Agenda packet — City Council and Concurrent Authorities, July 15, 2025 (part 6 of 8)

0.6 pounds per 100 square feet per day. The proposed project would develop 179,000 square feet of warehouse space and 5,000 square feet of office space. Therefore, it can be expected to produce 284.18 pounds of solid waste of 0.14 tons per day.97 This is less than 0.001 percent of the daily permitted throughput at Forward Landfill and North County Landfill combined, and would thus have a negligible impact on the landfills’ capacity. Therefore, there would be sufficient capacity to dispose of waste generated from the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant. e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than significant impact. AB 939 requires local jurisdictions to achieve at least a 50 percent solid waste diversion rate. Stockton Municipal Code Section 8.28.060 requires diversion of at least 50 percent of solid waste generated by construction, demolition, or renovation. AB 1826 requires recycling of organic matter by businesses that generate amounts over 2 cubic yards of solid waste per week. The proposed project would produce approximately 284.18 pounds of solid waste.

According to the EPA, 1 cubic yard of uncompacted municipal solid waste is approximately 138 pounds. This means that the proposed project would produce slightly over 2 cubic yards of solid waste.98 As such, the proposed project would be required to comply with AB 1826 by providing recycling for organic matter. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
97 (179,000 square feet of warehouse space*1.42 pounds of solid waste/100 square feet/1 day) + (5,000 square feet of office space*0.6 pounds of solid waste/100 square feet/ 1 day) = 284.18 pounds of solid waste per day = .14209 tons 98 United States environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors for Solid Waste. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
04/documents/volume_to_weight_conversion_factors_memorandum_04192016_508fnl.pdf. Accessed February 9, 2022.

EXHIBIT 1
1275
City of Stockton–South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 141 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/55760004 Stockton South McKinley Ave East Industrial Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.19 Wildfire
If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
A State Responsibility Area (SRA) is an area of the State in which the financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires has been determined by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 4125, to be primarily the responsibility of the State. A Local Responsibility Area (LRA) is an area designated by CAL FIRE pursuant to Government Code Section 51178 that is not within an SRA and is managed at the local level. The proposed project is located in an LRA.
99 Figure 4.8-1 of the General Plan illustrates that there are no High or Very High FHSZs in the City and its SOI. However, approximately 945 acres classified Moderate FHSZ are scattered throughout the City and its SOI. The project site is not located in any of the Moderate FHSZ areas. 99 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2009. Contra Costa County: Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA As Recommended By CAL FIRE. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6660/fhszl_map7.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2023.

EXHIBIT 1
1276
Environmental Checklist and City of Stockton–South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 142 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/55760004 Stockton South McKinley Ave East Industrial Project ISMND.docx Would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than significant impact. The City adopted its most recent version of its EOP in June 2012. The EOP addresses the City’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The EOP establishes the emergency management organization required to mitigate any significant emergencies and identifies roles and responsibilities required to protect the health and safety of Stockton residents and property. The EOP recommends that all businesses develop comprehensive emergency plans but does not require them. 100
The closest fire station to the project site is Stockton Fire Station 5, located approximately 1.9 miles northwest at 3499 Manthey Road. Adequate emergency access to the project site would be provided by two 35-foot-wide driveways along South McKinley Avenue at the north and south ends of the project site and continue around the perimeter of the proposed building. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less than significant impact. As described above, the project site is not located in a FHSZ. The project site is located in an urbanized area and is relatively flat. Additionally, the proposed project would require the removal of undeveloped lands and vegetation, reducing the risk of wildfires. The proposed project would be reviewed and approved by the SFD for compliance with the California Building, Electrical, Fire, and Mechanical Codes, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.68.040. 101
Because the project site is not in an area that is at risk of wildland fires as designated by CAL FIRE, is located near developed areas, and would require removal of undeveloped lands and vegetation, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less than significant. The proposed project would consist of new construction on a currently vacant and undeveloped site. The proposed project would connect to existing underground water lines, overhead electric lines, and telephone lines on South McKinley Avenue. The proposed project would require a 4-foot-deep trench for a new sewer line and new water main in South McKinley Avenue, extending approximately 2,400 feet deep north of the site, near the intersection of Sperry Road.

However, the new sewer line would be underground in an already urbanized area and would not exacerbate fire risk. Additionally, the proposed project would follow all requirements of the CBC and 100 City of Stockton. June 2012. Emergency Operations Plan. 101 City of Stockton. 2022. Stockton, Municipal Code, Charter, and Civil Service Rules. Section 2.78.040 Fire Prevention DivisionEstablished.

EXHIBIT 1
1277
City of Stockton–South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 143 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/55760004 Stockton South McKinley Ave East Industrial Project ISMND.docx Municipal Code Section 2.68.040.102 Therefore, infrastructure resulting from the proposed project would not exacerbate fire risks. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less than significant impact. As described above, the project site is not located in a FHSZ. The project site is located partially within a FEMA 500-year Flood Zone and partially within a FEMA 100- year Flood Zone.103 However, as described in Section 2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, impacts related to flooding would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the project site is relatively flat and, as described in Section 2.7, Geology and Soils, the project site is not subject to landslide risks. Therefore, the proposed project would not be subject to landslides or post-slope fire instability and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
102 City of Stockton. 2022. Stockton, Municipal Code, Charter, and Civil Service Rules. Section 2.78.040 Fire Prevention DivisionEstablished. 103 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. Website: https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd. Accessed May 16, 2022.

EXHIBIT 1
1278
Environmental Checklist and City of Stockton–South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 144 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/55760004 Stockton South McKinley Ave East Industrial Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Environmental Evaluation
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project would have the potential to impact several special-status wildlife species and other SJMSCP-covered species (valley elderberry longhorn beetle, western pond turtle, giant garter snake, tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, song sparrow, least Bell’s vireo, longfin smelt, and Delta smelt). However, MM BIO-1 requires that the applicant obtain an SJMSCP permit from SJCOG and implement all requirements and conditions stated in the permit. MM BIO-2a requires a Construction General Permit from the RWQCB and stormwater planning documents to protect water quality and riparian habitat. MM BIO-2b prohibits work within the riparian corridor and creek bed or banks. MM BIO-2c requires establishment of a long-term water quality maintenance plan and permanent fencing around the riparian area. MM BIO-3 requires preconstruction surveys and potential avoidance buffers for the protection of active bird nests.

EXHIBIT 1
1279
City of Stockton–South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 145 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/55760004 Stockton South McKinley Ave East Industrial Project ISMND.docx Implementation of these mitigation measures would protect the listed wildlife species and reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Furthermore, the proposed project could have an impact on French Camp Slough, which is a protected water through federal and State regulations. However, MMs BIO-2a through MM BIO-2c described above would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.

The proposed project could harm potential nursery sites for several species in French Camp Slough.

However, MM BIO-4 requires roosting bat pre-construction surveys and implementation of any necessary avoidance measures. MM BIO-5 requires minimization of light impacts into French Camp Slough. MM BIO-6 requires submittal of a tree report to the City and, if required by SJCOG, implementation of valley oak woodland mitigation. Implementation of these mitigation measures as well as MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Lastly, the proposed project has the potential to damage previously undiscovered archaeological resources, human remains, or TCRs. However, MM CUL-1 requires full-time archaeological monitoring during ground disturbance and procedures to follow in case of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological or historic resources. MM CUL-2 outlines procedures for the event of an accidental discovery of human remains. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

With implementation of the mitigation measures described above, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project could contribute to a cumulative impact on special-status wildlife species and other SJMSCP-covered species. However, implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-6, as described above, would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.

Furthermore, the proposed project has the potential to create a significant cumulative impact through direct GHG emissions from on-site area sources and vehicle trips generated by the proposed project, and indirectly through off-site energy production required for on-site activities, water use, and waste disposal. However, MM GHG-1a through MM GHG-1f require various building, equipment, and landscaping features that would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

The proposed project has the potential to create a significant cumulative impact related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment resulting from disturbance of on-site AST and EXHIBIT 1
1280
Environmental Checklist and City of Stockton–South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 146 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/55760004 Stockton South McKinley Ave East Industrial Project ISMND.docx soil and concrete debris piles of unknown origins. However, MM HAZ-1 requires the applicant to contract a qualified firm to complete the Phase II ESA and implement all recommended measures.

