INITIAL STUDY GBXMANTECA PROJECT
PAGE 140
APPENDIX H: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
1 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
LIST OF COMMENTERS
Table 1 lists the comments on the Draft IS/MND that were submitted to the City of Manteca (City) during the public review period for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. CEQA statutes do not require a formal response to comment for an Initial Study, however, the City has chosen to provide formal responses to all comment letters for informational purposes. The assigned comment letter or number, letter date, letter author, and affiliation, if presented in the comment letter or if representing a public agency, are also listed. Letters received are coded with letters (A, B, etc.).
TABLE 1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON DRAFT IS/MND
RESPONSE
LETTER
INDIVIDUAL OR SIGNATORY AFFILIATION DATE
A Unidentified Native American Heritage Commission 6-20-22 B Laurel Boyd San Joaquin Council of Governments 6-21-22 C Peter Minkel Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 7-22-22 D Brian Clements San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 7-22-22 E Gary Ho Blum Collins & Ho, LLP 7-22-22
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The lead agency is evaluating and responding to all comments on the that regard an environmental issue.
The written response addresses the environmental issue raised and provides a detailed response. The written response is a good faith and reasoned analysis. It is noted that lead agencies need only to respond to significant environmental issues associated with the proposed Project and do not need to provide all the information requested by the commenter, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure.
RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
Written comments on the CEQA document are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses to those comments. To assist in referencing comments and responses, the following coding system is used:
• Each letter is lettered or numbered (i.e., Letter A) and each comment within each letter is numbered (i.e., comment A-1, comment A-2).
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
2 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
A-1
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 3
Response to Letter A: Native American Heritage Commission Response A-1: This commenter states that they are in receipt of the request, and explains that they are not able to respond within the statutory 30-day requirement due to having recently hired new staff. This comment is noted.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
4 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
B-1
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 5
Response to Letter B: San Joaquin Council of Governments Response B-1: This commenter states that the Project site was already mitigated in 2019. They note that the proposed Project is not due to participate in the SJMSCP given that there is existing ground disturbance associated with the previously approved project. The comment indicates that future structures should be resubmitted to their agency. This comment is noted.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
6 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
C-1
C-2
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 7
C-2 Cont’d
C-3
C-4
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
8 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
C-5
C-6
C-7
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 9
C-7 Cont’d
C-8
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
10 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
C-9
C-8 Cont’d
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 11
Response to Letter C: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Response C-1: This comment is noted. This comment serves as an introduction to the letter and does not warrant a response. No further response is necessary.
Response C-2: The comment provides background information regarding the responsibilities of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). This information further elaborates on regulatory information regarding the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region (Basin Plan), which is the guiding document for water quality and sustainable groundwater management in the region. Hydrology and Water Quality is discussed on pages 66 through71 of the Initial Study, and in Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR for the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan. No further response is necessary.
Response C-3: The comment provides information regarding “Antidegradation Considerations,” including the Basin Plan’s policy and analysis requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permitting. Hydrology and Water Quality is discussed on pages 66 through71 of the Initial Study, and in Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR for the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan.
Mitigation Measures HYD-1, HYD-2, and HYD-4 for the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan are aimed at reducing water quality impacts. The proposed Project is subject to the requirements of the NPDES and WDR, which are existing regulatory requirements. No further response is necessary.
Response C-4: The comment identifies construction storm water permit requirements for projects that disturb one or more acres of soil or are part of a larger plan that in total disturbs one or more acres of soil. These are regulatory requirements that require the Project Applicant to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-009-DWQ. To do so, the applicant(s) must prepare a Project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would incorporate BMPs in order to prevent or reduce to the greatest extent feasible adverse impacts to water quality from erosion and sedimentation. Mitigation Measure HYD-1 specifically requirements the preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs. The proposed Project would comply with the General Construction Stormwater Permit from the Central Valley RWQCB.
Response C-5: The comment identifies construction storm water permit requirements MS4 permit requirements. The City is classified as a Phase II city by the State Water Resources Control Board. As such, the City, and consequently new development, is required to comply with the State Board’s storm water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for Phase II cities.
Response C-6: This comment identifies industrial storm water general permit requirements associated with Industrial Storm Water General Permit Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ. These are regulatory requirements that require the Project Applicant to obtain coverage under the ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
12 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Projects. The proposed Project would comply with the Industrial Storm Water General Permit Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ from the Central Valley RWQCB.
Response C-7: This comment discusses requirements of Section 404 and 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, and discharges to Waters of the State. As discussed on page 40 of the Initial Study, the Project site does not have any jurisdictional waters and is not subject to these permit requirements.
Response C-8: This comment discusses dewater permit requirements. Dewatering is not anticipated to be required as a result of construction of the proposed Project. However, should groundwater be encountered during construction and dewatering become necessary, the applicant would be required to seek the proper NPDES permit for dewatering activities.
Response C-9: This comment discuses NPDES permits, and the preparation of Waste Discharge Reports.
These are regulatory requirements that require the Project Applicant operating under a NPDES permit to complete and submit a report of Waste Discharge to the Central Valley RWQCB. The proposed Project is required to comply with these requirements.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 13
D-1
D-2
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
14 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
D-3
D-4
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 15
D-4
(Continued)
D-5
D-6
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
16 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
D-7
D-8
D-9
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 17
D-9
(Continued)
D-10
D-11
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
18 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
D-11
(Continued)
D-12
D-13
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 19
D-13
(Continued)
D-14
D-15
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
20 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
Response to Letter D: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Response D-1: This commenter provides an introduction to the comment letter. No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response D-2: The commentor states that the Air District recommends that the proposed Projectshould utilize the cleanest available off-road construction equipment, including the latest tier equipment, to reduce impacts from construction-related diesel exhaust emissions.
It is noted that the criteria pollutant emissions during the proposed Project’s construction phase is below the applicable Air District thresholds. Therefore, further mitigation is not warranted for the construction phase. Furthermore, the mitigation measures from the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR are applicable to the proposed Project. The proposed Project is required to implement Mitigation Measures AIR-1a through AIR-1c.
Mitigation Measure AIR-1a requires the Project Applicant to ensure the usage of cleaner construction equipment and techniques than is required otherwise. Mitigation Measure AIR-1b requires a limit to the VOC content of architectural coatings. Additionally, Mitigation Measure AIR-1c requires the Project Applicant to demonstrate compliance with the Air District’s Rule 9510.
With implementation of these applicable mitigation measures, the proposed Project construction-related emissions would reduce emissions that are already below the applicable Air District thresholds. Construction emissions would not cause a significant air quality impact due to Project construction activities.
Response D-3: The commentor recommends that the City consider the feasibility of incorporating emission reductions strategies that can further reduce potential harmful health impacts, potentially including some or all of those listed.
Like under the construction phase, criteria pollutant emissions during the proposed Project’s operational phase are also below the applicable Air District thresholds.
Therefore, further mitigation is not warranted for the operational phase. Furthermore, the mitigation measures from the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR are applicable to the proposed Project. The proposed Project is required to implement Mitigation Measures AIR-1, AIR-1d, Mitigation Measures AIR-1d, and Mitigation Measure AIR-6).
Mitigation Measure AIR-1c requires the Project Applicant to demonstrate compliance with the Air District’s Rule 9510, which requires the proposed Project to achieve a 33- percent reduction in NOx and a 45-percent reduction in PM10 over the first 10 years of operations through the use of onsite emissions reduction measures or through the payment of offsite mitigation fees to the SJVAPCD for purchase of emission reductions.
Mitigation Measure AIR-1d requires the Project Applicant to demonstrate that the antiidling measures would be implemented. Mitigation Measure AIR-6 requires the applicant to demonstrate compliance with SJVAPCD Rules 4102 (Nuisance) and 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling) to the extent that these rules are applicable.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 21
With implementation of these applicable mitigation measures, the proposed Project construction-related emissions would reduce emissions that are already below the applicable Air District thresholds. Operational emissions would not cause a significant air quality impact due to Project activities.
Response D-4: The commenter states:
“Truck Routing
Truck routing involves the assessment of which roads Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) trucks take to and from their destination, and the emissions impact that the HHD trucks may have on residential communities and sensitive receptors. Since the Project consists of the construction and operation of a beverage distribution facility, the Project has the potential to generate HHD truck trips.
