AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTRE NORTH PROJECT INITIAL STUDY
PAGE 147
APPENDIX F: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
1 Airport Business Centre North Project
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 Nicholas Fung California Department of Transportation 10-31-22 B Adam Salcido Unknown 11-2-22
C Gary Ho Blum Collins & Ho, LLP 11-2-22
D Peter Minkel Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 11-3-22
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 Airport Business Centre North Project
c
A-1
A-2
A-3
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
4 Airport Business Centre North Project
A-9 Cont’d
A-10
A-11
A-12
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 5
Response to Letter A: California Department of Transportation Response A-1: The electronic Synchro analysis files were submitted to Caltrans for their use in reviewing the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the Airport Business Centre North Project dated October 4, 2022.
Response A-2: The Traffic Impact Study for the Airport Business Centre North Project was included in Appendix B of the ISMND.
Response A-3: The Airport Business Centre North Project is an ISMND and not an EIR. The Traffic Impact Study includes the requirements of analyzing trip generation analysis (cars and trucks), vehicle miles traveled analysis (employee home based work trips), roadway segment analysis (average daily traffic) and intersection level of service (am and pm peak hour) analysis.
Response A-4: The I-5 / Roth Road and I-5 / Lathrop Road interchanges are included in the traffic analysis as shown in Tables 6 (Existing) and 7 (Existing Plus Project) for roadway segment analysis and Tables 8 (Cumulative No Project) and 9 (Cumulative With Project) for intersection level of service analysis.
Response A-5: Under Existing Conditions, neither the I-5 / Roth Road or I-5 / Lathrop Road interchanges operate below acceptable level of service conditions. Under Cumulative No Project Conditions, planned improvements have been identified and fees being collected to improve the I-5 / Roth Road and I-5 / Lathrop Road interchanges to serve projected growth in population and employment in the City of Lathrop, City of Manteca, Unincorporated San Joaquin County, and City of Stockton. The Airport Business Centre North Project does not result in operational impacts to either the I-5 / Roth Road and I-5 / Lathrop Road interchanges. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required under Existing Plus Project Conditions or Cumulative Plus Project Conditions beyond paying their Regional SJCOG and Local City of Manteca Traffic Impact Fees at the time when building permits are required.
Response A-6: The Airport Business Centre North Project does not result in impacts to either the I-5 / Roth Road and I-5 / Lathrop Road interchanges. Therefore, figures showing 95th Percentile queue lengths were not prepared.
Response A-7: The Airport Business Centre North Project does not result in operational impacts to either the I-5 / Roth Road and I-5 / Lathrop Road interchanges. Therefore, SimTraffic analysis and figures showing 95th Percentile queue lengths were not prepared.
Response A-8: An STAA truck terminal access application is being required as part of the Airport Business Centre North Project. This would require all STAA trucks to use the Intermodal Way / Roth Road intersection to and from the Interstate 5 / Roth Road interchange. As part of this application, the STAA truck turning analysis will be submitted to the City of Manteca and Caltrans.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
6 Airport Business Centre North Project
Response A-9: Airport Business Centre North Project STAA trucks would not be allowed to use the I-5 / Lathrop Road interchange or the SR 99 / Lathrop Road interchange.
Response A-10: The Airport Business Centre North Project does not result in impacts to either the I-5 / Roth Road interchange, I-5 / Lathrop Road interchange, or Interstate 5 mainline.
Response A-11: The commentors statement regarding establishment of programs and methods to reduce VMT and support appropriate bicycle, pedestrian and transit infrastructure have been considered in the development of the City of Manteca Active Transportation Plan and General Plan Update Policies.
Response A-12:In addition to the eight bicycle parking spaces, the Airport Business Centre North Project includes bike lockers and employee facilities to encourage the use of alternative transportation (bicycling and walking).