This would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

Lastly, the proposed project has the potential to create a significant cumulative impact related to VMT. However, MM TRANS-1 requires several TDMs that would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

With implementation of the MMs described above, the proposed project would not have impacts that are cumulatively considerable.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Based on the information provided in the Project Description and the responses to Sections 2.1 through 2.19 of this Draft IS/MND, the proposed project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the project’s potential impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

With implementation of all mitigation measures discussed herein, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2a through MM BIO-2c, MM BIO-3, MM BIO-4, MM BIO-5, MM BIO-6, MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, MM GHG-1a through MM GHG-1f, MM HAZ-1, and MM TRANS-1.

EXHIBIT 1
1281
City of Stockton–South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration List of Preparers FirstCarbon Solutions 147 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/55760004 Stockton South McKinley Ave East Industrial Project ISMND.docx SECTION 3: LIST OF PREPARERS
FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: 925.357.2562
Project Director .......................................................................................................................Mary Bean Project Manager.......................................................................................................... Elizabeth Johnson Assistant Project Manager................................................................................................Madelyn Dolan Legal Counsel................................................................................................................... Megan Starr, JD Director of Cultural Resources.......................................................................... Dana DePietro, PhD, RPA Director of Noise and Air Quality .............................................................................. Phil Ault, LEED® AP Senior Air Quality Scientist...........................................................................................Kimberly Johnson Air Quality Scientist ..........................................................................................................Marianne Aydil Air Quality Analyst........................................................................................................................... Ji Luo Senior Biologist......................................................................................................... Bernhard Warzecha Environmental Services Intern...................................................................................... Spencer Churchill Environmental Services Intern.......................................................................................... Laura Campion Publications Manager............................................................................................................ Susie Harris Publications Coordinator.........................................................................................................Alec Harris Document Specialist....................................................................................................... Melissa Ramirez GIS/Graphics................................................................................................................ Karlee McCracken GIS/Graphics................................................................................................................. Sebastian Macias Advanced Mobility Group
Traffic Impact Study
EXHIBIT 1
1282

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
1283
South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project
Responses to Comments
EXHIBIT 1
1284
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-1 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx SECTION 1: RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS

1.1 - List of Authors
A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND) is presented below. Each comment has been assigned a code. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be cross-referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response.

Author Author Code
Local Agencies
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board ............................................................. CVRWQCB Organizations
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo .................................................................... ADAMSBROADWELL-1 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo .................................................................... ADAMSBROADWELL-2 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo .................................................................... ADAMSBROADWELL-3 Blum, Collins & Ho LLP................................................................................................................. BLUM-1 Mitchell M. Tsai .............................................................................................................................. TSAI-1

1.2 - Responses to Comments

1.2.1 - Introduction
Although a lead agency is not required to provide written responses to comments on proposed Negative Declarations (NDs) or Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Stockton has evaluated the comments received on the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2024081317) (proposed project) Draft IS/MND and has elected to provide responses to the following significant environmental comments. None of the comments received results in substantial revisions to the Draft IS/MND or the need to recirculate the Draft IS/MND, or triggers the need to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

1.2.2 - Comment Letters and Responses
The comment letters reproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the List of Authors.

EXHIBIT 1
1285

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
1286
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
30 September 2024
Nicole Moore
City of Stockton
345 North El Dorado Street
Stockton, CA 95202
[email protected]

COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION, SOUTH MCKINLEY AVENUE EAST INDUSTRIAL PROJECT, SCH#2024081317, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse’s 29 August 2024 request, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project, located in San Joaquin County.

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

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

The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by CVRWQCB -1 EXHIBIT
1 of 5
1 1287
South McKinley Avenue - 2 - 30 September 2024
East Industrial Project
San Joaquin County
the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have been approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three (3) years, a review of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness of existing standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, please visit our website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/ Antidegradation Considerations
All wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation Implementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_2018

05.pdf
In part it states:

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

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

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

II. Permitting Requirements
Construction Storm Water General Permit
Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:

CVRWQCB -1 EXHIBIT
2 of 5
1 1288
South McKinley Avenue - 3 - 30 September 2024
East Industrial Project
San Joaquin County
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.sht ml
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (916) 557-5250.

Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit – Water Quality Certification If an USACE permit (e.g., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality Certification, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/water_quality_certificatio n/
Waste Discharge Requirements – Discharges to Waters of the State If USACE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., “nonfederal” waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/waste_to_surface_wat er/
Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non-jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non-jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ (General Order 2004-0004). For more information on the General Order 2004-0004, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:

CVRWQCB -1 EXHIBIT
3 of 5
1 1289
South McKinley Avenue - 4 - 30 September 2024
East Industrial Project
San Joaquin County
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/200 4/wqo/wqo2004-0004.pdf
Dewatering Permit
If the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board’s Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-2018-0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.

For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2003/ wqo/wqo2003-0003.pdf
For more information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/waiv ers/r5-2018-0085.pdf
Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/gene ral_orders/r5-2016-0076-01.pdf
NPDES Permit
If the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the Central Valley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/help/permit/ CVRWQCB -1 EXHIBIT
4 of 5
1 1290
South McKinley Avenue - 5 - 30 September 2024
East Industrial Project
San Joaquin County
If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4684 or [email protected].

Peter G. Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento
CVRWQCB -1 EXHIBIT
5 of 5
1 1291

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
1292
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-9 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx State Agencies
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) Response to CVRWQCB-1
The comment provides introductory remarks. No response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-2
The comment summarizes information related to the Basin Plans under the commenting agency’s jurisdiction. No response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-3
The comment summarizes information related to the Antidegradation Policy and states that the environmental review document should discuss potential impacts to surface and groundwater quality. The Draft IS/MND discusses potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality in Section 2.10, pages 100 to 105. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-4
The comment summarizes information related to the Construction General Permit and preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The City and applicant acknowledge that preparation of a SWPPP will be required as part of the permitting process prior to the start of construction, as required by Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-2a. No further response is required.

MM BIO-2a Avoidance and Minimization of Indirect Temporary Impacts to Water Quality and Riparian Habitat
The project applicant shall obtain a Construction General Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The applicant shall ensure that the project Civil Engineer prepares all required stormwater planning documents consistent with the requirements of the RWQCB (e.g., a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan [SWPPP] that complies with current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES]; Best Management Practices [BMPs] to control the pollutants in stormwater runoff, and/or a Storm Water Management Plan [SWMP]) shall be developed and integrated into the project plan.

Response to CVRWQCB-5
The comment summarizes information related to the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit process.

As discussed in Section 2.4, Biological Resources of the Draft IS/MND (pages 52 through 66), the proposed project would not affect waters of the United States such that permitting under Section 404 would be required. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-6
The comment summarizes information related to the Clean Water Act Section 401 permit process.

As discussed in Section 2.4, Biological Resources of the Draft IS/MND (pages 52 through 66), no direct impacts are proposed to French Camp Slough. However, the construction and operation of the proposed project could have indirect impacts on the water quality of French Camp Slough and downstream reaches through sediment and polluted stormwater runoff. Therefore, the proposed project could result in potential impacts on State and federally protected waters.

EXHIBIT 1
1293
Responses to Written Comments City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project 1-10 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx With implementation of MM BIO-2, the proposed project would implement all water quality protection measures imposed by the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) and the RWQCB, and therefore any potential indirect impacts on receiving waters would be reduced to less than significant. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-7
Refer to Response to CVRWQCB-6. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-8
The comment summarizes information related to waste discharge requirements. The City and applicant acknowledge that additional permitting through CVRWQCB would be required if construction or groundwater dewatering is proposed. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-9
The comment summarizes information related to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. The City and applicant acknowledge that preparation of a NPDES will be required as part of the permitting process prior to the start of construction, as required by MM BIO2a. See also Response to CVRWQCB-4. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-10
See response to CVRWQCB-9. No further response is required.