The District recommends the City evaluate HHD truck routing patterns for the Project, with the aim of limiting exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions. This evaluation would consider the current truck routes, the quantity and type of each truck (e.g., Medium Heavy-Duty, HHD, etc.), the destination and origin of each trip, traffic volume correlation with the time of day or the day of the week, overall Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and associated exhaust emissions. The truck routing evaluation would also identify alternative truck routes and their impacts on VMT and air quality.” The Transportation Impact Assessment provided by Fehr & Peers evaluated Project truck routes to and from the destination; the health risk assessment screening assessed the emissions impact that the HHD trucks would have on nearby residential communities and sensitive receptors. In addition, the Fehr & Peers modeled truck trip origin and destination, traffic volume based on time of day and day of the week, and overall VMT.
The CalEEMod modeling provided within Section III: Air Quality of this IS/MND evaluated associated exhaust emissions associated with mobile sources. The CalEEMod model was refined to account for the fleet mix for heavy-duty vehicles as determined by Fehr & Peers (19.9396%). Additionally, the vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project (i.e., 662 daily trips) was also modeled within CalEEMod. The emissions results from the refined CalEEMod model were incorporated into IS/MND.
Additionally, the health risk screening evaluated exhaust emissions associated with toxic air contaminants (TACs), and the Air District screening tool prioritization score associated with total cancer risk from proposed project DPM (including both Project construction and operation) would be approximately 1.95, well below the SJVAPCD threshold of 10 that would require development of air toxics Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that includes air dispersion modeling. Further, non-cancer (i.e., chronic and acute risks) associated with project DPM would also be well below the applicable thresholds for the Maximally Exposed Individual (i.e., greater than or equal to the Hazard Index level of 1). Therefore, the complex air dispersion modeling using software such as AERMOD is not warranted.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
22 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
It is well settled that the level of detail in each analytical section of an IS/MND depends on the degree of specificity involved in the proposed activity reviewed in the IS/MND.
Caselaw and the CEQA Guidelines confirm that some degree of “forecasting” in evaluating a project’s environmental impacts is appropriate, and the IS/MND can and should make reasonable forecasts. At the same time, the IS/MND must avoid speculation, and “crystal ball” inquiry is to be avoided. (14 Cal Code Regs Section 15144; Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Comm. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 CA 3d 274, 286). The IS/MND has been prepared with these principles in mind. Fehr & Peers evaluated HHD truck routing patterns according to their latest modeling software and the applicable regional travel demand model(s).
In summary, CEQA specifically prohibits speculation in analysis, so we cannot speculate on final truck routing pattern. However, employing the concept of reasonable “forecasting”, the analysis warranted certain assumptions to be made in an attempt to analyze and disclose the probable impacts that could occur. These assumptions are reflected in the Project Description and throughout the IS/MND. These are reasonable assumptions, and the impacts disclosed in the IS/MND are probable environmental impacts. No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response D-5: The commenter states:
“Cleanest Available Heavy-Duty Trucks
The San Joaquin Valley will not be able to attain stringent health-based federal air quality standards without significant reductions in emissions from HHD trucks, the single largest source of NOx emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. The District CARB-approved 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes significant new reductions from HHD trucks, including emissions reductions by 2023 through the implementation of CARB Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation, which requires truck fleets operating in California to meet the 2010 standard of 0.2 g-NOx/bhp-hr by 2023.
Additionally, to meet federal air quality attainment n relies on a significant and immediate transition of HHD fleets to zero or near-zero emissions technologies, including the near-zero truck standard of 0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx established by CARB.
The Project consists of the construction and operation of a beverage distribution facility and has the potential to generate HHD truck trips. Although the Project is not expected to exceed District significance thresholds, the District recommends that the following measures be considered by the City to reduce Project-related operational emissions:
• Recommended Measure: Fleets associated with operational activities utilize the cleanest available HHD trucks, including zero and near-zero (0.02 g/bhp-hr NOx) technologies.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 23
• Recommended Measure: All on-site service equipment (cargo handling, yard hostlers, forklifts, pallet jacks, etc.) utilize zero-emissions technologies.”
This comment is noted. However, as stated by the comment letter, the CARB’s Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation already requires truck fleets operating in California to meet the 2010 standard of 0.2 g-NOx/bhp-hr by 2023, without this additional Project-specific mitigation measure. Ultimately, this recommended mitigation measure is technologically not feasible given the absence of zero and near-zero technology trucks at this time. There are a variety of companies (i.e., Tesla) that have been working on the design and development of a zero and near-zero technology truck, but that is not currently available to the market.
Moreover, it should be noted that the proposed Project’s mitigated operational emissions are below the Air District’s applicable thresholds of significance. Furthermore, the proposed Project already includes mitigation measures from the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR, as provided in the Final IS/MND. Therefore, additional mitigation is not required to be implemented for this environmental topic, as required by CEQA. No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response D-6: The commenter states:
“Electric On-Site Off-Road and On-Road Equipment
Since the development project may include Heavy Industrial and Light Industrial uses, the Project may have the potential to result in increased use of off-road equipment (e.g., forklifts) and on-road equipment (e.g., mobile yard trucks with the ability to move materials). The District recommends that the MND include requirements for project proponents to utilize electric or zero emission off-road and on-road equipment.”
This comment is noted and the recommendation will be provided to the applicant.
However, as noted in Response D-5 (above), the proposed Project’s mitigated operational emissions are below the Air District’s applicable thresholds of significance. Furthermore, the proposed Project already includes mitigation measures from the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR. Therefore, additional mitigation is not warranted.
Response D-7: The commenter states:
“Vegetative Barriers and Urban Greening
There are single family residential units located east and south east of the Project.
The District suggests the City consider the feasibility of incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors (e.g., residential units).
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
24 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, vegetative barriers have been shown pollution through the interception of airborne particles and the update of gaseous pollutants. Examples of vegetative barriers include, but are not limited to the following: trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix of these. Generally, a higher and thicker vegetative barrier with full coverage will result in greater reductions in downwind pollutant concentrations. In the same manner, urban greening is also a way to help improve air quality and public health in addition to enhancing the overall beautification of a community with drought tolerant, low-maintenance greenery.”
This comment is noted. The proposed Project is an industrial project, and is not located adjacent to any residences or sensitive receptors. Therefore, vegetative barriers and urban greening is less applicable. It is noted, however, that the proposed Project does include some perimeter landscaping consistent with City requirements. It should also be noted that proposed Project would not exceed the TAC screening thresholds as provided by the SJVAPCD, with current Project design.
Response D-8: The commentor states that a project is subject to District’s rules and regulations, and provides some introductory examples of some types of District rules and regulations. This comment is noted. The proposed Project is subject to the District’s existing rules and regulations, many of which are presented in the Regulatory Setting of the Air Quality Chapter. No specific response to this comment is warranted. No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response D-9: This comment is noted. Any building construction on the Project site may be subject to District Rule 2010 and 2201 – Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources. No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response D-10:This comment is noted. Any building construction on the Project site may be subject to District Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review (ISR). No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response D-11:This comment is noted. Any building construction on the Project site may be subject to District Rule 9510 – Employer Based Trip Reduction. No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response D-12:This comment is noted. Any building construction on the Project site may be subject to District Rule 4601 – Architectural Coatings. No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response D-13:This comment is noted. Any building construction on the Project site may be subject to District Rule VIII – Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. No further response to this comment is warranted.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 25
Response D-14:This comment is noted. Any building construction on the Project site may be subject to other District rules, such as Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations). No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response D-15:This commenter recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project Applicant, and provides a closing statement to the comment letter. No further response to this comment is warranted.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
26 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
E-1
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 27
E-2
E-3
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
28 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
E-4
E-5
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 29
E-5 Cont’d
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
30 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
E-5 Cont’d
E-6
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 31
E-6 Cont’d
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
32 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
E-6 Cont’d
E-7
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 33
E-7 Cont’d
E-8
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
34 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
E-8 Cont’d
E-9
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 35
E-9
E-10
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
36 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
E-10 Cont’d
E-11
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 37
E-12
E-13
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
38 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
E-13 Cont’d
E-14
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 39
E-14 Cont’d
E-15
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
40 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
E-16
E-15 Cont’d
E-17
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 41
E-17 Cont’d
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
42 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
E-18
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 43
E-18 Cont’d
E-19
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
44 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
E-19 Cont’d
E-20
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 45
E-20 Cont’d
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
46 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
E-21
E-20 Cont’d
Cont’d
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 47
E-21 Cont’d
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
48 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
E-21 Cont’d
E-22
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 49
E-22 Cont’d
E-23
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
50 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
E-23 Cont’d
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 51
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
52 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 53
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
54 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 55
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
56 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 57
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
58 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 59
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
60 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 61
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
62 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 63
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
64 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 65
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
66 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 67
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
68 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 69
Response to Letter E: Gary Ho, Blum Collins & Ho, LLP
Response E-1: This comment serves as an introduction to the letter. No response is warranted.
