57 0.4100 1.3821 13,465.45
45 Total 12.5200 20.4825 34.2624 0.1264 8.5660 0.1838 8.7498 2.2946 0.1754 2.4700 13,223.42 35 13,223.42
35 0.4137 1.3854 13,646.62
74 Unmitigated 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 lb/day lb/day
Area 9.3451 3.5000e0040.0380 0.0000 1.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0040.0816 0.0816 2.1000e0040.0870 Energy 0.0165 0.1500 0.1260 9.0000e0040.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 180.0161 180.0161 3.4500e0033.3000e003181.0859 Mobile 3.1585 20.3321 34.0983 0.1255 8.5660 0.1723 8.7383 2.2946 0.1638 2.4584 13,043.32 57 13,043.32
57 0.4100 1.3821 13,465.45
45 Total 12.5200 20.4825 34.2624 0.1264 8.5660 0.1838 8.7498 2.2946 0.1754 2.4700 13,223.42 35 13,223.42
35 0.4137 1.3854 13,646.62
74 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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
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 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 6 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Clean Paved Roads
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
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 0.00 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 7 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Total 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0498 0.0363 0.3751 1.0300e0030.1232 6.3000e0040.1239 0.0327 5.8000e0040.0333 104.2886 104.2886 3.7700e0033.4500e003105.4118 Total 0.0498 0.0363 0.3751 1.0300e0030.1232 6.3000e0040.1239 0.0327 5.8000e0040.0333 104.2886 104.2886 3.7700e0033.4500e003105.4118 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 0.0000 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 Total 2.6392 25.7194 20.5941 0.0388 1.2427 1.2427 1.1553 1.1553 0.0000 3,746.781 2 3,746.781
2 1.0524 3,773.092
0 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0498 0.0363 0.3751 1.0300e0030.1136 6.3000e0040.1142 0.0303 5.8000e0040.0309 104.2886 104.2886 3.7700e0033.4500e003105.4118 Total 0.0498 0.0363 0.3751 1.0300e0030.1136 6.3000e0040.1142 0.0303 5.8000e0040.0309 104.2886 104.2886 3.7700e0033.4500e003105.4118 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 1.6126 1.6126 1.4836 1.4836 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 19.6570 1.6126 21.2696 10.1025 1.4836 11.5860 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0598 0.0436 0.4501 1.2400e0030.1479 7.5000e0040.1486 0.0392 6.9000e0040.0399 125.1464 125.1464 4.5300e0034.1400e003126.4941 Total 0.0598 0.0436 0.4501 1.2400e0030.1479 7.5000e0040.1486 0.0392 6.9000e0040.0399 125.1464 125.1464 4.5300e0034.1400e003126.4941 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 1.6126 1.6126 1.4836 1.4836 0.0000 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 Total 3.1701 33.0835 19.6978 0.0380 19.6570 1.6126 21.2696 10.1025 1.4836 11.5860 0.0000 3,686.061 9 3,686.061
9 1.1922 3,715.865
5 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0598 0.0436 0.4501 1.2400e0030.1363 7.5000e0040.1371 0.0364 6.9000e0040.0371 125.1464 125.1464 4.5300e0034.1400e003126.4941 Total 0.0598 0.0436 0.4501 1.2400e0030.1363 7.5000e0040.1371 0.0364 6.9000e0040.0371 125.1464 125.1464 4.5300e0034.1400e003126.4941 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 9.2036 1.6349 10.8385 3.6538 1.5041 5.1579 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0664 0.0484 0.5001 1.3800e0030.1643 8.3000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.7000e0040.0444 139.0515 139.0515 5.0300e0034.6000e003140.5490 Total 0.0664 0.0484 0.5001 1.3800e0030.1643 8.3000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.7000e0040.0444 139.0515 139.0515 5.0300e0034.6000e003140.5490 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 1.6349 1.6349 1.5041 1.5041 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 Total 3.6248 38.8435 29.0415 0.0621 9.2036 1.6349 10.8385 3.6538 1.5041 5.1579 0.0000 6,011.410 5 6,011.410