EXHIBIT 1
1294
September 17, 2024
Via Email and U.S. Mail
Stephanie Ocasio, Director
Community Development Department
City of Stockton
425 N. El Dorado St.

Stockton, CA 95202
Email: [email protected]
City Clerk
Office of the City Clerk
City of Stockton
425 N El Dorado St.

Stockton, CA 95202
Email: [email protected]
Via Email Only
Nicole Moore, Contract Planner
Email: [email protected]
Re: Public Records Act Request – South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317)
Dear Ms. Ocasio, City Clerk, and Ms. Moore:

We are writing on behalf of San Joaquin Residents for Responsible Development (“San Joaquin Residents”) to request a copy of any and all public records referring or related to the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317) (“Project”) proposed by GO Industrial (“Applicant”). This request includes, but is not limited to, any and all file materials, applications, correspondence, resolutions, memos, notes, analysis, email messages, files, maps, charts, and any other documents related to the Project.

This request is made pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code §§ 7920.000, et seq.). This request is also made pursuant to Article I, section 3(b) of the California Constitution, which provides a Constitutional right of access to information concerning the conduct of government. Article I, section 3(b) provides that any statutory right to information shall be broadly construed to provide the greatest access to government information and further requires that any statute that limits the right of access to information shall be narrowly construed.

ADAMSBROADWELL - 1 EXHIBIT
1 of 2
1 1295
The proposed Project includes the construction of a 184,166-square foot industrial building for warehouse and office use. The site is currently vacant, previously agricultural, land in San Joaquin County within the sphere of influence of the City of Stockton, which would annex the site as part of the project approval.

The site is located at 6505 South McKinley Avenue East. Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 5 and State Route 99. (APN 193-02-034) We request access to the above records in their original form, as maintained by the agency.1 Pursuant to Government Code Section 7922.570, if the requested documents are in electronic format, please upload them to a file hosting program such as Dropbox, NextRequest or a similar program. Alternatively, if the electronic documents are 10 MB or less (or can be easily broken into sections of 10 MB or less), they may be emailed to me as attachments.

We will pay for any direct costs of duplication associated with filling this request up to $200.2 However, please contact me with a cost estimate before copying/scanning the materials.

Please use the following contact information for all correspondence:

U.S. Mail
Alex Stukan
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080-7037
Email
[email protected]
If you have any questions, please call me at (650) 589-1660 or email me at the address above. Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

Sincerely,
Alex Stukan
Paralegal
AES:acp
1 Gov. Code § 7922.570; Sierra Club v. Super. Ct. (2013) 57 Cal. 4th 157, 161-62. 2 Gov. Code §§ 7922.530, 7922.575; North County Parents v. Dept. of Education (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 144; County of Los Angeles v. Super. Ct. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 819, 826.

ADAMSBROADWELL - 1 EXHIBIT
2 of 2
1 1296
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-13 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ADAMSBROADWELL-1)
Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-1-1
This comment relates to commenter’s request for documents that was voluntarily withdrawn on November 8, 2024. In withdrawing the records request, commenter specifically acknowledged that relevant documents were available online. Accordingly, the records request is not operative or applicable. Additionally, the City notes that a request for records did not raise any environmental issues or provide comment on the Draft IS/MND and is therefore outside the purview of CEQA. No further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-1-2
This comment relates to a request for documents that was voluntarily withdrawn by commenter on November 8, 2024.

The City notes that all documents incorporated by reference were available for public review pursuant to CEQA’s requirements. For the documents referenced in the Draft IS/MND, website addresses are available within the footnotes. No further analysis is warranted.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-1-3
This comment consists of introductory information summarizing the commenter’s understanding of the proposed project. This summary does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project or the Draft IS/MND and no further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-1-4
The comment concerns a request for records that was withdrawn and no longer applicable. The request for records does not raise any environmental issues and is outside the purview of CEQA. No further analysis is warranted.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-1-5
The commenter states their willingness to pay for certain duplication costs. This comment does not raise any environmental issues and is outside the purview of CEQA. No response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-1-6
The commenter provides contact information. No response is required.

EXHIBIT 1
1297

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
1298
7493-003acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]
September 17, 2024
Via Email and U.S. Mail
Stephanie Ocasio, Director
Community Development Department
City of Stockton
425 N. El Dorado St.

Stockton, CA 95202
Email: [email protected]
Via Email Only
Nicole Moore, Contract Planner
Email: [email protected]
Re: Request for Immediate Access to Documents Referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration – South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317)
Dear Ms. Ocasio and Ms. Moore:

We are writing on behalf of San Joaquin Residents for Responsible Development (“San Joaquin Residents”) to request immediate access to any and all documents referenced, incorporated by reference, and relied upon in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared for the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317) (“Project”) proposed by GO Industrial (“Applicant”). This request excludes a copy of the MND and its appendices. This request also excludes any documents that are currently available on the City of Stockton’s website as of today’s date.1
The proposed Project includes the construction of a 184,166-square foot industrial building for warehouse and office use. The site is currently vacant, previously agricultural, land in San Joaquin County within the sphere of influence of the City of Stockton, which would annex the site as part of the project approval. 1 Accessed
https://www.stocktonca.gov/business/planning___engineering/other_projects_environmental.php#coll apse1930b21 on September 16, 2024.

ADAMSBROADWELL - 2 EXHIBIT
1 of 2
1 1299
September 17, 2024

Page 2 ends

7493-003acp
The site is located at 6505 South McKinley Avenue East. Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 5 and State Route 99. (APN 193-02-034) Our request for immediate access to all documents referenced in the MND is made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), which requires that all documents referenced, incorporated by reference, and relied upon in an environmental review document be made available to the public for the entire comment period.2
If the requested documents are in electronic format, please upload them to a file hosting program such as Dropbox, NextRequest or a similar program.

Alternatively, if the electronic documents are 10 MB or less (or can be easily broken into sections of 10 MB or less), they may be emailed as attachments. We will pay for any direct costs of duplication associated with filling this request up to $200.

However, please contact me with a cost estimate before copying/scanning the materials.

Please use the following contact information for all correspondence:

Sincerely,
Alex Stukan
Paralegal
AES:acp
2 See Public Resources Code § 21092(b)(1) (stating that “all documents referenced in the… negative declaration” shall be made “available for review”); 14 Cal. Code Reg. § 15072(g)(4) (stating that all documents incorporated by reference in the MND . . . shall be readily accessible to the public”); see also Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 442, as modified (Apr. 18, 2007) (EIR must transparently incorporate and describe the reference materials relied on in its analysis); Santiago County Water District v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3rd 818, 831 (“[W]hatever is required to be considered in an EIR must be in that formal report. . .”), internal citations omitted.

ADAMSBROADWELL - 2 EXHIBIT
2 of 2
1 1300
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-17 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ADAMSBROADWELL-2)
Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-2-1
This comment relates to a request for documents that was formally withdrawn on November 8, 2024. In withdrawing the records request, commenter specifically acknowledged that relevant documents were available online. Accordingly, the records request is not operative or applicable. For informational purposes, the City notes that, as discussed in Response to ADAMSBROADWELL1-2, all documents incorporated by reference were available for public review pursuant to CEQA requirements. For the documents referenced in the Draft IS/MND, website addresses are available within the footnotes. No environmental issues related to the proposed are raised in this comment and no further analysis is warranted.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-2-2
This comment consists of introductory information summarizing the commenter’s understanding of the proposed project. This summary does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and no further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-2-3
CEQA makes a distinction between documents cited in an EIR and those specifically incorporated by reference (see El Morro Community Ass'n v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2004) 122 CA4th 1341, n.5.) CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(b) requires that documents incorporated by reference in an EIR be available for inspection together with the EIR. All documents incorporated by reference were available for public review pursuant to CEQA requirements. For the documents referenced in the Draft IS/MND, website addresses are available within the footnote. No further analysis is warranted.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-2-4
The commenter states their willingness to pay for certain duplication costs. No response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-2-5
The commenter provides contact information. No response is required.