Response E-2: This comment cites tiering criteria and argues that an EIR must be prepared because a website link to the City’s website does not provide public access to the Addendum to the Northwest Airport Master Plan EIR.
The City’s “Planning Documents” site, which was referenced in the Initial Study, provides a pdf copy of the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan, Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Draft EIR, and Northwest Airport Way Master Plan Final EIR. These are the original CEQA documents that were prepared and certified for the Master Plan area. Subsequent to the certification of the EIR, several projects within the Master Plan area have been designed for development, and with those projects a CEQA analysis was performed. This includes the Airport Business Center IS/MND, CenterPoint South IS/MND, Intermodal Way Extension IS/MND, GBx Manteca IS/MND, and an EIR Addendum for CenterPoint Container Yard 2. All these documents are available at the City of Manteca, whom holds these records as part of the official approval of these individual projects. The EIR Addendum in question can also be found on the City’s website at the following link:
https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/CommunityDevelopment/Planning%20Division/Planning CommissionDocuments/2019%20Planning%20Commission%20Agendas/05%20- %20May%2028,%202019%20Meeting%20Agenda/Item%206.1%20%20CenterPoint%20 Container%20Yard%202,%20SPC-17-38%20and%20SPC-17-
40/Item%206.1%20%20Attachment%205.pdf
All documents in question are available both electronically on the City’s website, and in person at the City’s Planning Department.
Response E-3: This comment suggests that the MND severely misrepresents the proposed Project and under-represents the proposed Project’s significant impacts. The comment argues that a new EIR is warranted based on new information being produced since the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR was certified. The commenter specifically identifies the enactment of SB 743 and a requirement for a VMT analysis.
The commenter fundamentally misunderstands tiering and how tiering has been appropriately conducted under the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR and subsequent CEQA documents for individual projects under the Master Plan. Page 4 of the Final Initial Study presents a background discussion of past Master Plan approvals, and EIR tiering. The following excerpt is from page 4 of the Initial Study:
Tiering
According to CEQA Guidelines section 15168, subdivision (c)(5), “[a] program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with later activities if it provides a description of planned activities that would implement the program and deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible.” Later environmental documents (EIRs, mitigated negative declarations, or negative ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
70 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
declarations) can incorporate by reference materials from the program EIR regarding regional influences, secondary impacts, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[d][2]). These later documents need only focus on new impacts that have not been considered before (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[d][3]).
Section 15168(c), entitled “Use with Later Activities,” provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Later activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared:
1. If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration.
That later analysis may tier from the program EIR as provided in Section 15152.
2. If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Factors that an agency may consider in making that determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure, as described in the program EIR.
3. An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into later activities in the program.
4. Where the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR.
Generally, when a property owner submits applications for site-specific approvals (i.e., tentative maps, conditional use permits, or other discretionary entitlements), the City staff will review the applications for consistency with the higher tier document. This consistency review ultimately determines whether the application for site specific approval is consistent with the higher tier document, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures, and whether it is consistent with what was anticipated and analyzed in the program EIR. Often a City will conclude that most, or all, components of the site-specific application can be developed with no new analysis of environmental effects, or a focused analysis limited to the environmental effects that could not be reasonably foreseen at the time the certified EIR was prepared.
These site-specific approvals may be narrowed pursuant to the rules for tiering set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. “‘[T]iering is a process by which agencies can adopt programs, plans, policies, or ordinances with EIRs focusing on ‘the big picture,’ and can then use streamlined CEQA review for individual projects that are consistent with such…[first tier decisions] and are…consistent with local agencies’ governing general plans and zoning.’” (Koster v. County of San Joaquin (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 29, 36.) Section 15152 provides that, where a first-tier EIR has “adequately addressed” the subject of cumulative impacts, such impacts need not be revisited in second- and third-tier documents. Furthermore, second- and third-tier documents may limit the examination of impacts to those that “were not examined as significant effects” in the prior EIR or “[a]re susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means.” In general, significant environmental effects have been “adequately addressed” if the lead agency determines that:
a. they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior environmental impact report and findings adopted in connection with that prior environmental impact report; or ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 71
b. they have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior environmental impact report to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project.
Where a site-specific approval within the City warrants additional environmental review, there are several paths forward. This includes an EIR Addendum, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or some form of Environmental Impact Report. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is a form of CEQA review that is commonly prepared for small projects built out under a Master Plan with a certified EIR.
Based on the characteristics of the proposed Project, the City of Manteca has determined it is appropriate to develop an IS/MND for the proposed Project, using the tiering concept. Therefore, this IS/MND tiers from the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR and the Addendum to the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR.
The commenter is directed to page 104 through 115 of the Initial Study for a VMT analysis that was prepared in accordance with SB 743. Here, the City has responded to new statutory requirements to prepare a VMT analysis. This VMT analysis is subsequent to, and supplementary to, the certified EIR for which this project analysis is tiered. This analysis presents new information, provides an analysis, and concludes that the impact is less than significant. The commenter incorrectly presumes that the existence of “new information” guarantees the need for an EIR to be prepared, when in fact this is not what is specified in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(s). The statute provides four warrants for when a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR would be warranted for a project that has “new information.” The City responded to the statutory requirements by preparing the Initial Study for this project to determine if any of the four warrants would be met. After the analysis it was found that none of the four warrants were met. More specifically, the VMT analysis, which the commenter cites as a source of “new information” that warrants an EIR, was found by the Traffic Engineer to be a less than significant impact. The City intends to continue to comply with the SB 743 VMT analysis requirements for any project that develops within an area that already has a certified EIR, but where that EIR did not include a VMT analysis because no such analysis was required. These subsequent and supplementary VMT analyses will guide the City in determining where a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR is warranted, and were a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Exemption is warranted. Based on the analysis in the Initial Study, and all facts in the record, there are no new transportation impacts as a result of the VMT analysis.
Response E-4: This comment suggests that MND does not accurately describe the proposed Project, and suggests that the proposed Project has been piecemealed. The commenter provides a list of five known buildings and uses a term “CenterPoint Intermodal Center Manteca” to describe these projects.
As discussed under Response E-3, the commenter fundamentally misunderstands tiering and how tiering has been appropriately conducted under the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR.
What the commenter has described is individual sites that have been developed within the approved Northwest Airport Master Plan. As stated throughout the Initial Study, the ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
72 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
proposed Project is located within this Northwest Airport Master Plan, just as the five projects listed by the commenter are located in the same Master Plan area. The term “CenterPoint Intermodal Center Manteca” appears to be a marketing name that one of the property owners within the Northwest Airport Master Plan area has assigned to market their properties for sale. Property developers assigning a marketing name to properties for sale is common after City approvals are made. The City recognizes the Master Plan area under the approved Northwest Airport Master Plan, not under the marketing name.
The commenter misappliesthe term "piecemealing" to the proposed Project. Instead, the Initial Study clearly articulates the Project Background, including the previously certified program-level EIR for the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan and the CEQA “Tiering” statutes beginning on page 4 This is discussed under Response E-3.
Response E-5: This commenter provides a set of comments regarding the “Agriculture and Forestry Resources” analysis and suggests that the conclusion in the Initial Study that the proposed Project would have “No Impact” is in conflict with the Project Description.
The commenter includes a map entitled “California Important Farmland Finder” which identifies the site as Prime Farmland.
The certified Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR correctly labeled the Project site as “Prime Farmland”, which was the existing condition at the time the EIR was prepared.
Since that time, a Container Yard was developed on the Project site. While that project was not fully developed, the conversion of Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural use occurred with the development of the Container Yard. This is correctly stated on page 31 of the Initial Study. To expand further, there is no agricultural land, production, or opportunity for agricultural use on the Project site based on the existing conditions that occur today, which represents a past conversion of agricultural land. The Initial Study presents the existing condition today, and is accurate in representing that there is no “Prime Farmland” on the Project site. The commenter is directed to the appropriate disclaimers on the “California Important Farmland Finder” website to better understand that limitations of the data that the commenter has presented in their argument that the Project site contains Prime Farmland. Additionally, in accordance with Mitigation Measure AG-1 from the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR, the Project Applicant for the Container Yard paid the required City of Manteca agricultural mitigation fee to help offset the conversion of the land from agricultural to a developed use. The conversion, and the mitigation requirement to pay the agricultural conversion fees has already occurred.