B-1
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 7
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
8 Airport Business Centre North Project
Response to Letter B: Adam Salcido
Response B-1: This commenter requests that notice be sent to several email recipients pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.2. This comment is noted.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 9
C-1
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
10 Airport Business Centre North Project
C-2
C-3
C-4
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 11
C-4
(Continued)
C-5
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
12 Airport Business Centre North Project
C-5
(Continued)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 13
C-5
(Continued)
C-6
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
14 Airport Business Centre North Project
C-6
(Continued)
C-7
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 15
C-8
C-7
(Continued)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
16 Airport Business Centre North Project
C-8
(Continued)
C-9
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 17
C-9
(Continued)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
18 Airport Business Centre North Project
C-9
(Continued)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 19
C-9
(Continued)
C-10
C-11
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
20 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 21
C-12
C-13
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
22 Airport Business Centre North Project
C-13
(Continued)
C-14
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 23
C-14
(Continued)
C-15
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
24 Airport Business Centre North Project
C-15
(Continued)
C-16
C-17
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 25
C-17
(Continued)
C-18
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
26 Airport Business Centre North Project
C-18
(Continued)
C-19
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 27
C-19
(Continued)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
28 Airport Business Centre North Project
C-19
(Continued)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 29
C-19
(Continued
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
30 Airport Business Centre North Project
C-19
(Continued)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 31
C-19
(Continued)
C-20
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
32 Airport Business Centre North Project
C-20
(Continued)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 33
C-20
(Continued)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
34 Airport Business Centre North Project
C-20
(Continued)
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 35
C-20
(Continued)
C-21
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
36 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 37
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
38 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 39
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
40 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 41
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
42 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 43
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
44 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 45
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
46 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 47
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
48 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 49
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
50 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 51
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
52 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 53
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
54 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 55
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
56 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 57
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
58 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 59
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
60 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 61
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
62 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 63
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
64 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 65
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
66 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 67
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
68 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 69
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
70 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 71
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
72 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 73
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
74 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 75
ATTACHMENT 9
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
76 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 77
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
78 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 79
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
80 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 81
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
82 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 83
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
84 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 85
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
86 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 87
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
88 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 89
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
90 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 91
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
92 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 93
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
94 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 95
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
96 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 97
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
98 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 99
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
100 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 101
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
102 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 103
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
104 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 105
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
106 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 107
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
108 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 109
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
110 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 111
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
112 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 113
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
114 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 115
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
116 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 117
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
118 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 119
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
120 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 121
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
122 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 123
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
124 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 125
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
126 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 127
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
128 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 129
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
130 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 131
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
132 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 133
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
134 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 135
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
136 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 137
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
138 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 139
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
140 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 141
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
142 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 143
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
144 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 145
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
146 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 147
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
148 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 149
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
150 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 151
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
152 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 153
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
154 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 155
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
156 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 157
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
158 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 159
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
160 Airport Business Centre North Project
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 161
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
162 Airport Business Centre North Project
Response to Letter C: Gary Ho, Blum Collins & Ho, LLP
Response C-1: This comment serves as an introduction to the letter. No response is warranted.
Response C-2: The commentor states that the MND does not include a floor plan, detailed grading plan, or detailed site plan for the proposed Project. The commentor further states that the site plan provided in Figure 3: Site Plan does not provide any pertinent information such as the earthwork quantity notes, parking requirements, or floor area ratio calculations. The commentor also states that Figure 4: Project Elevations has also been edited for public review and does not provide any information, such as the materials utilized or the building heights. Additionally, the commentor states that a grading plan and floor plans have not been provided for public review. The commentor states that the MND has excluded these required application items from public review and edited them into forms that do not represent them meaningfully, which does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)). The commentor claims that incorporation by reference (CEQA §15150 (f)) is not appropriate as these documents contribute directly to analysis of the problem at hand. The commentor further states that providing this information is vital as the MND does not provide any details about the onsite/offsite grading required by the proposed project. The commentor states that an EIR must be prepared to include all application items for review, analysis, and comment by the public and decision makers.
This comment is noted. A detailed site plan is required for approval of the requested entitlements by the City of Manteca. The IS/MND is not required to include all applicable plans that are ultimately prepared, some of which are not prepared until entitlements are secured. For instance, full improvement and grading plans are engineered drawings that are prepared if entitlements are secured. The site plan included in the IS/MND is sufficient for a CEQA analysis. Meaningful disclosure is provided for the proposed Project, including within the Project Description prepared for the IS/MND. The written Project Description provides sufficient detail for the project consideration. The IS/MND adequately addressed CEQA requirements and an EIR is not required, as explained further throughout Responses C-3 through C-21, below. We have added Appendix E with a set of conceptual plans; however, it is noted that the requested grading plans are not engineered for a project unless a project’s entitlement request is approved. Engineered grading plans are not necessary to perform a CEQA review of the project. No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response C-3: 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 ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 163
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 C-4: 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 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.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
164 Airport Business Centre North Project
2. If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Factors that an agency may consider in making that determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure, as described in the program EIR.