EXHIBIT 1
1301

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
1302
7493-005j
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

A T T O RN E Y S A T L A W
6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 - 7 0 3 7 ___________
T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 589 - 5 0 6 2
a s t u k a n @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

A T T O RN E Y S A T L A W
5 2 0 C A P I T O L M A L L , S U I T E 3 5 0
S A C R A M E N T O , C A 9 5 8 1 4 - 4721
___________
T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9
k c a r m i c h a e l @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m SO. SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE
601 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 1000
SO. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2
September 26, 2024
Via Email and Overnight Mail
Stephanie Ocasio, Director
Community Development Department
City of Stockton
425 N. El Dorado St.

Stockton, CA 95202
Email: [email protected]
Via Email Only
Nicole Moore, Contract Planner
Email: [email protected]
Re: Request to Extend MND Public Comment Period / Untimely Response to CEQA Reference Request - South McKinley East Industrial Project IS/MND (SCH No. 2024081317)
Dear Ms. Moore and Ms. Ocasio:

On behalf of San Joaquin Residents for Responsible Development (“San Joaquin Residents”) we respectfully request that the City of Stockton (“City”) extend the public review and comment period on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the South McKinley East Industrial Project (SCH Number 2024081317) (“Project”) proposed by GO Industrial (“Applicant”)1 by at least 30 days due to the City’s failure to provide timely access to the supporting documents for the MND. This request is made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) which requires that “all documents referenced in the draft environmental impact report or negative declaration” be available for review and “readily accessible” during the entire comment period.2 1 City of Stockton, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (hereinafter “MND”) (August 29, 2024) available at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2024081317
2 PRC §§ 21092(b)(1) (emphasis added); 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CCR”) § 15072(g)(4).

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3 EXHIBIT
1 of 13
1 1303
September 26, 2024

Page 2 ends

7493-005j
The Project proposes annexation of the Project site located at 6505 South McKinley Avenue East in San Joaquin County within the sphere of influence of the City of Stockton, and construction of a 184,166 square-foot industrial building for warehouse and office use.

The MND was released for public review on August 30, 2024. The public review and comment period currently ends on September 30, 2024.3 On September 17, 2024, San Joaquin Residents submitted a letter to the City pursuant to CEQA Section 21092(b)(1) requesting “immediate access to any and all documents referenced or relied upon” in the MND (“MND Request”).4 Additionally, on September 17, 2024, San Joaquin Residents submitted a separate letter to the City pursuant to California Public Records Act (“CPRA”), Government Code §§ 6250, et seq. and Article I, section 3(b) of the California Constitution, requesting access to “any and all public records referring or related” to the Project (“PRA Request”).5 The MND Request and the PRA Request were sent separately to avoid confusion as to what documents and records were sought.

To date, the City has not acknowledged, nor provided documents in response to, the MND Request nor the PRA Request.

A. CEQA Violations
CEQA requires that “all documents referenced” – and the CEQA Guidelines require that “all documents incorporated by reference” – in a mitigated negative declaration shall be “readily accessible to the public during the lead agency’s normal working hours” during the entire public comment period.6 Further, a CEQA document may not rely on hidden studies or documents that are not provided to the 3 City of Stockton, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (hereinafter “MND”) (August 29, 2024) available at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2024081317
4 Exhibit A: Letter from ABJC re Request for Immediate Access to Documents Referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration – South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317) (September 17, 2024).
5 Exhibit B: Letter from ABJC re Public Records Act Request – South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317) (September 17, 2024). 6 Pub. Resources Code § 21092(b)(1); 14 C.C.R. § 15072(g)(4); see Ultramar v. South Coast Air Quality Man. Dist. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 689, 699.

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3 EXHIBIT
2 of 13
1 1304
September 26, 2024

Page 3 ends

7493-005j
public.7 The City is in violation of these requirements because the City has failed to provide San Joaquin Residents with access to the MND reference documents despite a timely request for access that was made over one week ago.

Without access to these critical MND reference documents during the public comment period on the MND, San Joaquin Residents and other members of the public are precluded from having the meaningful opportunity to comment on the MND that is required by CEQA. The City’s failure to make the underlying MND documents available during the entire comment period makes public review particularly burdensome in this case because of the MND’s reliance on missing documents for significance determinations and mitigation measures to address the Project’s air quality, health risk, and biological resources impacts, for example.

Without having access to these documents, San Joaquin Residents and other members of the public are unable to evaluate the accuracy of the City’s impact analysis, or the efficacy of the City’s proposed mitigation measures. Additionally, the size of the MND and the Project’s complexity make it difficult to effectively comment on the MND without the referenced documents by the current comment deadline of September 30, 2024.

During review of the MND, San Joaquin Residents have identified a number of documents and files that are referenced and relied upon in the MND which are not accompanied by weblinks and to which San Joaquin Residents’ has not been provided access in response to the MND Request. These reference documents are critical to understanding and commenting on the MND’s analysis of the Project’s impacts to several critical resource areas, including, in particular, the analysis of the Project’s air quality, health risk, wildfire, and biological impacts. The missing reference documents include, but are not limited to, the following:
• All unlocked, native format, CalEEMOD input files used for Project construction and operational emissions analysis, and any other unlocked emissions modeling input files relied on in Appendix A. • All unlocked, native format, AERMOD and HARP2 input files used for Project construction and operational health risk analysis, and any other unlocked health risk modeling input files relied on in Appendix A. 7 Santiago City Water District v. City of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3rd 818, 831 (“Whatever is required to be considered in an EIR must be in that formal report; what any official might have known from other writings or oral presentations cannot supply what is lacking in the report.”).

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3 EXHIBIT
3 of 13
1 1305
September 26, 2024

Page 4 ends

7493-005j
• City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin. 2020. Stormwater Quality Control Criteria Plan. August.
• San Joaquin County Department of Public Works. 2004. Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Groundwater Management Plan. September. • San Joaquin County. 2018. San Joaquin County’s Aviation System Stockton Metropolitan Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. February. • City of Stockton. June 2012. Emergency Operations Plan. • San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). May 2016. Amended February 2018. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update for Stockton Metropolitan Airport.
• California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2009. Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015.

Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2009. Final Draft Staff Report -Climate Change Action Plan: Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts under CEQA. November.
• California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2020. Considerations for Including CRPR 4 Plant Taxa in CEQA Biological. Resource Impact Analysis.

Sacramento, CA. 21 January 2020.
• California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 2019.

State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. April 2, 2019.
• Baldwin, B. et al. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California.

Berkeley: University of California Press. County of San Bernardino (Bernardino). 2007 (amended 2015).
• Peterson, T.R. 2010. A Field Guide to Birds of Western North America, 4th Edition.

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3 EXHIBIT
4 of 13
1 1306
September 26, 2024

Page 5 ends

7493-005j
• Reid, F. 2006. A Field Guide to Mammals of North America, 4th Edition.. • Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians.

Third Edition.
• World Health Organization (WHO). 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise. • United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.
• Appendix G, Footnote 4: City email, July 12, 2022.
• Appendix G, Footnote 6: City of Stockton staff email, July 12, 2022. • Appendix G, Footnote 9: Email from County staff, February 3, 2023. • The Highway Design Manual, July 1, 2020, Chapter 200 - Geometric Design & Structure Standards, Table 201.1.
• Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning, NCHRP 255. • Rodier, Caroline. (2008). A Review of the International Modeling Literature:

Transit, Land Use, and Auto Pricing Strategies to Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series.
• Litman, Todd. (2009). Transportation elasticities: how prices and other factors affect travel behavior. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

The courts have held that the failure to provide even a few pages of a CEQA documents for a portion of the CEQA review period invalidates the entire CEQA process, and that such a failure must be remedied by permitting additional public comment.8 It is also well settled that an MND may not rely on hidden studies or 8 Ultramar v. South Coast Air Quality Man. Dist. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 689, 699.