Data Disclaimer
This data should be used within the limits of its purpose - as a current inventory of agricultural land resources. This data does not necessarily reflect general plan or zoning designations, city limit lines, changing economic or market conditions, or other factors which may be taken into consideration when land use policies are determined. This data is not designed for parcel-specific planning purposes due to its scale and the ten-acre minimum land use mapping unit. Classification ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 73
of important farmland and urban areas in this data is based on best available data. The information has been delineated as accurately as possible at 1:24,000-scale, but no claim to meet 1:24,000 National Map Accuracy Standards is made due to variations in the quality of source data.
© 2022, California Department of Conservation All rights reserved. Fair use of this data for noncommercial, educational, research or scientific purpose is not a violation of copyright. However, no part of the contents of this data may be reproduced, transmitted, or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, for any purpose without the express written permission of the Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any particular purpose.
Response E-6: This commenter provides a set of comments regarding the “Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions” analysis. The commentor refers to the attachments from SWAPE for a complete technical commentary and analysis. The commentor then states that the IS/MND does not include analysis for relevant environmental justice issues. The commentor states that this is particularly important, since the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution. The commentor states that, according to CalEnviroScreen
4.0, 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. The commentor provides additional statistics for the community’s exposure to air pollution, and states that, since the community has a high rate of linguistic isolation and low educational attainment, the community is highly vulnerable. The commentor also states that the proposed Project’s census tract is identified as an SB 535 Disadvantaged Community.
The commentor also states that CalEEMod, which was used (in part) to estimate Project energy usage, is not a State-approved energy compliance modeling software, and since the CalEEMod modeling does not comply with the California 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the modeling is inaccurate. The commentor further states that, therefore, a finding of significance for energy impacts must be made.
It should be noted that topic of “environmental justice” or “fair treatment” is not referenced in the CEQA Guidelines and is not a required impact category. Social and economic impacts that are not related to physical impacts are not considered within an environmental analysis. The Initial Study, however, does provide an analysis of environmental topics revolving around pollution (i.e. air quality pollution, water quality pollution, etc.), that ultimately become important considerations for elected officials as they deliberate on entitlement requests and the social, economic, and environmental impacts that the entitlements would have on the community.
The IS/MND has evaluated each of the proposed Project’s environmental impacts against the relevant thresholds (such as via an air toxic health risk screening, using the Air District’s air toxic health risk screening Prioritization Calculator,1to determine the total cancer and non-cancer air toxic health risks and the nearby sensitive receptors) and 1 See here for further detail (under ‘Screening Tools’): https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/ceqa_idx.htm ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
74 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
checked consistency with the applicable plans (such as the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan and its associated EIR). Moreover, the IS/MND has incorporated mitigation measures where applicable and feasible, made appropriate significance determinations, and evaluated cumulative impacts. As noted earlier in this response, CEQA does not use the terms “fair treatment” or “environmental justice”. Rather, CEQA centers on whether a project may have a significant effect on the physical environment, regardless of socioeconomic conditions, including income levels of the residents. For instance, air quality impacts are measured against a threshold established for the region, which is not weighted or modified up or down based on a socioeconomic condition. The threshold itself is a metric by which an analyst can make a determination of the physical environmental impact caused by a project. The thresholds are established by the Air District, whose responsibility is to maintain and/or improve ambient air quality conditions to state and federal levels for all people.
Nevertheless, CEQA does require a lead agency to consider whether a project’s effects, while individually limited, are “cumulatively considerable” and therefore significant when combined with other projects. The City has considered the cumulative effects of developing the Project site with Industrial uses when they certified the Northwest Airport Master Plan EIR, as well as when they certified the General Plan EIR.
Separately, the City of Manteca considers alternative locations early in the application process. The City’s key considerations in identifying an alternative location are as follows:
• Is there an alternative location where significant effects of the proposed Project would be avoided or substantially lessened?
• Is there a site available within the City’s Sphere of Influence with the appropriate size and characteristics such that it would meet the basic Project objectives? The City’s consideration of alternative locations at the Project application level included a review of previously approved land use planning and environmental documents in Manteca including the General Plan and Northwest Airport Way Master Plan. The City noted that the Project site has been designated for industrial land uses for over a decade.
The City has determined that industrial uses in this part of the City is appropriate, in part, because of the rail infrastructure and access to major highways that would support such uses. The City has found that there are no feasible alternative locations that exist within the city limits with the appropriate size and characteristics that would meet the basic Project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant effects of the proposed Project. The City has determined that alternative locations outside the city limits would have greater impacts that development within the city limits. For these reasons, the City of Manteca determined that there are no feasible alternative locations.
In addition, as discussed in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553 (Goleta II), where a project is consistent with an approved general plan, no offsite alternative need be analyzed. As stated in the Project Description, no General Plan amendment or zoning change is required for the proposed Project, as the proposed ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 75
Project was previously planned for by the existing General Plan. The proposed Project is consistent with the types of uses considered in the Manteca General Plan and associated EIR.
Overall, CEQA’s purpose is neither “fair treatment” nor “environmental justice” in the sense of socioeconomic conditions. Rather, CEQA centers on whether a project may have a significant effect on the physical environment. The Draft IS/MND is consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Lastly, it should be noted that CalEEMod was used (in part) to estimate Project energy usage, as it is the Air District’s recommended model for estimating Project energy emissions for CEQA projects. It is noted that the Air District reviewed the proposed Project, and included a comment provided herein. Nowhere in their comment did they suggest that a different model should be used for this analysis.
There are no “approved energy compliance modeling softwares” for calculating energy consumption for the purposes of CEQA. The three “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Approved Computer Compliance Programs” promulgated the CEC, and identified by the commentor, are not relevant to estimating energy consumption under CEQA. The commentor conflates the idea that “approved energy compliance modeling softwares” approved by the CEC for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards as being relevant for CEQA, which is not correct. Moreover, the latest version of CalEEMod (CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0), which was used (in part) to estimate Project energy usage, accounts for the California 2019 Energy Efficiency Standards (i.e. the current version of the California Energy Efficiency Standards), according to Appendix A of the CalEEMod guidance,2in contrast to the commentor’s comment that CalEEMod does not comply with the California 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. See the Final IS/MND and/or Appendix B of the Final IS/MND for further detailed results.
Response E-7: This comment suggests that an EIR needs to be prepared to include a consistency analysis with all General Plan goals and policies, including goals and policies of the General Plan Update.
The currently adopted General Plan is the 2023 General Plan, which is the same General Plan that was in effect at the time the Northwest Airport Master Plan was approved and the Draft EIR was certified. Page 3.9-17 through 3.9-53 of the Northwest Airport Master Plan Draft EIR includes the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan General Plan Consistency Analysis. The DEIR consistency analysis concludes that the Master Plan is consistent with the General Plan with the implementation of all mitigation measures and conditions imposed on projects developed within the Master Plan area. As stated in the in the Initial Study, the proposed Project is consistent with the light industrial design standards and guidelines established in the approved Northwest Airport Way Master Plan, and implements the small-scale light industrial uses that are encouraged within the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan. Additionally, all relevant mitigation measures from the certified 2 See here: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-a2020-4-
0.pdf?sfvrsn=6
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
76 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
EIR are incorporated into the Initial Study. All conditions of approval run with the land and are in effect. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the applicable General Plan.
The commenter has specifically noted one goal and two policies that they believe should be analyzed for the proposed Project. These are listed below:
• 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.
• C-P-49: The city shall require that new industrial development pay a fair share toward improvements required to accommodate heavy vehicles, including increased pavement wear.
• C-P-53: The City shall establish a requirement for a TDM program in any business park, industrial or commercial land use that employs more than 50 full time equivalent employees.
A Project-specific analysis focuses on consistency with the policies established by the City, and does not include a consistency analysis with goals. Goals are very broad based, whereas policies are more focused. For instance, Goal AQ-2 is a broad goal regarding regional planning as it related to land use, transportation, and air quality. Nevertheless, the City has taken steps to achieve this goal through the implementation of their land use plan, circulation plan, and their focus on reducing VMT citywide. The circulation patterns for the Master Plan itself have undergone considerable planning and engineering efforts since it was first approved. This circulation patterns have evolved such that the original plan to direct heavy truck traffic onto Airport Way and Lathrop Road has been modified to focus heavy truck traffic on Intermodal Way (internal to the Master Plan) north bound to Roth Road, then west bound to I-5. This traffic pattern modification was developed through communication and coordination with nearby residents of Manteca and the City of Lathrop. The concern was that heavy truck traffic would both congest these roadways, and provide a higher level of toxic air contaminants on these roadways. By integrating transportation, land use, and air quality, the City developed a pattern that would focus heavy truck traffic to roadways that would be least likely to impact residents, and focus only passenger vehicle traffic to the roadways of concern. The solution developed by the City is consistent with Goal AQ-2.