3. An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into later activities in the program.
4. Where the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR.
Generally, when a property owner submits applications for site-specific approvals (i.e., tentative maps, conditional use permits, or other discretionary entitlements), the City staff will review the applications for consistency with the higher tier document. This consistency review ultimately determines whether the application for site specific approval is consistent with the higher tier document, Conditions of Approval, and Mitigation Measures, and whether it is consistent with what was anticipated and analyzed in the program EIR. Often a City will conclude that most, or all, components of the site-specific application can be developed with no new analysis of environmental effects, or a focused analysis limited to the environmental effects that could not be reasonably foreseen at the time the certified EIR was prepared.
These site-specific approvals may be narrowed pursuant to the rules for tiering set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. “‘[T]iering is a process by which agencies can adopt programs, plans, policies, or ordinances with EIRs focusing on ‘the big picture,’ and can then use streamlined CEQA review for individual projects that are consistent with such…[first tier decisions] and are…consistent with local agencies’ governing general plans and zoning.’” (Koster v. County of San Joaquin (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 29, 36.) Section 15152 provides that, where a first-tier EIR has “adequately addressed” the subject of cumulative impacts, such impacts need not be revisited in second- and third-tier documents. Furthermore, second- and third-tier documents may limit the examination of impacts to those that “were not examined as significant effects” in the prior EIR or “[a]re susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by the choice of specific revisions in the project, by the imposition of conditions, or other means.” In general, significant environmental effects have been “adequately addressed” if the lead agency determines that:
a. they have been mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior environmental impact report and findings adopted in connection with that prior environmental impact report; or b. they have been examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior environmental impact report to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, the 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.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 165
The commenter is directed to page 122 through 125 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 C-5: 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 C-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 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 misapplies the term "piecemealing" to the proposed Project. Instead, the Initial Study clearly articulates the Project Background, including the previously certified ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
166 Airport Business Centre North Project
program-level EIR for the Northwest Airport Way Master Plan and the CEQA “Tiering” statutes beginning on page 5. This is discussed under Response C-3.
Response C-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 2022 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 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 1 See here for further detail (under ‘Screening Tools’): https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/ceqa_idx.htm ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 167
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 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 ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
168 Airport Business Centre North Project
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 California s Building Energy Code Compliance Software (CBECC), identified by the commentor, is not relevant to estimating energy consumption under CEQA. 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, according to Appendix A of the CalEEMod guidance,2in contrast to the commentor’s comment that CalEEMod does not comply with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Moreover, since the 2019 Energy Efficiency Standards are less stringent that the latest 2022 Energy Efficiency Standards, the energy impacts associated with the proposed Project are underestimated in comparison to their actual impacts. See the Final IS/MND and/or Appendix B of the Final IS/MND for further detailed results.
Response C-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 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:
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
Airport Business Centre North Project 169
• 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.
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 122 includes ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
170 Airport Business Centre North Project
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 the Proposed Private Drive on the west site of the project site and require all truck traffic (delivery, California, and Surface Transportation Assistance Act – STAA) to use Intermodal Drive to access the Airport Business Centre North Project. • Traffic COA #2 – The developer shall pay their fair share for improvements identified in the City of Manteca Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP) by paying current fees as determined by the City of Manteca prior to issuance of building permits to improve intersections in the City of Manteca. • Traffic COA #3 – The developer shall pay their fair share of the SJCOG Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) by paying current fees as determined by the City of Manteca prior to issuance of building permits top improve the Roth Road Corridor in the City of Manteca, City of Lathrop, and San Joaquin County. • Traffic COA #4 – The developer shall work with the City of Manteca Engineering Department and Caltrans District 10 to document STAA Terminal Access Route from Interstate 5 to Roth Road / Intermodal Way and Tactical Way / Airport Business Centre truck turnaround area.
• Traffic COA #5 – The developer shall pay for the current PFIP fee as determined by the City of Manteca prior to issuance of building permits to mitigate the Union Road / Lathrop Road intersection under Cumulative Conditions. Based on the City of Manteca General Plan Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) Model. the project contributes 1.3 percent of the volume at this intersection under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, Therefore, the project’s fair share contribution would be 1.3 percent of the total cost of installing a new traffic signal controller and completing a traffic signal timing optimization study that was identified as COA#3 for the North Manteca Annexation Project.
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.
It is also noted that the proposed Project’s consistency with the SJCOG RTP/SCS is addressed on page 69 of the Initial Study, which concludes that the RTP/SCS includes the ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 171
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 C-8: This commenter provides a set of comments regarding the “Population and Housing” analysis.
The proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 342 employees. The proposed Project trip generation analysis was based on having 342 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 employees generated by the proposed Project is well within the assumptions of the ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
172 Airport Business Centre North Project
Master Plan. The Master Plan, as an approved project, was accounted for in the City's Household and Employment projections.