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3 EXHIBIT
5 of 13
1 1307
September 26, 2024

Page 6 ends

7493-005j
documents that are not provided to the public.9 By failing to make all documents referenced in the MND “readily available” during the current comment period, the City is violating the clear procedural mandates of CEQA, to the detriment of San Joaquin Residents and other members of the public who wish to meaningfully review and comment on the MND.

The City must extend the public comment and review period for the MND to allow for meaningful participation by the public and the detailed consideration of the Project’s environmental impacts that CEQA requires.

Accordingly, we request that:
1) The City immediately provide San Joaquin Residents with access to all MND reference documents relied upon in the MND, including any construction air quality analysis used to determine the Project’s air quality and health risk impacts.
2) The City extend the public review and comment period on the MND for at least 30 days from the date on which the City releases these documents for public review.
10 If the missing documents are provided today, we
request an extension to October 28, 2024.
3) The City refrain from scheduling any hearings related to the Project until the entire set of reference documents relied on in the MND have been released for public review and comment in compliance with CEQA.

Given the short time before the current comment deadline, please contact me as soon as possible with your response to this request, but no later than Friday, September 27, 2024.
9 Santiago City Water District v. City of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3rd 818, 831 (“Whatever is required to be considered in an EIR must be in that formal report; what any official might have known from other writings or oral presentations cannot supply what is lacking in the report.”). 10 This Project has a 30-day public comment period, pursuant to 14 CCR § 15105(b).

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3 EXHIBIT
6 of 13
1 1308
September 26, 2024

Page 7 ends

7493-005j
Please feel free to call or email with any questions: Tel: (650) 589-1660, Email: [email protected]. Thank you for your prompt attention and response to this matter.

Sincerely,
Kevin Carmichael
KTC:ljl
ADAMSBROADWELL - 3 EXHIBIT
7 of 13
1 1309

EXHIBIT A
ADAMSBROADWELL - 3 EXHIBIT
8 of 13
1 1310
7493-003acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3 EXHIBIT
9 of 13
1 1311
September 17, 2024

Page 2 ends

However, please contact me with a cost estimate before copying/scanning the materials.

Please use the following contact information for all correspondence:

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3 EXHIBIT
10 of 13
1 1312

EXHIBIT B
ADAMSBROADWELL - 3 EXHIBIT
11 of 13
1 1313
7493-001acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: ( 916) 444 - 6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Stockton, CA 95202
Email: [email protected]
City Clerk
Office of the City Clerk
City of Stockton
425 N El Dorado St.

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3 EXHIBIT
12 of 13
1 1314
September 17, 2024

Page 2 ends

7493-001acp
The proposed Project includes the construction of a 184,166-square foot industrial building for warehouse and office use. The site is currently vacant, previously agricultural, land in San Joaquin County within the sphere of influence of the City of Stockton, which would annex the site as part of the project approval.

We will pay for any direct costs of duplication associated with filling this request up to $200.2 However, please contact me with a cost estimate before copying/scanning the materials.

Please use the following contact information for all correspondence:

ADAMSBROADWELL - 3 EXHIBIT
13 of 13
1 1315

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
1316
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-33 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ADAMSBROADWELL-3)
Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-1
The commenter asks for the public review and comment period for the MND to be extended. CEQA requires a minimum public review period for MNDs of 30 days. (Public Resources Code Section [PRC] § 21091(b)). The original public comment period was August 30, 2024 through September 30, 2024.

The public comment period was extended an additional 30 days, to October 30, 2024, for a total public review period of 61 days. No further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-2
This comment consists of introductory information summarizing the commenter’s understanding of the proposed project. This summary does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and no further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-3
This comment summarizes the commenter’s understanding of the public comment period. This summary does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and no further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-4
CEQA makes a distinction between documents cited in an EIR and those specifically incorporated by reference (see El Morro Community Ass'n v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2004) 122 CA4th 1341, n.5.) CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(b) requires that documents incorporated by reference in an EIR be available for inspection together with the EIR. All documents incorporated by reference were available for public review pursuant to CEQA requirements. For the documents referenced in the Draft IS/MND, website addresses are available within the footnote. No further analysis is warranted.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-5
All documents requested were available for public review pursuant to CEQA requirements. For the documents referenced in the Draft IS/MND, website addresses are available within the footnote. No further analysis is warranted.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-6
The documents were provided to the commenter and/or were otherwise readily accessible in the appendices and footnotes of the EIR during the public comment period. No further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-7
Refer to Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-6.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-8
Please refer to Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-6. Additionally, the public comment period was extended an additional 30 days, to October 30, 2024, allowing additional time to review the Draft IS/MND and prepare public comments.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-9
The commenter states that a number of documents cited in the IS/MND were not accompanied by weblinks, and so were not available for review with the IS/MND. Footnotes in the Draft IS/MND refer EXHIBIT 1
1317
Responses to Written Comments City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project 1-34 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx to City documents or other agency reports, regulations, policies, etc. For those cited in the Draft IS/MND, website addresses have been provided within the footnote. The commenter requested American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), CalEEMod, and HARP2 input files. The City notes that the commenter’s requests for documents were formally withdrawn on November 8, 2024, with the acknowledgment that relevant documents were located.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-10
The commenter provided the list of specific references that are covered by comment ADAMSBROADWELL-3-9, above. No further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-11
This comment relates to a request for documents that was formally rescinded on November 8, 2024.

The request for records does not raise any environmental issues and is therefore outside the purview of CEQA. No further analysis is warranted.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-12
This comment relates to a request for documents that was formally rescinded on November 8, 2024.

The request for records does not raise any environmental issues and is therefore outside the purview of CEQA. The City notes that all studies that were relied upon were available in the appendices of the document. Therefore, the documents were readily available to the public. No further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-13
The public comment period was extended an additional 30 days, to October 30, 2024.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-14
Refer to Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-9.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-15
Refer to Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-13.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-16
All documents requested were available for public review pursuant to CEQA requirements.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-17
All relevant documents were available to the public. The commenter’s requests for documents were formally rescinded on November 8, 2024. This comment does not identify any issues pertaining to the proposed project’s environmental effects and no further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-18
This comment is noted.

EXHIBIT 1
1318

BLUM, COLLINS & HO LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

AON CENTER
707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 4880
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017
(213) 572-0400
September 25, 2024
Nicole Moore Via Email to:

Community Development Department [email protected] City of Stockton
345 N. El Dorado Street,
Stockton, CA 95202
Subject: Comments on South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project MND (SCH NO. 2024081317)
Dear Ms. Moore,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project. Please accept and consider these comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. Also, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance formally requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877.

1.0 Summary
The project proposes to annex, pre-zone, and develop an 11.7 acre parcel within the City of Stockton Sphere of Influence. Development will consist of a 184,166-square-foot industrial building containing 179,166 square feet of warehouse space and 5,000 square feet of office space on a 508,674-square-foot project site. The building includes 27 truck/trailer loading dock doors and a loading area along the west side of the building. The site provides a total of 192 parking stalls, 150 of which are standard passenger car parking stalls on the east and south sides of the building, and 37 of which are truck/trailer parking stalls on the west side of the building adjacent to the loading area.

The project site is located within unincorporated San Joaquin County and has a County land use designation of Mixed-Use. The project site is located within the City of Stockton Sphere of Influence with a General Plan land use designation of Industrial. The MND states that, “the City has pre-zoned the site as Industrial Limited (I-L), which will take effect upon annexation.” The BLUM -1 EXHIBIT
1 of 60
1 1319
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 2 ends

MND states the following discretionary actions are required to implement the proposed project:

Annexation into the City of Stockton and Design Review.

3.0 Project Description
It is notable that the MND does not include a floor plan or elevations for the buildings. The basic components of a Planning Application include a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and a project narrative describing the proposed use in detail. The MND has excluded the proposed floor plans and elevations from public review, which does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121). Including this information is vital as the maximum height limit is 60 feet while Exhibit 6: Site Plan states that the maximum height limit is 100 feet. An EIR must be prepared with these items and information in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.