The proposed Project is consistent with policy C-P-49. The City has an established Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP) that funds local roadway improvements, including increased pavement wear. Additionally, there are regional traffic impact fees that are charged for more regional roadway impacts. This policy is established in the General Plan, and it is implemented by the City through their existing programs. The City conditions all projects to pay the appropriate impact fees prior to grading permit. The City considers payment of these impact fees as a fair share of their impact.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 77
The proposed Project is consistent with policy C-P-53. The City has an established travel demand model that is developed for the entire City. The model is regularly updated as new projects are developed. The forecasting that is performed through the modeling informs the City on how to manage traffic volumes and congestion within specific areas impacted by new projects. The City then conditions each project with specific improvements needed to manage traffic congestion. The Final IS/MND page 114 includes the following Conditions of Approval that are intended to manage travel demand based on forecasting that has been performed.
• Traffic COA #1 – The developer shall pay for the total cost of construction of Interconnect Way between Intermodal Drive and Operation Place and require all truck traffic to use Intermodal Drive to access the GBxManteca Project. • Traffic COA #2 – The developer shall pay for the total cost of construction of Operation Place between Interconnect Drive and GBxManteca Project driveway and install an all-way stop controlled intersection at the Operation Place / Pinnacle Drive three-legged intersection.
• Traffic COA #3 – The developer shall pay their fair share for improvements identified in the City of Manteca Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP) by paying current fees as determined by the City of Manteca prior to issuance of building permits to improve intersections in the City of Manteca. • Traffic COA #4 – The developer shall pay their fair share of the SJCOG Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) by paying current fees as determined by the City of Manteca prior to issuance of building permits top improve the Roth Road Corridor in the City of Manteca, City of Lathrop, and San Joaquin County. • Traffic COA #5 – If intersection improvements were to occur at the Union Road/Lathrop Road intersection, the developer shall pay their fair share for improvements identified to accommodate the projected Cumulative No Project and Cumulative With project traffic volumes at this intersection during the AM and PM peak hour. Under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, the GBxManteca Project contributes to 3 percent of the total intersection volume.
It should be noted that the General Plan Update is not approved, is subject to change, does not have a certified EIR, and is not valid currently. As such, it is not part of the baseline conditions for the proposed Project. The General Plan Update and its Draft EIR have undergone multiple revisions since City first embarked on the long-range planning process and it is currently going through additional revisions and change so it is not appropriate to base a consistency analysis. Instead, the consistency of the proposed Project has been compared to the existing General Plan. It is noted, however, that the General Plan Update, in its current form, does not propose any changes to the Northwest Airport Master Plan area, for which the proposed Project is located. As such, there is nothing provided in the draft General Plan Update that would suggest that there is an inconsistency with the proposed Project, or the Master Plan as a whole. The proposed Project is consistent with the current Draft General Plan Update.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
78 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
It is also noted that the proposed Project’s consistency with the SJCOG RTP/SCS is addressed on page 60 of the Initial Study, which concludes that the RTP/SCS includes the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan in their population and employment projections, and VMT increases associated with buildout of the City of Manteca. It is noted that the land use and circulation model that the SJCOG has established for their RTP/SCS is based on the Project site, and Master Plan area as a whole, being developed with the same industrial development that has been anticipated on the site for over 10 years. The land use and circulation patterns drive the development of the RTP/SCS action and financing plan. There is not anything that is proposed that is inconsistent with the RTP/SCS. The proposed Project is consistent with the RTP/SCS.
Finally, the proposed Project is not a residential project, and therefore the City’s Growth Management Ordinance is not applicable to light industrial projects. The Growth Management Ordinance is only appliable to residential developments.
The City's periodically updates their list of ongoing commercial and industrial projects.
The City’s most current list of these projects can be found at the following link:
https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/CommunityDevelopment/Planning%20Division/gpstatus/ Documents/Commercial_Projects_2016-2020_24x36.pdf
Response E-8: This commenter provides a set of comments regarding the “Population and Housing” analysis.
The proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 280 employees. The proposed Project trip generation analysis was based on having 280 employees on-site per day, or approximately 1 employee per 1,053 gross square feet for the proposed Project.
Not all employees would live and work in the City of Manteca. Employees are projected to live in several communities in the San Joaquin County, including Manteca, Lathrop, Ripon, Stockton and other unincorporated areas of San Joaquin County. It is not anticipated that people would commute to this job from areas outside the region. It is common for residents of the City of Manteca and surrounding communities in San Joaquin County to commute to higher paying jobs located in the San Francisco Bay Area which has a higher cost of living and higher paying jobs. However, it is not common that people living in the Bay Area with higher costs of living would commute to Manteca for a job in a warehouse that pays considerably lower than jobs in the Bay Area. For these reasons, it is anticipated that the warehouse jobs provided by this Project would come from residents in Manteca or the immediately surrounding communities.
The land uses for the Project site have been established for over a decade. SJCOG develops their projections based on long range planning documents from the communities that they serve. For instance, the growth projections that SJCOG establishes for Manteca are derived from the City of Manteca General Plan, Master Plans, etc. The proposed Project is part of the Northwest Airport Master Plan, which is known by SJCOG and is assumed within their growth projections. The Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR anticipated employment growth of 2,588 jobs over the 15-year Master Plan. The total ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 79
employees generated by the proposed Project is well within the assumptions of the Master Plan. The Master Plan, as an approved project, was accounted for in the City's Household and Employment projections.
Response E-9: This commenter provides a set of comments regarding the “Transportation” analysis.
The Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis is consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 743, the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts (December 2018), and the VMTFocused Transportation Impact Study Guide (May 2020), and includes all passenger cars, SUVs and light duty trucks driven by employees to and from the project site. Consistent with SB 743 technical guidelines, the VMT analysis does not include Delivery, California, or STAA truck / trailer vehicle miles traveled. The analysis contained in Appendix E analyzed VMT per industrial employee consistent with the VMT-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide.
In addition to the VMT analysis, the Transportation Impact Analysis Report (Appendix E), also included the trip generation analysis which includes both employee vehicles (Table 3) for passenger cars, sport utility vehicles (SUV) and light duty trucks. The trip generation analysis also includes trucks (Table 4) for delivery California, and Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA).
The City of Manteca Travel Demand Model used the same transportation planning industry software (Cube) for both Baseline and Cumulative Conditions that the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) used for the regional travel demand model. In addition, the same Cube Model is being used for the City of Manteca General Plan and EIR (Manteca General Plan Update). And the land use designation for the proposed Project is consistent with both the currently adopted General Plan and Draft General Plan Update.
The Baseline Citywide VMT per industrial employee was determined by summing the total distance all industrial workers that are employed in the City of Manteca traveled, and dividing this total VMT by the total number of industrial workers. This resulted in the baseline citywide VMT of 75.3 miles per industrial employee and a Cumulative with Project VMT of 75.1 miles per industrial employee. This represents a 0.26% decrease when compared to baseline city-wide average. Therefore, the construction of the proposed Project will improve the jobs to housing balance in the City of Manteca and provide an overall benefit to reducing VMT per employee, fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In order to have a less than significant impact relative to this primary CEQA topic, the proposed Project will be required to have all trucks access the facility using Intermodal Way and only employee access will be allowed from Airport Way.
The construction of the GBxManteca Project will provide 280 industrial jobs on a typical weekday, and will improve the jobs to housing balance in Manteca, Lathrop, Ripon, Stockton and other unincorporated areas of San Joaquin County. Also moving the employment closer to the labor force has the overall benefit of reducing VMT per ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
80 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
employee by a much larger amount if workers were required to drive the San Francisco Bay Area versus staying in the City of Manteca and San Joaquin County.
It should also be noted that by reducing VMT per employee by a conservative one mile per weekday for each of the 280 employee, fuel consumption would be reduced by approximately 2,800 gallons per year and greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by approximately 53,400 pounds.
Response E-10: This commenter provides a set of comments regarding the “Mandatory Findings of Significance” analysis.