5 1.9442 6,060.015
8 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0664 0.0484 0.5001 1.3800e0030.1514 8.3000e0040.1523 0.0404 7.7000e0040.0412 139.0515 139.0515 5.0300e0034.6000e003140.5490 Total 0.0664 0.0484 0.5001 1.3800e0030.1514 8.3000e0040.1523 0.0404 7.7000e0040.0412 139.0515 139.0515 5.0300e0034.6000e003140.5490 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.3217 34.5156 28.0512 0.0621 1.4245 1.4245 1.3105 1.3105 6,011.477 7 6,011.477
7 1.9442 6,060.083
6 Total 3.3217 34.5156 28.0512 0.0621 9.2036 1.4245 10.6281 3.6538 1.3105 4.9643 6,011.477 7 6,011.477
7 1.9442 6,060.083
6 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0611 0.0422 0.4584 1.3300e0030.1643 7.9000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.2000e0040.0443 134.5767 134.5767 4.5100e0034.2200e003135.9479 Total 0.0611 0.0422 0.4584 1.3300e0030.1643 7.9000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.2000e0040.0443 134.5767 134.5767 4.5100e0034.2200e003135.9479 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 9.2036 0.0000 9.2036 3.6538 0.0000 3.6538 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.3217 34.5156 28.0512 0.0621 1.4245 1.4245 1.3105 1.3105 0.0000 6,011.477 7 6,011.477
7 1.9442 6,060.083
6 Total 3.3217 34.5156 28.0512 0.0621 9.2036 1.4245 10.6281 3.6538 1.3105 4.9643 0.0000 6,011.477 7 6,011.477
7 1.9442 6,060.083
6 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0611 0.0422 0.4584 1.3300e0030.1514 7.9000e0040.1522 0.0404 7.2000e0040.0412 134.5767 134.5767 4.5100e0034.2200e003135.9479 Total 0.0611 0.0422 0.4584 1.3300e0030.1514 7.9000e0040.1522 0.0404 7.2000e0040.0412 134.5767 134.5767 4.5100e0034.2200e003135.9479 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 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 lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.1559 6.8839 2.0160 0.0306 1.0301 0.0431 1.0732 0.2966 0.0412 0.3378 3,231.771 1 3,231.771
1 0.0156 0.4887 3,377.807
4 Worker 1.1885 0.8215 8.9152 0.0259 3.1955 0.0153 3.2108 0.8476 0.0141 0.8617 2,617.516 4 2,617.516
4 0.0877 0.0821 2,644.185
6 Total 1.3445 7.7054 10.9312 0.0565 4.2256 0.0584 4.2840 1.1442 0.0553 1.1995 5,849.287 5 5,849.287
5 0.1033 0.5709 6,021.993
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 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 lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.1559 6.8839 2.0160 0.0306 0.9641 0.0431 1.0072 0.2804 0.0412 0.3216 3,231.771 1 3,231.771
1 0.0156 0.4887 3,377.807
4 Worker 1.1885 0.8215 8.9152 0.0259 2.9456 0.0153 2.9609 0.7863 0.0141 0.8003 2,617.516 4 2,617.516
4 0.0877 0.0821 2,644.185
6 Total 1.3445 7.7054 10.9312 0.0565 3.9097 0.0584 3.9680 1.0667 0.0553 1.1219 5,849.287 5 5,849.287
5 0.1033 0.5709 6,021.993
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Total 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 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 lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.1520 6.8876 1.9772 0.0301 1.0301 0.0434 1.0735 0.2966 0.0416 0.3382 3,181.587 8 3,181.587
8 0.0149 0.4806 3,325.178
6 Worker 1.0983 0.7213 8.2598 0.0250 3.1955 0.0144 3.2099 0.8476 0.0133 0.8609 2,526.966 9 2,526.966
9 0.0788 0.0758 2,551.524