The MND states that, “The City has pre-zoned the site as Industrial Limited (I-L), which will take effect upon annexation.” However, review of the City’s Zoning Map1 indicates that the project site does not have a pre-zoning designation. Additionally, the application file (P23-01252) for the project indicates that it includes Pre-Zoning and Site Plan Review applications that were not included for analysis in the MND. The Project Description is deficient and does not accurately describe“the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment” (CEQA § 15378). An EIR must be prepared to include information and analysis of the required Pre-Zoning and Site Plan Review actions in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.

The MND and Project Description is also deficient in that it does not discuss the City’s Municipal Service Review (MSR)3 at any point. Notably, it excludes that the project site is within the City 1 https://stocktonca.mapgeo.io/datasets/properties?abuttersDistance=100&latlng=37.89236%2C121.26851&previewId=19302034- 102126&themes=%22%5B%5C%22zoning%5C%22%5D%22&zoom=16
2 https://aca-prod.accela.com/STOCKTON/Default.aspx
3 https://www.sjlafco.org/files/62a876ed2/stockton---august-2020.pdf BLUM -1 EXHIBIT
2 of 60
1 1320
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 3 ends

of Stockton’s Sphere of Influence but is outside the adopted 2030 Planning Horizon Area defined in the City’s MSR as depicted in Figure 2-7: 10 Year Planning Horizon Annexation Areas of the MSR. The MSR will need to be modified by LAFCo to incorporate the proposed project within the MSR 10-year Horizon.

2.3 Air Quality, 2.6 Energy, and 2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Site
BLUM -1 EXHIBIT
3 of 60
1 1321
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 4 ends

Please refer to attachments from SWAPE for a complete technical commentary and analysis.

The MND does not include meaningful analysis of relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed project. This is in conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15131 (c), which requires that “Economic, social, and particularly housing factors shall be considered by public agencies together with technological and environmental factors in deciding whether changes in a project are feasible to reduce or avoid the significant effects on the environment identified in the EIR. If information on these factors is not contained in the EIR, the information must be added to the record in some other manner to allow the agency to consider the factors in reaching a decision on the project.” This is especially significant as the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.04, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, the proposed project’s census tract (6077003803) ranks in the 99th percentile for overall pollution burden, meaning that it is among the most polluted census tracts in the state. For example, the project census tract ranks in the 51st percentile for ozone burden, the 54th percentile for particulate matter (PM) 2.5 burden, the 57th percentile for diesel PM burden, and the 53rd percentile for traffic impacts. All of these environmental factors are attributed to heavy truck activity in the area. Ozone can cause lung irritation, inflammation, and worsening of existing chronic health conditions, even at low levels of exposure5. Exhaust fumes contain toxic chemicals that can damage DNA, cause cancer, make breathing difficult, and cause low weight and premature births6. The very small particles of diesel PM can reach deep into the lung, where they can contribute to a range of health problems. These include irritation to the eyes, throat and nose, heart and lung disease, and lung cancer7.

The census tract ranks among the most severely impacted in several areas that impact water quality.

The census tract ranks in the 98th percentile for groundwater threats. People who live near contaminated groundwater may be exposed to chemicals moving from the soil into the air inside their homes8. Accordingly, the census tract ranks in the 95th percentile for drinking water impacts, which indicates that it ranks with the worst quality drinking water in the state. Poor communities and people in rural areas are exposed to contaminants in their drinking water more often than people in other parts of the state9.
4 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 5 OEHHA Ozone https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/air-quality-ozone 6 OEHHA Traffic https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/traffic-density 7 OEHHA Diesel Particulate Matter https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/diesel-particulatematter 8 OEHHA Groundwater Threats https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/groundwater-threats 9 OEHHA Drinking Water https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/drinking-water BLUM -1 EXHIBIT
4 of 60
1 1322
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 5 ends

The census tract ranks in the 85th percentile for hazardous waste facility impacts. Hazardous waste generators and facilities contribute to the contamination of air, water and soil near waste generators and facilities can harm the environment as well as people10. The census tract also ranks in the 88th percentile for solid waste facility impacts. Solid waste facilities can expose people to hazardous chemicals, release toxic gases into the air (even after these facilites are closed), and chemicals can leach into soil around the facility and pose a health risk to nearby populations11.

The census tract also bears more impacts from cleanup sites than 84% of the state. Chemicals in the buildings, soil, or water at cleanup sites can move into nearby communities through the air or movement of water12.

Further, the census tract is a diverse community including 58% Hispanic, 11% African-American, and 9% Asian-American residents, whom are especially vulnerable to the impacts of pollution. The community has a high rate of low educational attainment, meaning 89% of the census tract over age 25 has not attained a high school diploma, which is an indication that they may lack health insurance or access to medical care. The community also has a high rate of poverty, meaning 79% of the households in the census tract have a total income before taxes that is less than the poverty level. Income can affect health when people cannot afford healthy living and working conditions, nutritious food and necessary medical care13. Poor communities are often located in areas with high levels of pollution14. Poverty can cause stress that weakens the immune system and causes people to become ill from pollution15. Living in poverty is also an indication that residents may lack health insurance or access to medical care. Medical care is vital for this census tract as it ranks in the 89th percentile for incidence of cardiovascular disease and 84th percentile for incidence of asthma. The community also has a high rate of linguistic isolation, meaning 49% of the census tract speaks little to no English and faces further inequities as a result.

Additionally, the project census tract (6077003803) and the census tracts adjacent to the project site (6077002800 (north), 6077002402 (north), 6077002300 (north), 6077005131 (east), 6077003700 (east), and 6077003802 (west)) are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities16. This indicates that cumulative impacts of development and environmental 10 OEHHA Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/hazardous-waste-generators-and-facilities 11 OEHHA Solid Waste Facilities https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/solid-waste-sites-andfacilities 12 OEHHA Cleanup Sites https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/cleanup-sites 13 OEHHA Poverty https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/poverty 14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 OEHHA SB 535 Census Tracts https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535 BLUM -1 EXHIBIT
5 of 60
1 1323
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 6 ends

impacts in the area are disproportionately impacting these communities. The negative environmental, health, and quality of life impacts resulting form a saturation of the industrial, warehousing, and logistics industry in the area have become distinctly inequitable. The severity of significant and unavoidable impacts particularly on these Disadvantaged Communities must be included for analysis as part of an EIR. Each section of an EIR must include the specific analysis of each environmental impact on the Disadvantaged Communities, including cumulative analysis and irreversible environmental effects.

The State of California lists three approved compliance modeling softwares17 for non-residential buildings: CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE. CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. The CalEEMod modeling does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and under-reports the project’s significant Energy impacts and fuel consumption to the public and decision makers. Since the MND did not accurately or adequately model the energy impacts in compliance with Title 24, it cannot conclude the project will generate less than significant impacts and a finding of significance must be made. An EIR with modeling using one of the approved software types must be prepared and circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the project’s significant environmental impacts. This is vital as the MND utilizes CalEEMod as a source in its methodology and analysis, which is clearly not an approved software.

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The project site is within Traffic Pattern (Zone 7a) Safety Zone of the Stockton Metropolitan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (SM ALUCP)18. Zone 7a has a maximum nonresidential density of 450 persons per acre. The MND states that, “although the tenant for the warehouse has not been identified, the proposed project will comply with CBC occupancy rates, which would cap the occupancy of the building at 391 employees.” The MND has not provided the source calculation of CBC occupancy rates to determine that the project would generate 391 employees or less within the building. Additionally, Zone 7a has a 10 percent open land requirement. The MND states that this, “applies to development projects that are 10 acres or more. The project site is 11.70 acres and X percent of the project would remain open space.” The MND is inadequate as an informational document as it has not provided the percentage of the project site that would remain as open space. An EIR must be prepared to include this information in order to provide an adequate environmental analysis.
17 California Energy Commission 2022 Energy Code Compliance Software https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022- building-energy-efficiency-1 18 https://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/1318/2016-Stockton-Metropolitan-Airport-ALUCP--- Amended-February-2018?bidId=
BLUM -1 EXHIBIT
6 of 60
1 1324
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 7 ends

The MND concludes the project is consistent with the SM ALUCP. However, it has excluded information regarding the statutorily required SJCOG Airport Land Use Commission review. SM ALUCP ALUCP Section 3.1.6.1: Actions Which Require ALUC Review states that, “As required by state law, the following types of actions shall be referred to the ALUC prior to their approval by the local jurisdiction: (a) The adoption or approval of any amendment to a general or specific plan affecting the property within an airport influence area (PUC Section 21676(b)). The project proposes an amendment to the City’s General Plan Land Use Map to incorporate the project site within the City limits.