As stated by the commenter, the City of Manteca maintains a list of ongoing commercial and industrial projects. All City documents, including a list of ongoing commercial and industrial projects, can be found on the City’s website (https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/CommunityDevelopment/Planning%20Division/gpstatus /Documents/Commercial_Projects_2016-2020_24x36.pdf), or in person at the City Hall.
The list in question has been included as an Appendix in the Final IS/MND.
The suggestion that an EIR must be prepared that includes a cumulative analysis in relation to the City’s growth management requirements underscores the commenters misunderstanding of the City’s growth management requirements. The City’s growth management requirements are specific to residential projects, which drive new residents living in the city limits of Manteca. The proposed Project does not generate any new homes, and therefore, does not directly result in population growth. Instead, page 96 of the Initial Study accurately reflects the City’s expectation that jobs created would be served by residents of Manteca and surrounding communities. It is not reasonable to assume that people would commute to work in this warehouse from communities outside communities that are in the regional vicinity. As noted under Response E-8, it is common for residents of the City of Manteca and surrounding communities in San Joaquin County to commute to higher paying jobs located in the San Francisco Bay Area which has a higher cost of living and higher paying jobs. However, it is not common that people living in the Bay Area with higher costs of living would commute to Manteca for a job in a warehouse that pays considerably lower than jobs in the Bay Area. For these reasons, it is anticipated that the warehouse jobs provided by this Project would come from residents in Manteca or the immediately surrounding communities.
It is also noted that the certified EIR for the Northwest Airport Master Plan included a cumulative analysis of buildout of the parcels within the Master Plan Area, which included the Project site. The full Draft and Final EIR can be viewed on the City’s website at the following link:
https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/CommunityDevelopment/Planning%20Division/Pages/Pl anning-DivisionDocuments.aspx?RootFolder=%2FCommunityDevelopment%2FPlanning%20Division%2F Planning%20Division%20Documents%2FMaster%20And%20Specific%20Plans%2FNorth ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 81
west%20Airport%20Way%20Master%20Plan&FolderCTID=0x012000C1D839DE3D40754 0A4D0E9B464C9237D&View=%7BC6EEA1A9%2D842B%2D49CD%2D94D1%2DE0D08910 FEFD%7D.
The cumulative analysis considered the new development relative to anticipated growth in the region. The Northwest Airport Master Plan was approved approximately 12 years ago, and has since been anticipated within all regional planning documents including the City of Manteca’s General Plan, and SJCOG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. In addition to these relevant long-range planning documents, development of the Northwest Airport Master Plan area has been well known by the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission, the Cities of Lathrop, Stockton, Ripon, and Tracy, and the County and San Joaquin.
The City of Manteca recognizes that the certified EIR for the Northwest Airport Master Plan includes conclusions where significant and unavoidable impacts would occur as the Master Plan develops. The City has not changed, nor do they suggest, that the significant and unavoidable conclusions should or will change as a result of any individual project within the Master Plan area, including the proposed Project. This holds true for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. The City has adopted statement of overriding considerations for those significant and unavoidable impacts as part of the original certification of the Northwest Airport Master Plan EIR, and the proposed Project contributes to the impacts disclosed under the original certified EIR. All mitigation measures from the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR are applicable to the proposed Project, and have been incorporated into the Initial Study on pages 6-12. (Table PD-1) For this second tier CEQA document, however, the City has followed the statutory requirements for analyzing individual projects developed within an already approved Project for which an EIR is certified. More specifically, the analysis in the Initial Study is focused on the “New Information” that is now known, that was not, or could not have been known at the time the original analysis was performed. The most significant new information is the VMT analysis, which is a new requirement based on a change in state law. The VMT analysis provided on page 114-117 of the Initial Study further describesthat there would be a less than significant impact from VMT.
There is no evidence that the proposed Project would have new significant impacts that have not already been addressed by the first tier EIR. The City requires all individual projects within the Northwest Airport Master Plan to implement mitigation measures and conditions of approve adopted as part of the Northwest Airport Master Plan to reduce impacts to the extent possible. All of the previously adopted mitigation measures and conditions of approved are in effect for the proposed Project.
Response E-11: This comment serves as a closing statement for the commenter. The commenter requests to be included on a list to receive subsequent information regarding this project.
This comment is noted. The City has added the commenter to the list for this project.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
82 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
Response E-12: This comment serves as an introduction to a letter that was attached to the main commenter’s letter. The comment suggests that the IS/MND does not adequately evaluate the proposed Project’s hazards, hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas emissions. Being an introduction, this specific comment does not provide any supporting evidence, rather, their arguments are provided in subsequent comments.
The introduction does not warrant a response. All subsequent comments are addressed subsequently in the following responses.
Response E-13: This comment states that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was not prepared for the IS/MND, and that would result in an inadequate evaluation of the site and project. The commenter suggests that a Phase I ESA is required.
The commenter is misinformed about the CEQA requirements to evaluate hazards and hazardous materials. Nowhere in CEQA statute is there a requirement to prepare a Phase I ESA, in fact, the term “Phase I ESA” is never mentioned in statutes or guidelines. It is noted that there is relevant information that can be extracted from a Phase I ESA and incorporated into an Initial Study to address specific requirements under CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. However, a Phase 1 ESA is intended to provide purchasers of commercial property certain liability protections under federal laws. Phase I ESAs are a requirement of underwriting for financial institutions providing loans for commercial properties.
Nowhere in ASTM is there any mention of CEQA. Instead, the CEQA Guidelines specifically requires the following question to be analyzed:
“Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?”
Project site is not on this list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Nevertheless, a Phase I ESA was prepared as part of the original certified Draft EIR for the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan. Page 3.7-19 through 3.7-23 of the Draft EIR for the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan addresses the results of the Phase 1 ESAs, and the EIR ultimately concluded that there were no Recognized Environmental Concerns and implementation of the Master Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. Subsequently, a second Phase I ESA was prepared specifically for the Project site in 2021 and is included in Appendix F of the Final Initial Study. The results of that study also shows that the Project site does not have a Recognized Environmental Conditions, and that the Site is not located on a hazardous site. Therefore, a further Phase II ESA is not required.
Response E-14: The commentor states that there are unsubstantiated input parameters used to estimate project emissions. The commentor states that the IS/MND’s air quality analysis relies on ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 83
emissions calculated with CalEEMod. The commentor states that they found several model inputs that were not consistent with the information disclosed in the IS/MND. The commentor then states that, therefore, the proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions are underestimated. The commentor states that an EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis to adequately address the impacts that Project construction and operation will have on local and regional air quality.
This comment is noted. This comment is a general comment that lacks specificity, instead, this comment serves as a preface to more detailed individual comments provided under Comments E-15 through E-21. Based on comments received, more detailed responses to the individual input parameters identified by the commentor for each of the Comments E-15 through E-21 are provided in the responses below. The modeling uses defaults where more specific details are not available, as recommended by CalEEMod.3 CalEEMod utilizes default data that can be used when site-specific information is not available. Users of CalEEMod are required to provide justifications for all changes made to the default values (see the CalEEMod v.2020.4.0 User’s Guide for more detail). The user may only override the defaults when more accurate, project-specific information is available and appropriate. Where more specific information was available and appropriate (with substantial evidence), the defaults were overridden with the specific information. The updated emissions outputs do not change any impact conclusions. It is also noted, that through the initiation of Rule 9510 review with the Air District, the Air District performs their own modeling. That modeling is consistent with the model included in the Final IS/MND. See below for individual responses to the individual comments, in the responses to Comments E-15 through E-21, below.
Response E-15: The commentor states that the CalEEMod modeling fails to model proposed cold storage land uses. The commentor points to IS/MND Project Description of the proposed Project as containing 20,000 sf of refrigerated space inside of the proposed Project building. The commentor points out that the entire building, however, was modeled as an ‘unrefrigerated’ warehouse. The commentor identifies several reasons why this could underestimate the proposed Project’s operational emissions.
The CalEEMod modeling originally applied an unrefrigerated warehouse land use because the use of the refrigerated warehouse would automatically and incorrectly populate the heavy-duty trucks with TRUs. The proposed Project does not use refrigerated trucks to deliver the beverages, including those that are stored in the cold storage (IS/MND page 5). This would have resulted in an over estimate of mobile source emissions. It is noted, however, that the energy calculations would be slightly under reported because the cold storage would use more energy to refrigerate that portion of the building. Therefore, the CalEEMod modeling was refined to reflect the 20,000 sf of refrigerated space. This modeling reflects an accurate energy usage for the refrigerated portion of the building; 3 See the CalEEMod v.2020.4.0 User’s Guide for more detail. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/user-guide-2021/01_user-39-s-guide2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6 ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
84 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
however, it also reflects an overestimate of mobile source emissions because TRUs will not be utilized. The refined modeling results are provided in the Final IS/MND. Table AIR2 of the Final IS/MND, which provides the emissions results for operational emissions, is provided below.