4 Total 1.2504 7.6089 10.2370 0.0551 4.2256 0.0578 4.2835 1.1442 0.0548 1.1990 5,708.554 7 5,708.554
7 0.0938 0.5564 5,876.703
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 0.0000 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Total 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 0.0000 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 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 lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.1520 6.8876 1.9772 0.0301 0.9641 0.0434 1.0075 0.2804 0.0416 0.3220 3,181.587 8 3,181.587
8 0.0149 0.4806 3,325.178
6 Worker 1.0983 0.7213 8.2598 0.0250 2.9456 0.0144 2.9600 0.7863 0.0133 0.7995 2,526.966 9 2,526.966
9 0.0788 0.0758 2,551.524
4 Total 1.2504 7.6089 10.2370 0.0551 3.9097 0.0578 3.9675 1.0667 0.0548 1.1215 5,708.554 7 5,708.554
7 0.0938 0.5564 5,876.703
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 1.7082 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.6964 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0424 0.0278 0.3185 9.6000e0040.1232 5.6000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.1000e0040.0332 97.4409 97.4409 3.0400e0032.9200e00398.3878 Total 0.0424 0.0278 0.3185 9.6000e0040.1232 5.6000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.1000e0040.0332 97.4409 97.4409 3.0400e0032.9200e00398.3878 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9882 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 Paving 1.7082 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.6964 9.5246 14.6258 0.0228 0.4685 0.4685 0.4310 0.4310 0.0000 2,207.547 2 2,207.547
2 0.7140 2,225.396
3 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0424 0.0278 0.3185 9.6000e0040.1136 5.6000e0040.1141 0.0303 5.1000e0040.0308 97.4409 97.4409 3.0400e0032.9200e00398.3878 Total 0.0424 0.0278 0.3185 9.6000e0040.1136 5.6000e0040.1141 0.0303 5.1000e0040.0308 97.4409 97.4409 3.0400e0032.9200e00398.3878 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 262.1374 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 262.3182 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.2202 0.1446 1.6562 5.0100e0030.6408 2.8900e0030.6436 0.1700 2.6600e0030.1726 506.6926 506.6926 0.0158 0.0152 511.6167 Total 0.2202 0.1446 1.6562 5.0100e0030.6408 2.8900e0030.6436 0.1700 2.6600e0030.1726 506.6926 506.6926 0.0158 0.0152 511.6167 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 262.1374 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 Total 262.3182 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e0030.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443 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 lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.2202 0.1446 1.6562 5.0100e0030.5906 2.8900e0030.5935 0.1577 2.6600e0030.1603 506.6926 506.6926 0.0158 0.0152 511.6167 Total 0.2202 0.1446 1.6562 5.0100e0030.5906 2.8900e0030.5935 0.1577 2.6600e0030.1603 506.6926 506.6926 0.0158 0.0152 511.6167 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 3.1585 20.3321 34.0983 0.1255 8.5660 0.1723 8.7383 2.2946 0.1638 2.4584 13,043.32 57 13,043.32
57 0.4100 1.3821 13,465.45
45 Unmitigated 3.1585 20.3321 34.0983 0.1255 8.5660 0.1723 8.7383 2.2946 0.1638 2.4584 13,043.32 57 13,043.32
57 0.4100 1.3821 13,465.45
45 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
General Office Building 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 1,358.00 1,358.00 1358.00 3,964,696 3,964,696 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 General Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Refrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