Separately, the commentor states that the claim that “The Project site is currently vacant and does not contain housing. The proposed Project would not displace housing or people,” (as stated in Section XIV: Population and Housing of the IS/MND) is contradictory to the statement made in the IS/MND Project Description, which states that “A rural residence is located in the northeastern quadrant.” Based on this comment, the Final IS/MND has been revised to identify the housing located within the Project site. The impact for the Population and Housing topic impact b) has been revised to a “less than significant” impact determination, from a “no impact” significance determination.
Despite this revision, this revision to the Final IS/MND does not cause a potentially significant impact.
Response C-9: This commenter provides a set of comments regarding the “Transportation” analysis.
The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers for the Project utilized a blended trip rate for warehouse industrial land uses, consistent with the blended trip rates from the Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2021) and the City of Manteca Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) Model that was developed for the General Plan 2020/2040 Update. Specifically, as was used for other projects such as the nearby GBxManteca project, the blended trip generation rate for the proposed Project utilized the following ITE Land Use Codes and weighted percentages:
• Land Use Code 110: 10%
• Land Use Code 130: 14%
• Land Use Code 150: 16%
• Land Use Code 154: 48%
• Land Use Code 155: 5%
• Land Use Code 156: 4%
• Land Use Code 157: 3%
In addition, as described in the Traffic Impact Analysis, The Baseline VMT and Cumulative Project VMT was developed using the City of Manteca travel demand model that was derived from the San Joaquin Council of Government’s (SJCOG) Regional Travel Demand Model. The model was developed in 2020 and calibrated to adjusted pre-COVID-19 traffic counts. Roadway improvements and land use projections consistent with the SJCOG Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), City of Manteca General Plan, and City of Lathrop General Plan were added to the Cumulative Conditions Model. A model-wide analysis was preformed to obtain daily trips and travel distance for all Industrial Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs), and the product of daily trips and travel distance was summed up to obtain VMT estimates. It should be noted that the VMT analysis was based on Interconnect Way being constructed to provide access to and from Intermodal Way, Roth Road and the I-5 / Roth Road interchange for project-generated California Legal and STAA Truck traffic. The Traffic Impact Analysis ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 173
accounted for workers traveling from communities outside of the City of Manteca. Based on this, the Traffic Impact Analysis does not rely on upon a workforce living artificially close to the Project site, as claimed by the commentor.
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 B 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 B), 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 74.8 miles per industrial employee. This represents a 0.6% 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. The jobs to housing balance is improved by increasing the number of jobs in the City of Manteca. 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 Airport Business Centre North Project will provide approximately 342 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 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.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
174 Airport Business Centre North Project
It should also be noted that by reducing VMT per employee by a conservative one mile per weekday for each of the 342 employee, fuel consumption would be reduced by approximately 3,420 gallons per year and greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by approximately 65,224 pounds.
Response C-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 107 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 C-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 west%20Airport%20Way%20Master%20Plan&FolderCTID=0x012000C1D839DE3D40754 0A4D0E9B464C9237D&View=%7BC6EEA1A9%2D842B%2D49CD%2D94D1%2DE0D08910 FEFD%7D.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 175
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 7-13. (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 pages 122-125 of the Initial Study further describes that 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 C-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.
Response C-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 air quality and health risk impacts. Being an introduction, this specific comment does not provide any supporting evidence, rather, their arguments ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
176 Airport Business Centre North Project
are provided in subsequent comments. The introduction does not warrant a response. All subsequent comments are addressed subsequently in the following responses.
Response C-13: 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 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 C-14 through C-20. Based on comments received, more detailed responses to the individual input parameters identified by the commentor for each of the Comments C-14 through C-20 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 C-14 through C-20, below.
Response C-14: The commentor states that the CalEEMod modeling fails to consider potential cold storage requirements. However, the proposed Project would not include any cold storage. Rather, as provided in the IS/MND Project Description, the facility will operate as a distribution warehouse. The warehouse would not be refrigerated. That is, the Project would not contain any refrigerated warehouse space whatsoever. Should any development occur on-site that would include any refrigerated warehouse space, additional CEQA analysis would be required. No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response C-15: This commenter states that there were unsubstantiated changes to area coating emission factors. Specifically, the commentor states that there were several reductions within the 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
Airport Business Centre North Project 177
CalEEMod model to the default area and architectural coating (interior) emission factors.