Table AIR-2: Project Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions (tons/year) Emissions Type
Proposed Project
Emissions
SJVAPCD Threshold
Above Threshold in
Proposed Project?
ROG 2.8516 10 N
NOx 7.4221 10 N
CO 3.7026 100 N
PM10 1.6892 15 N
PM2.5 0.5215 15 N
Notes: The above numbers reflect the total Area, Energy, and Mobile Sources of emissions on an annual basis.
Source: CalEEMod, v.2020.4.0
As shown in the Final IS/MND, emissions of criteria pollutants would remain below the applicable Air District thresholds even with these worst-case assumptions.
Separately, with regard to truck TRUs, the HRA screening analysis was refined to account for TRUs, to account for the potential for refrigerated trucks to travel to and from the Project site, based on the 20,000 sf of refrigerated space anticipated for the proposed Project building. This assumption provides an overly conservative analysis, since the proposed Project will not utilize TRUs. Nevertheless, the HRA screening has been refined in the Final IS/MND to account for the number of refrigerated trucks that would be required to transport the products associated with 20,000 sf of refrigerated space. Even after accounting for the TRUs, the proposed Project would not exceed the HRA screening threshold.
As provided in the Final IS/MND, the proposed Project has the potential to impact nearby sensitive receptors during the construction and operational phases. Specifically, the proposed Project has the potential to generate diesel particulate matter (DPM) from onand off-road construction vehicles, during the Project’ construction phase. In addition, the proposed Project has the potential to impact nearby sensitive receptors during Project operation, due to the proposed Project’s generation of trips by heavy-duty diesel trucks, which are also an emitter of DPM.
Specifically, DPM during Project operation is emitted from on-site heavy-duty truck vehicle circulation and idling, and off-site mobile travel. Additionally, based on the area of refrigerated warehouse (approximately 7.4%), it was assumed that 7.4% of heavy-duty trucks would utilize truck refrigeration unit (TRUs) and emissions from these units would generate DPM via on-site idling. Combined, these (both construction and operational) sources of DPM have the potential to generate TACs on nearby sensitive receptors, including those located nearest to the Project site. The SJVAPCD has established a screening calculator entitled the “Prioritization Calculator”. In accordance with the ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 85
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance, as recommended by the SJVAPCD, an estimate of DPM emissions generated by the heavyduty trucks and delivery vans associated with the proposed Project during operation was calculated for on-site mobile and idling (including TRU idling) emissions. The calculation included off-site mobile emissions 0.25 miles from the Project site, combined with the exhaust DPM emissions from both on- and off-road vehicles during the Project’s construction phase, amortized over 70 years. The estimate of DPM emissions was based on the data provided in the Transportation Analysis for the proposed Project, and with DPM mobile emission rates from CARB’s EMFAC2021 database (for year 2022, San Joaquin County; emission rates for DPM; 10 MPH for on-site truck travel and 55 MPH for off-site truck travel), and from standard heavy-duty truck idling emission rates from CARB.
Specifically, the results from the Prioritization Calculator provide a prioritization score associated with total cancer risk from proposed Project DPM (including from both operational and construction operations) of approximately 1.95, after accounting for the nearest distance to sensitive receptors (approximately 130 meters at the closest location). This is below the SJVAPCD threshold of 10 that would require development of air toxics Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that includes air dispersion modeling.
Additionally, non-cancer (i.e., chronic and acute risks) associated with project DPM would also be well below the applicable thresholds for the Maximally Exposed Individual (i.e., greater than or equal to the Hazard Index level of 1), under the refined screening. See Comment Response E-21 (below) as well as Appendix B of the Final IS/MND for further detail.
Response E-16: This commenter states that the proposed Project modeling failed to include all proposed land uses types and sizes. Specifically, the commentor states that the IS/MND did not include the office space, totaling 25,000 square feet.
This comment is noted. The proposed Project is consistent with what was already studied in the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR (See Section 2.0 p 21 through 2-53 and Exhibit 2-7).
Based on this comment, the proposed Project modeling has been refined to include the building office space of 25,000 square feet, and a refined warehouse area of 270,176 square feet, for a total building area of 295,176 square feet. The detailed analysis is provided in Appendix B of the Final IS/MND. This resulted in a negligible change to the modeling results, as discussed under Comment Response E-15 (above). As provided in the Final IS/MND, this revision to the modeled land uses does not cause any exceedance of the Air District’s thresholds, nor does it cause any of the air quality and/or greenhouse gas emissions topics’ significance determinations. No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response E-17: This commenter states that there were unsubstantiated changes to area coating emission factors. Specifically, the commentor states that there were several reductions within the CalEEMod model to the default area coating emission factors. Specifically, the ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
86 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
commentor identifies the changes to the operational architectural coating ROG emission factors for exterior coatings from 150 g/L of to 100 g/L, and for interior coatings from 150 g/L of to 0 g/L.
Architectural coatings for the interior of the proposed Project building would have 0 g/L VOCs, since the interior coatings would utilize a zero-VOC interior paint.4 Therefore, the usage of a 0 g/L of ROG emission factor for interior coatings in the CalEEMod model is supported by substantial evidence, since no the VOC content of the interior coatings would be 0. With regard to the reduction of the ROG emission factor from 150 g/L to 100 g/L for the exterior coatings – this refinement was made based upon the ROG requirements as identified within Air District Rule 4601 (see Table 1).5 Additionally, the proposed Project is consistent with the land uses analyzed within the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR. The Northwest Airport Way Master Plan EIR includes Mitigation Measure AIR-1b, which the proposed Project is require to comply with, which requires the VOC content for all architectural coatings to be less than 10 g/L.6 This mitigation measures is incorporated as part of the proposed Project (see Mitigation Measure AIR-1b included within the Final IS/MND).
As shown in the Final IS/MND, with the revisionsto the CalEEMod modeling, the proposed Project would still remain below the applicable Air District thresholds (see Table AIR-2 within the Final IS/MND for detail).
Response E-18: This commenter states that there are unsubstantiated changes to individual construction phase lengths. Specifically, the commentor identifies several construction phases that were modified from the default values. The commentor points to the comment provided within the model justifying the changes to construction phase lengths – specifically, that the construction schedule was provided by the Project Applicant. However, the commentor states that this justification is insufficient, since the IS/MND fails to mention the proposed construction schedule or justify the refined individual phase lengths whatsoever. The commentor says that this is incorrect, suggesting that these modifications to the default CalEEMod constructions schedule are not supported by substantial evidence.
The Project Applicant is a contractor/builder and has developed their estimated construction phase based on their understanding of the proposed Project and construction processes. The schedule was provided in an email dated January 4, 2022 (from Vickey Seidler of Ryan Companies). The Project Applicant provided the following construction phase lengths in the email:
• Site prep: 5 days
4 Confirmed by the Project applicant via phone correspondence on 9/29/2022.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 87
• Demolition: 15 days
• Grading: 20 days
• Building Construction: 200 days
• Paving: 10 days
• Architectural Coatings (paint exterior): 40 days
This construction schedule has been reviewed by the City and its consultants and is deemed to be a reasonable and realistic construction schedule. The proposed Project construction schedule within CalEEMod was modified to reflect these construction phase lengths (i.e., consistent with what was provided by the Project Applicant). This is consistent with the CalEEMod guidance (i.e., where more specific information is available, the CalEEMod defaults should be refined).7 CalEEMod utilizes default data that can be used when site-specific information is not available. Users of CalEEMod are required to provide justifications for all changes made to the default values (see the CalEEMod v.2020.4.0 User’s Guide for more detail). The user may only override the defaults when more accurate, project-specific information is available and appropriate. As previously stated, the developer (Ryan Companies) provided a more accurate construction schedule for the Project than is provided by the CalEEMod default construction schedule, thereby providing a more accurate estimate of the Project construction schedule than is provided by the CalEEMod defaults. These changes are therefore supported by substantial evidence. The Final IS/MND has been refined to clarify that the CalEEMod default construction schedule was modified based upon Project Applicant inputs. No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response E-19: This commenter states that there was an incorrect application of an energy-related operational mitigation measure. Specifically, the commentor states that there is insufficient justification for the mitigation measure for the on-site renewable energy estimating that the on-site solar would generate 800 kW in total, according to the Project Applicant. The commenter states that this is insufficient because the IS/MND fails to mention the inclusion of on-site renewable energy generation, and also because the IS/MND fails to explicitly require on-site solar panels in a formal mitigation measure. The Project Applicant claims that, because this is not designated as a mitigation measure, it could be eliminated from project design. Therefore, the commentor states that it cannot be guaranteed that it would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site.