Additionally, California PUC PUC Section 21676(b)19 requires that prior to the amendment of a General Plan, the ALUC shall review the plan, ordinance, or regulation for consistency with the ALUCP. Section 3.1.6.3 of the SM ALUCP also requires that Major Land Use Actions including “3.1.6.3 (a)(3) Any proposed expansion of the sphere of influence of a city or special district,

3.1.6.3 (a)(4) Proposed pre‐zoning associated with future annexation of land to a city, and 3.1.6.3 (a)(5) Any discretionary development proposal for projects having a building floor area of 20,000 square feet or greater unless only ministerial approval (e.g., a building permit) is required,” must be reviewed by the SJCOG ALUC, and the proposed project meets these descriptions. Therefore, SJCOG Airport Land Use Commission review is required for the proposed project. An EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance as it does not comply with PUC Section 21676(b) and SM ALUCP Sections 3.1.6.1 and 3.1.6.3(a)(3) - (5) and therefore has not provided any meaningful evidence to conclude the project will not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area.

2.11 Land Use and Planning
The MND concludes that the project will have less than significant impacts because, “per Municipal Code Chapter 16.120, the proposed project would undergo Design Review prior to the issuance of building permits, to ensure consistency with Stockton Municipal Code and Citywide Design Guidelines.” The MND does not provide any list of the Municipal Code or Citywide Design Guidelines requirements or analysis of the project’s compliance or noncompliance with the requirements. Deferring this environmental analysis required by CEQA to after the public review phase is improper mitigation, deferred mitigation, and does not comply with CEQA’s requirement for meaningful disclosure and adequate informational documents (CEQA § 15121 19 California Airport Planning Land Use Handbook Section 1.3.4. ALUC Review https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/aeronautics/documents/californiaairportlanduseplanninghandbook-a11y.pdf BLUM -1 EXHIBIT
7 of 60
1 1325
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 8 ends

and PRC 21003(b)). An EIR must be prepared with this information and analysis in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.

The MND’s less than significant impact conclusion is not supported by meaningful evidence or any analysis, including a consistency analysis with General Plan policies, in violation of CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 21003(b)). The MND is inadequate as an informational document and an EIR must be prepared with technical analysis and a consistency analysis with all General Plan policies, including but not limited to the following:

1. Policy LU-5.3 Define discrete and clear city edges that preserve agriculture, open space, and scenic views.

2. Policy LU-5.2 Protect natural resource areas, fish and wildlife habitat, scenic areas, open space areas, agricultural lands, parks, and other cultural/historic resources from encroachment or destruction by incompatible development.

3. Action TR-1.1A Direct truck traffic to designated truck routes that facilitate efficient goods movement and minimize risk to areas with concentrations of sensitive receptors, such as schools, for example by disallowing any new truck routes to pass directly on streets where schools are located, and vulnerable road users, like pedestrians and bicyclists.

4. Policy TR-2.2 Connect housing and employment development in areas with good transit access through open and inclusive processes where appropriate.

5. Action TR-2.2A Require major new development to incorporate and fund design features to promote safe and comfortable access to transit, such as a circulation network that facilitates efficient and connected bus travel, clear pedestrian and bicycle routes connecting origins and destinations to transit stops, sheltered bus stops, park-and-ride facilities, and highly visible transit information and maps.

6. Action TR-2.2B Obtain input from community residents, non-profit organizations, and local and regional transit operators on major new development projects, and support transit operators by ensuring major projects are designed to support transit and provide fair share funding of the cost of adequate transit service and access.

7. Policy TR-4.1 Utilize level of service (LOS) information to aid understanding of potential major increases to vehicle delay at key signalized intersections.

8. Action TR-4.1A Strive for Level of Service (LOS) D or better for both daily roadway segment and peak hour intersection operations.

9. Action TR-4.2A To evaluate the effects of new development and determine mitigation measures and impact fees, require projects to evaluate per capita VMT and impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes.

10. Policy SAF-2.5 Protect the community from health hazards and annoyance associated with excessive noise levels.

11. Action SAF-2.5A Prohibit new commercial, industrial, or other noise-generating land uses adjacent to existing sensitive noise receptors such as residential uses, schools, health care facilities, libraries, and churches if noise levels are expected to exceed 70 dBA Community Noise Equivalent (CNEL) (decibels on A-weighted scale CNEL) when measured at the property line of the noise sensitive land use.

BLUM -1 EXHIBIT
8 of 60
1 1326
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 9 ends

12. Policy SAF-2.6 Minimize the risk to city residents and property associated with the transport, distribution, use, and storage of hazardous materials.

13. Action SAF-2.6A Restrict transport of hazardous materials within the city to routes that have been designated for such transport.

14. Action SAF-2.6B When appropriate, require new development to prepare a hazardous materials inventory and/or prepare Phase I or Phase II hazardous materials studies, including any required cleanup measures.

15. Action LU-6.2B Do not approve future annexations or City utility connections unless they are consistent with the overall goals and policies of the General Plan and do not adversely impact the City’s fiscal viability, environmental resources, infrastructure and services, and quality of life.

16. Policy LU-6.4 Ensure that land use decisions balance travel origins and destinations in as close proximity as possible, and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

17. Action LU-6.4A Maintain a reasonable balance between potential job generation and local workforce availability with a goal of one job for each employed resident.

18. Action LU-6.4B Maintain a reasonable proximity and balance (i.e., magnitude) between job generating uses, housing opportunities, and resident services and amenities, including transit and active transportation.

19. Action LU-6.5A Require preparation of a fiscal impact analysis for large development projects and proposed annexations to ensure a full accounting of infrastructure and public service costs and to confirm whether revenue enhancement mechanisms are necessary to ensure net fiscal balance or better, and require appropriate fiscal mitigations, when necessary, to ensure the City’s ongoing fiscal health and continued viability of the City’s General Fund.

Notably, the MND has not included a fiscal impact analysis or City Services Plan to demonstrate consistency with Actions LU-6.2B and LU-6.5A. A City Services Plan must be prepared and included as part of an EIR for public review and comment. Additionally, since approval of the City Services Plan lies with LAFCO and not the lead agency, an EIR cannot provide reasonable assurance that the City Services Plan is adequate or will be approved and therefore the impact will remain significant and unavoidable necessitating a finding of significance in an EIR.

The MND also excludes discussion and analysis of the project’s location outside of the City’s Municipal Services Review (MSR) 10-year Horizon. There is no meaningful evidence to support the project will have less than significant impacts or that adequate public services can be provided within the required timeframes. An EIR must be prepared to state that the project is not consistent with the existing MSR because it is outside of the 10-year Horizon area. Further, an EIR must also be prepared to discuss and analyze the project’s location within the French Camp Disadvantaged Urban Community20 and associated environmental impacts. Additionally, since 20 Figure 4-1: Disadvantaged Urban Communities https://www.sjlafco.org/files/62a876ed2/stockton--- august-2020.pdf
BLUM -1 EXHIBIT
9 of 60
1 1327
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 10 ends

approval of the revised MSR 10-year Horizon area lies with LAFCO and not the lead agency, an EIR cannot provide reasonable assurance that the revised MSR 10-year Horizon area provides adequate services for the project or will be approved and therefore the impact will remain significant and unavoidable necessitating a finding of significance in an EIR.