Specifically, the commentor identifies the changes to the operational architectural and area coating ROG emission factors 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 Project does not contain interior coatings. 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 architectural coatings would be applied to the interior of the Project. No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response C-16: The commentor states that there was a failure to substantiate the amount of soil import or export. While grading would occur on-site, the use of import (fill) and export (cut) is not anticipated; the grading of soils would be balanced on-site. This is because the Project site is relatively flat. The Project site has been previously used for agricultural purposes, and therefore has been previously graded. As stated in the IS/MND Project Description, the project site is generally flat, with an elevation range of approximately 22 to 25 feet.
No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response C-17: The commentor states that, in an effort to prepare a more accurate model of the Project’s construction-related emissions, the commentor prepared an updated CalEEMod model. According to their revisions to the model, the commentor claims that construction-related VOC emissions would exceed the applicable Air District threshold.
This comment is noted. However, we do not agree with the changes made to the model by the commentor. For example, we do not agree with the changes to the vehicle fleet mix and the exclusion of mobile- and water-related operational mitigation measures, as the commentor describes as having changed. Further detail is provided in Responses C14 through C-16, and Response C-18 through C-20. No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response C-18: The commentor states that the diesel particulate matter health risk emissions were inadequately evaluated. Specifically, the commentor requests a quantified health risk analysis (“HRA”) be conducted.
As provided in the 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. 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. Both sources of ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
178 Airport Business Centre North Project
DPM (both construction and operational) were addressed in the IS/MND, and is described in further detail below.
The SJVAPCD has established a screening calculator entitled the “Prioritization Calculator”. An estimate of DPM emissions generated by the heavy-duty trucks and delivery vans associated with the proposed Project during Project operation was calculated for on-site mobile and idling emissions, and off-site mobile emissions 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.
As described on pages 40 and 41 of the IS/MND, the results of the screening analysis show that the cancer and non-cancer risks associated with the proposed Project are below the SJVAPCD screening thresholds contained within their Prioritization Calculator.
Specifically, the Prioritization Calculator estimates that the prioritization score associated with total cancer risk from proposed project operational DPM would be approximately
4.62, and from construction DPM 1.584, for a total of 6.20, well below the SJVAPCD threshold of 10 that would require development of air toxics Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that includes air dispersion modeling. Additionally, non-cancer (i.e. chronic and acute risks) associated with project DPM would also be well below the applicable thresholds for the Maximally Exposed Individual (i.e. greater than or equal to the Hazard Index level of 1). Therefore, the complex air dispersion modeling using software such as AERMOD is not required. See Appendix B of the IS/MND for further detail.
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 IS/MND for further detail.
Response C-19: The commentor states they conducted a screening-level assessment using AERSCREEN.
Based on the commentor’s analysis, the commentor states that they calculated that excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 50.8 in one million, which would exceed the SJVAPCD threshold of 20 in one million.
This comment is noted. However, the analysis provided by the commentor is overly conservative. The commentor even describes that their analysis represents a screening4 It should be noted that construction-generated sources of DPM emissions would be greater than 100 meters from the nearest sensitive receptor, on average, as measures by Google Earth.
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 179
level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection.
As described in detail under Response C-18, the SJVAPCD has established a screening calculator entitled the “Prioritization Calculator”, which was specifically designed to be the screening approach for projects within the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD. As described on pages 40 and 41 of the IS/MND, the results of the screening analysis show that the cancer and non-cancer risks associated with the proposed Project are below the SJVAPCD screening thresholds contained within their Prioritization Calculator. Therefore, the complex air dispersion modeling using software such as AERSCREEN or AERMOD is not required. See Appendix B of the IS/MND for further detail.
As described also under Response C-18, 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 IS/MND for further detail. No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response C-20: The commentor states that the Project should implement further mitigation. The commentor provides additional sample mitigation, including SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’s Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”), as well as mitigation measures that can be found in the Department of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices document, as well as other mitigation measures. The commentor also reiterates their recommendation that an EIR should be prepared for the Project.
This comment is noted. As provided within the IS/MND, no impacts were determined to have a “potentially significant impact”. Therefore, additional mitigation beyond what was included in the IS/MND is not required; further, an EIR is also not required. No further response to this comment is warranted.
Response C-21: 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
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
180 Airport Business Centre North Project
D-1
D-2
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 181
D-2 Cont’d
D-3
D-4
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
182 Airport Business Centre North Project
D-5
D-6
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 183
D-6 Cont’d
D-7
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
184 Airport Business Centre North Project
D-8
D-7 Cont’d
ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Airport Business Centre North Project 185
Response to Letter D: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Response D-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 D-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 D-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 D-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 D-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 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, ATTACHMENT 9
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
186 Airport Business Centre North Project
the Project site does not have any jurisdictional waters and is not subject to these permit requirements.
Response D-7: 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 D-8: 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