The proposed Project is subject to the requirements of California Energy Code Title 24, Part 6, Subchapter 2 110.10, which provides mandatory infrastructure set up to facilitate solar photovoltaic requirements for non-residential buildings. Based on the size of the proposed Project building, the Project Applicant identified that approximately 800 kW of on-site solar is anticipated for the proposed Project building and has been included in the 7 See the CalEEMod v.2020.4.0 User’s Guide for more detail. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/user-guide-2021/01_user-39-s-guide2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6 ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
88 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
building plan set that is under review with the City. This is also included on the Site Plan, and is therefore a project commitment that the City requires to be constructed before they would sign off on occupancy permits. Therefore, the CalEEMod modeling for the Draft IS/MND assumed the approximately 800 kW of on-site solar as part of the proposed Project design.
Nevertheless, based on this comment, for the sake of a conservative analysis and as a comparative exercise, the CalEEMod modeling has been refined for the Final IS/MND to remove this solar design feature to analyze the most conservative scenario. That is, the refined CalEEMod modeling for the Final IS/MND does not include this anticipated 800 kW solar design feature to reflect the commentor’s concern that it won’t be built. As shown in the Final IS/MND, with the revisions to the CalEEMod modeling, the proposed Project would still remain below the applicable Air District thresholds (see the Final IS/MND Table AIR-2 on page 34 for details of project emissions and thresholds of significance). While this modeling exercise proves that the thresholds are not exceeded with or without the 800 kW solar facility, it should be emphasized that the approved Project Description and plan set includes the 800 kW solar facility. This is consistent with existing State law, and installation of this facility is expected by the City of Manteca.
Response E-20: The commentor states that there was an incorrect application of an area-related operational mitigation measure. Specifically, the commentor states that the operational mitigation measure to use low-VOC paint is unsupported. This comment is similar to the commentor that the commentor provided under Comment E-16.
As described in response to comment E-16, further correspondence with the Project applicant identified that the interior coatings for the proposed Project building would utilize a zero-VOC interior paint.8Separately, with regard to the reduction of the ROG emission factor from a default of 150 g/L for the exterior coatings – this refinement was made based upon the ROG requirements as identified within Air District Rule 4601 (see Table 1).9 Based on this, the Final IS/MND has been revised to reflect the 50 g/L VOC limit for both interior and exterior coatings which is a conservative emissions estimate in alignment with Rule 4601. It is, however, anticipated that the interior coatings will utilize zero-VOC interior paint. Compliance with the existing rules will improve ROG emissions compared to the emission levels reflected in the modeling results.
Response E-21: The commentor states that the diesel particulate matter health risk emissions were inadequately evaluated. Specifically, the commentor states that the IS/MND failed to evaluate the health risk impacts of construction activities during the construction phase of the proposed Project.
8 Confirmed by the Project applicant via phone correspondence on 9/29/2022.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 89
The health risks of construction activities are not required by the SJVAPCD. Nevertheless, the construction diesel particulate matter health risks were evaluated for both on-road and off-road vehicles during the Project construction phase, in a refined evaluation, based on this comment. See Appendix B of the Final IS/MND for further detail. Construction diesel particulate matter emissions were calculated based on the exhaust PM2.5 emissions provided by the CalEEMod modeling, amortized over 70 years to account for the lifetime of an individual at a residential receptor (in accordance with OEHHA guidance). The resulting construction emissions were calculated to be 1.65 pounds of diesel particulate matter per year. The Air District’s health risks screening Prioritization Calculator was also refined, to comprehensively account for both Project operational and construction phase health risks (associated with diesel particulate matter). The Final IS/MND has been updated to reflect the refined results of the health risks screening analysis.
As provided in the Final IS/MND, the proposed Project has the potential to impact nearby sensitive receptors during the construction and operational phases. Specifically, the proposed Project has the potential to generate DPM from on- and off-road construction vehicles, during the construction phase. In addition, the proposed Project has the potential to impact nearby sensitive receptors during operation, due to the proposed Project’s generation of trips by heavy-duty diesel trucks, which are also an emitter of DPM. In particular, DPM during Project operation is emitted from on-site heavy-duty truck vehicle circulation and idling, and off-site mobile travel. Additionally, based on the area of refrigerated warehouse (approximately 7.4%), it was assumed that 7.4% of heavy-duty trucks would utilize TRUs and emissions from these units would generate DPM via on-site idling. Combined, these sources of DPM (both construction and operational) have the potential to generate TACs on nearby sensitive receptors, including those located nearest to the Project site.
The SJVAPCD has established a screening calculator entitled the “Prioritization Calculator”. An estimate of DPM emissions generated by the heavy-duty trucks and delivery vans associated with the proposed Project during Project operation was calculated for on-site mobile and idling (including TRU idling) emissions, and off-site mobile emissions 0.25 miles from the Project site, combined with the exhaust DPM emissions from both on- and off-road vehicles during the Project’s construction phase, amortized over 70 years, in accordance with the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance, as recommended by the SJVAPCD. The estimate of DPM emissions was based on the data provided in the Transportation Analysis for the proposed Project, and with diesel particulate matter mobile emission rates from CARB’s EMFAC2021 database (for year 2022, San Joaquin County; emission rates for DPM; 10 MPH for on-site truck travel and 55 MPH for off-site truck travel), and from standard heavy-duty truck idling emission rates from CARB.
The results from the Prioritization Calculator provide a prioritization score associated with total cancer risk from proposed project DPM (representing the sum from both operational and construction operations) of approximately 1.95, after accounting for the nearest distance to sensitive receptors (approximately 130 meters at the closest location), well ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
90 GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520)
below the SJVAPCD threshold of 10 that would require development of air toxics Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that includes air dispersion modeling. Additionally, non-cancer (i.e., chronic and acute risks) associated with project DPM would also be well below the applicable thresholds for the Maximally Exposed Individual (i.e., greater than or equal to the Hazard Index level of 1), under the refined screening. The SJVAPCD’s most recent Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) identifies that lead agencies are encouraged to use the available screening tools for toxic air contaminants.10 The screenshot below provides a summary of results of the Prioritization Calculator (for further detail, see Appendix B of the Final IS/MND). As shown, when accounting for a distance of over 100 meters to the nearest sensitive receptor, the cancer risk would be
1.95, and the chronic and acute risks would be minimal.
Therefore, a full HRA is not required for the proposed Project, since the proposed Project’s screening level is below the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds within their Prioritization calculator. See Appendix B of the Final IS/MND for further detail.
Response E-22: This commentor states that the IS/MND failed to adequately evaluate greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the commentor states that the IS/MND relies on the proposed Project’s consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) in order to conclude a lessthan-significant impact. The commentor states that, however, the IS/MND’s claim that the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s CAP, and the subsequent less-thansignificant impact conclusion, is unsupported for two reasons. The commentor states that, firstly, the IS/MND fails to mention or discuss that the proposed Project intends to exceed Title 24 standards other than in the context of the City’s CAP. The commentor points out that, while the IS/MND only indicated that the proposed Project intends on meeting the existing Title 24 standards, rather than exceed the Title 24 standards by 10%, which would be required to make the proposed Project consistent with the City’s CAP.
The commentor states that the IS/MND fails to incorporate this strategy as a formal mitigation measure.
The Final IS/MND has been refined to identify that, based on CAP measure ENB-1, the proposed Project would be required to exceed the Title 24 energy efficiency requirements 10 See page 66 of the SJVAPCD GAMAQI is available at: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GBxManteca Project (SCH No 2022060520) 91
by at least 10 percent, if feasible, or (if not feasible), require implementation of solar panels or other non-building related energy efficiency measures such as exterior or water savings.
It is anticipated that the proposed Project will include an 800 kW solar facility, which will provide significant energy savings and would be consistent with the requirements of the State law, local regulations, and the City of Manteca’s recommendations related to climate action planning (including CAP Measure ENB-1).
Response E-23: This comment serves as a disclaimer, closing statement. This comment also includes resumes of two individuals responsible for preparing the letter. No response is warranted.
ATTACHMENT 9