9.50 7.30 7.30 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 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 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 Refrigerated 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

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 lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0165 0.1500 0.1260 9.0000e0040.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 180.0161 180.0161 3.4500e0033.3000e003181.0859 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0165 0.1500 0.1260 9.0000e0040.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 180.0161 180.0161 3.4500e0033.3000e003181.0859

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

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 lb/day lb/day
General Office
Building
446.575 4.8200e0030.0438 0.0368 2.6000e0043.3300e0033.3300e0033.3300e0033.3300e00352.5383 52.5383 1.0100e0039.6000e00452.8505 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 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
1083.56 0.0117 0.1062 0.0892 6.4000e0048.0700e0038.0700e0038.0700e0038.0700e003127.4778 127.4778 2.4400e0032.3400e003128.2354 Total 0.0165 0.1500 0.1260 9.0000e0040.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 180.0161 180.0161 3.4500e0033.3000e003181.0859 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

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 lb/day lb/day
General Office
Building

0.446575 4.8200e0030.0438 0.0368 2.6000e0043.3300e0033.3300e0033.3300e0033.3300e00352.5383 52.5383 1.0100e0039.6000e00452.8505 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 Refrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

1.08356 0.0117 0.1062 0.0892 6.4000e0048.0700e0038.0700e0038.0700e0038.0700e003127.4778 127.4778 2.4400e0032.3400e003128.2354 Total 0.0165 0.1500 0.1260 9.0000e0040.0114 0.0114 0.0114 0.0114 180.0161 180.0161 3.4500e0033.3000e003181.0859 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8
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 lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 9.3451 3.5000e0040.0380 0.0000 1.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0040.0816 0.0816 2.1000e0040.0870 Unmitigated 9.3451 3.5000e0040.0380 0.0000 1.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0040.0816 0.0816 2.1000e0040.0870

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 lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

1.4364 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

7.9052 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.5100e0033.5000e0040.0380 0.0000 1.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0040.0816 0.0816 2.1000e0040.0870 Total 9.3451 3.5000e0040.0380 0.0000 1.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0040.0816 0.0816 2.1000e0040.0870 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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 lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

1.4364 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

7.9052 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.5100e0033.5000e0040.0380 0.0000 1.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0040.0816 0.0816 2.1000e0040.0870 Total 9.3451 3.5000e0040.0380 0.0000 1.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0041.4000e0040.0816 0.0816 2.1000e0040.0870 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

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 30 of 30 Date: 11/1/2022 10:32 AM Manteca Airport Business Center North - San Joaquin County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 8
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.0442 Total DPM (lbs) 277.9106849 Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.0398 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.242191781 Total DPM (g) 126060.2867 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.218082192 Construction Duration (days) 78 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.002197336 Total DPM (lbs) 79.6 Total DPM (lbs) 18.8909589 Release Height (meters) 3 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.001144932 Total DPM (g) 8568.938959 Total Acreage 21.3 Release Height (meters) 3 Start Date 10/15/2022 Max Horizontal (meters) 415.21 Total Acreage 21.3 End Date 1/1/2023 Min Horizontal (meters) 207.60 Max Horizontal (meters) 415.21 Construction Days 78 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Min Horizontal (meters) 207.60 Setting Urban Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.1019 Population 85,792 Setting Urban Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.558356164 Start Date 10/15/2022 Population 85,792 Construction Duration (days) 365 End Date 8/9/2024
Total DPM (lbs) 203.8 Total Construction Days 664
Total DPM (g) 92443.68 Total Years of Construction 1.82 Start Date 1/1/2023 Total Years of Operation 28.18
End Date 1/1/2024
Construction Days 365
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.0456
Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.249863014
Construction Duration (days) 221
Total DPM (lbs) 55.21972603
Total DPM (g) 25047.66773
Start Date 1/1/2024
End Date 8/9/2024
Construction Days 221
2024
Construction Operation
2022 Total Emission Rate
2023
Attachment B
ATTACHMENT 8
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 10/21/22
11:24:15
TITLE: Airport Business Centre, Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.114E-02 g/s 0.909E-02 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE: 0.133E-07 g/(s-m2) 0.105E-06 lb/(hr-m2) AREA HEIGHT: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: 415.21 meters 1362.24 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: 207.60 meters 681.10 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN: URBAN
POPULATION: 85792
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE = 5000. meters 16404. feet
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- *********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS ********************** -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON-POINT SOURCES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters - 5000. meters
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE 1-HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL
SECTOR ROUGHNESS (ug/m3) (deg) (m) PERIOD
-----------------------------------------------------
1* 1.000 0.6325 0 200.0 WIN
* = worst case diagonal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment C
ATTACHMENT 8
********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO: 0.35
BOWEN RATIO: 1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED

METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT -------------------------------------------------------------

YR MO DY JDY HR
-- -- -- --- --
10 01 10 10 01
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50

HT REF TA HT
- - - - - - - - - - -

10.0 310.0 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES **********************

OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
DIST 1-HR CONC DIST 1-HR CONC
(m) (ug/m3) (m) (ug/m3)
--------------------- ---------------------

1.00 0.4874 2525.00 0.2465E-01
ATTACHMENT 8

25.00 0.5104 2550.00 0.2433E-01

50.00 0.5324 2575.00 0.2402E-01

75.00 0.5524 2600.00 0.2371E-01
100.00 0.5710 2625.00 0.2341E-01
125.00 0.5881 2650.00 0.2311E-01
150.00 0.6039 2675.00 0.2282E-01
175.00 0.6187 2700.00 0.2253E-01
200.00 0.6325 2725.00 0.2226E-01
225.00 0.6291 2750.00 0.2198E-01
250.00 0.4915 2775.00 0.2172E-01
275.01 0.4038 2800.00 0.2145E-01
300.00 0.3543 2825.00 0.2120E-01
325.00 0.3193 2850.00 0.2095E-01
350.00 0.2921 2875.00 0.2070E-01
375.00 0.2708 2900.00 0.2046E-01
400.00 0.2521 2925.00 0.2023E-01
425.00 0.2355 2950.00 0.2000E-01
450.00 0.2207 2975.00 0.1977E-01
475.00 0.2075 3000.00 0.1955E-01
500.00 0.1954 3025.00 0.1933E-01
525.00 0.1845 3050.00 0.1912E-01
550.00 0.1747 3075.00 0.1891E-01
575.00 0.1657 3100.00 0.1870E-01
600.00 0.1574 3125.00 0.1850E-01
625.00 0.1498 3150.00 0.1831E-01
650.00 0.1429 3175.00 0.1811E-01
675.00 0.1364 3200.00 0.1792E-01
700.00 0.1304 3225.00 0.1773E-01
725.00 0.1249 3250.00 0.1755E-01
750.00 0.1197 3275.00 0.1737E-01
775.00 0.1149 3300.00 0.1719E-01
800.00 0.1105 3325.00 0.1702E-01
825.00 0.1063 3350.00 0.1685E-01
850.00 0.1024 3375.00 0.1668E-01
875.00 0.9868E-01 3400.00 0.1652E-01
900.00 0.9524E-01 3425.00 0.1635E-01
925.00 0.9199E-01 3450.00 0.1620E-01
950.00 0.8890E-01 3475.00 0.1604E-01
975.00 0.8600E-01 3500.00 0.1589E-01
1000.00 0.8327E-01 3525.00 0.1573E-01
1025.00 0.8070E-01 3550.00 0.1559E-01
1050.00 0.7825E-01 3575.00 0.1544E-01
1075.00 0.7591E-01 3600.00 0.1530E-01
1100.00 0.7367E-01 3625.00 0.1515E-01
1125.00 0.7155E-01 3650.00 0.1501E-01
1150.00 0.6954E-01 3675.00 0.1488E-01
1175.00 0.6764E-01 3700.00 0.1474E-01
1200.00 0.6583E-01 3725.00 0.1461E-01
1225.00 0.6410E-01 3750.00 0.1448E-01
1250.00 0.6246E-01 3775.00 0.1435E-01
ATTACHMENT 8
1275.00 0.6088E-01 3800.00 0.1422E-01
1300.00 0.5936E-01 3825.00 0.1410E-01
1325.00 0.5789E-01 3850.00 0.1416E-01
1350.00 0.5648E-01 3875.00 0.1404E-01
1375.00 0.5513E-01 3900.00 0.1392E-01
1400.00 0.5385E-01 3925.00 0.1379E-01
1425.00 0.5261E-01 3950.00 0.1368E-01
1450.00 0.5143E-01 3975.00 0.1356E-01
1475.00 0.5029E-01 4000.00 0.1344E-01
1500.00 0.4920E-01 4025.00 0.1333E-01
1525.00 0.4815E-01 4050.00 0.1322E-01
1550.00 0.4714E-01 4075.00 0.1310E-01
1575.00 0.4615E-01 4100.00 0.1300E-01
1600.00 0.4520E-01 4125.00 0.1289E-01
1625.00 0.4428E-01 4150.00 0.1278E-01
1650.00 0.4340E-01 4175.00 0.1268E-01
1675.00 0.4255E-01 4200.00 0.1257E-01
1700.00 0.4173E-01 4225.00 0.1247E-01
1725.00 0.4093E-01 4250.00 0.1237E-01
1750.00 0.4016E-01 4275.00 0.1227E-01
1775.00 0.3941E-01 4300.00 0.1218E-01
1800.00 0.3868E-01 4325.00 0.1208E-01
1825.00 0.3798E-01 4350.00 0.1198E-01
1850.00 0.3730E-01 4375.00 0.1189E-01
1875.00 0.3665E-01 4400.00 0.1180E-01
1900.00 0.3601E-01 4425.00 0.1171E-01
1925.00 0.3539E-01 4450.00 0.1162E-01
1950.00 0.3479E-01 4475.00 0.1153E-01
1975.00 0.3421E-01 4500.00 0.1144E-01
2000.00 0.3364E-01 4525.00 0.1136E-01
2025.00 0.3308E-01 4550.00 0.1127E-01
2050.00 0.3255E-01 4575.00 0.1119E-01
2075.00 0.3202E-01 4600.00 0.1110E-01
2100.00 0.3152E-01 4625.00 0.1102E-01
2125.00 0.3102E-01 4650.00 0.1094E-01
2150.00 0.3054E-01 4675.00 0.1086E-01
2175.00 0.3008E-01 4700.00 0.1078E-01
2200.00 0.2962E-01 4725.00 0.1070E-01
2225.00 0.2918E-01 4750.00 0.1063E-01
2250.00 0.2875E-01 4775.00 0.1055E-01
2275.00 0.2833E-01 4800.00 0.1048E-01
2300.00 0.2792E-01 4825.00 0.1040E-01
2325.00 0.2752E-01 4850.00 0.1033E-01
2350.00 0.2713E-01 4875.00 0.1026E-01
2375.00 0.2676E-01 4900.00 0.1018E-01
2400.00 0.2639E-01 4925.00 0.1011E-01
2425.00 0.2602E-01 4950.00 0.1004E-01
2450.00 0.2567E-01 4975.00 0.9974E-02
2475.00 0.2532E-01 5000.00 0.9906E-02
2500.00 0.2498E-01
ATTACHMENT 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY ********************* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1-hour concentration as referenced in

SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA-454/R-92-019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance

MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED
1-HOUR 3-HOUR 8-HOUR 24-HOUR ANNUAL

CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC
PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3)
--------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- FLAT TERRAIN 0.6367 0.6367 0.6367 0.6367 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 208.00 meters

IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.4874 0.4874 0.4874 0.4874 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters
ATTACHMENT 8
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 10/21/22
11:11:57
TITLE: Airport Business Centre, Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.220E-02 g/s 0.174E-01 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE: 0.255E-07 g/(s-m2) 0.202E-06 lb/(hr-m2) AREA HEIGHT: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: 415.21 meters 1362.24 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: 207.60 meters 681.10 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN: URBAN
POPULATION: 85792
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE = 5000. meters 16404. feet
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- *********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS ********************** -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON-POINT SOURCES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters - 5000. meters
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE 1-HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL
SECTOR ROUGHNESS (ug/m3) (deg) (m) PERIOD
-----------------------------------------------------
1* 1.000 1.214 0 200.0 WIN
* = worst case diagonal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ATTACHMENT 8
********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO: 0.35
BOWEN RATIO: 1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED

METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT -------------------------------------------------------------

YR MO DY JDY HR
-- -- -- --- --
10 01 10 10 01
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50

HT REF TA HT
- - - - - - - - - - -

10.0 310.0 2.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES **********************

OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
DIST 1-HR CONC DIST 1-HR CONC
(m) (ug/m3) (m) (ug/m3)
--------------------- ---------------------

1.00 0.9356 2525.00 0.4732E-01
ATTACHMENT 8

25.00 0.9797 2550.00 0.4670E-01

50.00 1.022 2575.00 0.4610E-01

75.00 1.060 2600.00 0.4550E-01
100.00 1.096 2625.00 0.4493E-01
125.00 1.129 2650.00 0.4436E-01
150.00 1.159 2675.00 0.4380E-01
175.00 1.188 2700.00 0.4325E-01
200.00 1.214 2725.00 0.4272E-01
225.00 1.207 2750.00 0.4219E-01
250.00 0.9435 2775.00 0.4168E-01
275.01 0.7751 2800.00 0.4118E-01
300.00 0.6801 2825.00 0.4069E-01
325.00 0.6128 2850.00 0.4021E-01
350.00 0.5606 2875.00 0.3974E-01
375.00 0.5198 2900.00 0.3928E-01
400.00 0.4839 2925.00 0.3882E-01
425.00 0.4520 2950.00 0.3838E-01
450.00 0.4236 2975.00 0.3795E-01
475.00 0.3982 3000.00 0.3752E-01
500.00 0.3751 3025.00 0.3711E-01
525.00 0.3542 3050.00 0.3670E-01
550.00 0.3353 3075.00 0.3630E-01
575.00 0.3180 3100.00 0.3590E-01
600.00 0.3021 3125.00 0.3552E-01
625.00 0.2875 3150.00 0.3514E-01
650.00 0.2742 3175.00 0.3476E-01
675.00 0.2618 3200.00 0.3440E-01
700.00 0.2504 3225.00 0.3404E-01
725.00 0.2397 3250.00 0.3369E-01
750.00 0.2298 3275.00 0.3334E-01
775.00 0.2206 3300.00 0.3300E-01
800.00 0.2121 3325.00 0.3267E-01
825.00 0.2041 3350.00 0.3234E-01
850.00 0.1965 3375.00 0.3202E-01
875.00 0.1894 3400.00 0.3170E-01
900.00 0.1828 3425.00 0.3139E-01
925.00 0.1766 3450.00 0.3109E-01
950.00 0.1706 3475.00 0.3079E-01
975.00 0.1651 3500.00 0.3049E-01
1000.00 0.1598 3525.00 0.3020E-01
1025.00 0.1549 3550.00 0.2992E-01
1050.00 0.1502 3575.00 0.2963E-01
1075.00 0.1457 3600.00 0.2936E-01
1100.00 0.1414 3625.00 0.2909E-01
1125.00 0.1373 3650.00 0.2882E-01
1150.00 0.1335 3675.00 0.2856E-01
1175.00 0.1298 3700.00 0.2830E-01
1200.00 0.1264 3725.00 0.2804E-01
1225.00 0.1230 3750.00 0.2779E-01
1250.00 0.1199 3775.00 0.2754E-01
ATTACHMENT 8
1275.00 0.1169 3800.00 0.2730E-01
1300.00 0.1139 3825.00 0.2706E-01
1325.00 0.1111 3850.00 0.2719E-01
1350.00 0.1084 3875.00 0.2695E-01
1375.00 0.1058 3900.00 0.2671E-01
1400.00 0.1034 3925.00 0.2648E-01
1425.00 0.1010 3950.00 0.2625E-01
1450.00 0.9872E-01 3975.00 0.2602E-01
1475.00 0.9654E-01 4000.00 0.2580E-01
1500.00 0.9444E-01 4025.00 0.2558E-01
1525.00 0.9243E-01 4050.00 0.2537E-01
1550.00 0.9048E-01 4075.00 0.2515E-01
1575.00 0.8858E-01 4100.00 0.2494E-01
1600.00 0.8676E-01 4125.00 0.2474E-01
1625.00 0.8500E-01 4150.00 0.2453E-01
1650.00 0.8330E-01 4175.00 0.2433E-01
1675.00 0.8167E-01 4200.00 0.2414E-01
1700.00 0.8009E-01 4225.00 0.2394E-01
1725.00 0.7856E-01 4250.00 0.2375E-01
1750.00 0.7707E-01 4275.00 0.2356E-01
1775.00 0.7564E-01 4300.00 0.2337E-01
1800.00 0.7425E-01 4325.00 0.2319E-01
1825.00 0.7290E-01 4350.00 0.2300E-01
1850.00 0.7160E-01 4375.00 0.2282E-01
1875.00 0.7034E-01 4400.00 0.2265E-01
1900.00 0.6912E-01 4425.00 0.2247E-01
1925.00 0.6793E-01 4450.00 0.2230E-01
1950.00 0.6679E-01 4475.00 0.2213E-01
1975.00 0.6566E-01 4500.00 0.2196E-01
2000.00 0.6457E-01 4525.00 0.2180E-01
2025.00 0.6350E-01 4550.00 0.2163E-01
2050.00 0.6247E-01 4575.00 0.2147E-01
2075.00 0.6147E-01 4600.00 0.2131E-01
2100.00 0.6049E-01 4625.00 0.2115E-01
2125.00 0.5955E-01 4650.00 0.2100E-01
2150.00 0.5863E-01 4675.00 0.2084E-01
2175.00 0.5773E-01 4700.00 0.2069E-01
2200.00 0.5686E-01 4725.00 0.2054E-01
2225.00 0.5601E-01 4750.00 0.2040E-01
2250.00 0.5518E-01 4775.00 0.2025E-01
2275.00 0.5438E-01 4800.00 0.2011E-01
2300.00 0.5359E-01 4825.00 0.1996E-01
2325.00 0.5283E-01 4850.00 0.1982E-01
2350.00 0.5208E-01 4875.00 0.1968E-01
2375.00 0.5135E-01 4900.00 0.1955E-01
2400.00 0.5065E-01 4925.00 0.1941E-01
2425.00 0.4995E-01 4950.00 0.1928E-01
2450.00 0.4927E-01 4975.00 0.1915E-01
2475.00 0.4860E-01 5000.00 0.1901E-01
2500.00 0.4795E-01
ATTACHMENT 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY ********************* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1-hour concentration as referenced in

SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA-454/R-92-019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance

MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED
1-HOUR 3-HOUR 8-HOUR 24-HOUR ANNUAL

CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC
PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3)
--------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- FLAT TERRAIN 1.222 1.222 1.222 1.222 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 208.00 meters

IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.9356 0.9356 0.9356 0.9356 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters
ATTACHMENT 8
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigationand RemediationStrategies
LitigationSupport and Testifying Expert
IndustrialStormwaterCompliance
CEQAReview
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

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

ProfessionalCertifications:

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

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

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment D
ATTACHMENT 8
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications forlarge solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.

ATTACHMENT 8
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

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

Hydrogeology:

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

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

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted ATTACHMENT 8
4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

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

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

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

Policy:

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

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific ATTACHMENT 8
5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peerreview of scientific documents.

Geology:

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

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

Teaching:

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

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

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

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

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

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

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

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

ATTACHMENT 8
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

ATTACHMENT 8
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

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

Unpublished report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

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

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

ATTACHMENT 8
8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.

ATTACHMENT 8

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment E
ATTACHMENT 8
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021
Professional History:

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

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

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

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

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

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT 8
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

ATTACHMENT 8
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

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

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

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

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

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

Presentations:

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

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

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

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

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

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

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

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

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

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International ATTACHMENT 8
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

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

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

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

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

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

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

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

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

ATTACHMENT 8
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT 8
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

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

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

Teaching Experience:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academic Grants Awarded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT 8
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

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

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

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

Case Number 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

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

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

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

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
ATTACHMENT 8
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
ATTACHMENT 8
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

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

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

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

Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009
ATTACHMENT 8