Notably, Table 2-7: Development Demand Forecast 10-Year and 20-Year Planning Horizons of the 2020 Municipal Service Review21 states that the maximum industrial development forecast in the General Plan analysis22 is 6.2 million square feet through 2040. The document allocates 5.3 million square feet to two pending projects - Airpark 599 and Sanchez Annexation Project. The remaining 900,000 square feet in the growth forecast is not enough to cover the proposed 184,166 square foot project and earlier projects Mariposa 1 and 2 (5,396,260 square feet of industrial space). The MND has not included analysis of other industrial projects in the pipeline either, such as the EIR published in October 2021 for the South Stockton Commerce Center23 to construct 6,091,551 square feet of industrial space. Cumulatively, at least 11,671,977 square feet of industrial space have been approved and/or are in the pipeline and this is not included for analysis.

Cumulative development will exceed the General Plan 2040 Growth Forecast for industrial space and a finding of significance must be made in an EIR that includes this information for analysis, including cumulative and growth-inducing impacts.

2.14 Population and Housing
The MND utilizes uncertain and misleading language which does not provide any meaningful analysis of the project’s impacts to population and employment generation. The MND states that, “While some employees could relocate to the City for employment at the proposed project, it is unlikely that a significant number of employees would do so,” without providing any information about the quantity of jobs generated by the project. The MND states that the project’s construction jobs are, “temporary,” and, “Given that the temporary construction-period spans approximately nine months, the local labor pool would be expected to satisfy labor demands of the project,” without providing any quantification of the construction employees required to build the project or the geographic boundaries of the “local” labor pool. The MND relies upon the labor force within an unspecified distance, such as the Stockton-Lodi Metropolitan Statistical Area to fill all of its jobs without providing any discussion of the area’s unemployed population in terms of qualification for and/or interest in work in the industrial sector. Relying on the entire workforce of the Stockton-Lodi Metropolitan Statistical Area to fill all of its jobs will significantly increase 21 2020 Municipal Service Review https://www.sjgov.org/uploadedfiles/sjc/departments/lafco/msrsoi/stockton%20msr%20aug%202020.pdf 22 Stockton 2040 General Plan EIR and Technical Memos
http://www.stocktonca.gov/files/EnvisionStockton2040GP_DEIR.pdf 23 South Stockton Commerce Center https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020090561/3 10 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1328
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 11 ends

project VMT, and this must be included in the project’s revised VMT analysis. A construction worker employment analysis must also be included to adequately and accurately analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts. In order to comply with CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure, an EIR must be prepared to provide an accurate estimate of employees generated by construction and operations of the proposed project. It must also provide demographic and geographic information on the location of qualified workers to fill these positions.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration24 provides the following applicable employment generation rate for warehouses:

No Refrigeration Warehouse: 1 employee per 1,226 square feet Applying this ratio results in the following calculation:

Non-Refrigerated Warehouse: 184,166 sf/ 1,226 = 151 employees SJCOG’s Population, Household, and Employment Projections25 notes that the City will add approximately 42,602 jobs between 2020 - 2045. Utilizing the U.S. EIA calculation of 151 employees, the project represents 0.3% of the City’s employment growth from 2020 - 2050. A single project accounting for this amount of the projected employment growth over 30 years represents a significant amount of growth, especially given the proposed project site is outside of the 2030 Planning Horizon Area defined in the City’s adopted Municipal Service Review and requires an amendment to the Municipal Service Review to include the project site in the 2030 Planning Horizon Area to proceed.

Other recent industrial projects such as South Stockton Commerce Center (6,091,551 square feet of industrial development; 2,964 employees) and Mariposa 1 and 2 (5,396,260 square feet of industrial development; 4,403 employees) combined with the proposed project will cumulatively generate 7,518 employees, which is 17.6% of the City’s employment growth forecast over 30 years accounted for by only three recent industrial projects. The amount of growth accounted for by cumulative projects multiplies exponentially when other commercial and industrial development activity approved since 2020 are added to the calculation. An EIR must be prepared to include a quantified analysis of the employees generated during project construction and operations. An EIR 24 US EIA Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, Table B1: Summary table: total and means of floorspace, number of workers, and hours of operation, 2018 https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2018/bc/html/b1.php 25 SJCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS Appendix Q- Population, Household, and Employment Projections https://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/7085/Q-Population-Household-and-EmploymentProjections BLUM -1 EXHIBIT
11 of 60
1 1329
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 12 ends

must also provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since 2020 and projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the project will exceed SJCOG’s employment growth forecast for the City and/or General Plan growth forecasts.

2.17 Transportation
The MND concludes that the daily VMT per employee estimate is 22.1 VMT, which exceeds the applicable threshold of 15.78 VMT per employee by 40%. The MND includes MM TRANS-1 to achieve an alleged 38% VMT reduction. However, the MND has not provided meaningful evidence to support the conclusion that MM TRANS-1 will reduce project generated VMT to below the significance threshold of 15.78 VMT per employee continuously for the life of the project. Since future building tenants are unknown, implementation of trip reduction measures cannot be guaranteed to reduce Project generated VMT to a level of less than significant. It is not possible for the City to ensure that MM TRANS-1 will result in reduced VMT by project employees and be implemented continuously, at all times, throughout the life of the project and maintain a VMT reduction to less than significant levels at all times. The efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures and reduction of VMT impacts below the applicable thresholds cannot be assured and the project’s VMT impact is therefore considered significant and unavoidable. An EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance because there is no possible assurance of the percentage of project employees that would utilize non-automobile travel associated with implementation of MM TRANS-1 and mitigation of the project’s VMT impact to less than significant is not feasible.

Further, the MND has underreported the quantity VMT generated by the proposed project operations. The operational nature of industrial/warehouse uses involves high rates of truck/trailer/delivery van VMT due to traveling from large import hubs to regional distribution centers to smaller industrial parks and then to their final delivery destinations. Once employees arrive at work at the proposed project, they will conduct their jobs by driving delivery vans across the region as part of the daily operations as a warehouse, which will drastically increase projectgenerated VMT. The project’s truck/trailer and delivery van activity is unable to utilize public transit or active transportation and it is misleading to the public and decision makers to exclude this activity from VMT analysis. The project’s total operational VMT generated is not consistent with the significance threshold and legislative intent of SB 743 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing VMT. An EIR must be prepared to reflect a quantified VMT analysis that includes all truck/trailer and delivery van activity.

Further, the MND utilizes a separate Trip Generation calculation for the LOS analysis and VMT analysis. Table 4: Proposed Project Trip Generation within Appendix G: Traffic Impact Analysis 12 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1330
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 13 ends

concludes the project will generate 486 daily vehicle trips, while the MND states under significance threshold b that “Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, the estimate daily trips generated by the proposed project would be approximately 378 daily trips.” The MND is internally inaccurate and must be revised to utilize the 486 daily trip calculation in the VMT analysis.

The MND has not adequately analyzed the project’s potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses; or the project’s potential to result in inadequate emergency access. The MND includes “MM TRANS-2: The proposed project shall only allow trucks to exit and not enter from the southernmost project driveway in order to prevent collisions,” as required by Appendix G in order to mitigate significant impacts. However, the MND excludes the second statement within Appendix G’s mitigation, “Since trucks will be using the northern project driveway to enter, a deceleration lane that is 235 feet long is recommended.” An EIR must be prepared to include the construction of 235 foot long truck deceleration lane to serve the northernmost project driveway.

Further, there are also no exhibits adequately depicting the onsite turning radius available for trucks maneuvering throughout the site. Several areas of potential conflicts between trucks/trailers and passenger cars exist at the streets adjacent to the project site and throughout the site itself. For example, there is no queuing analysis within the MND, which is vital given that passenger cars can access both driveways while all incoming truck traffic will utilize only the northernmost driveway, which results in increased queuing times. Further, the truck/trailer parking stalls are located immediately adjacent to the truck/trailer loading dock court. These parking stalls may be in use at any time and further restrict truck/trailer movement on the site and present a safety hazard with potential for conflicts between passenger cars and trucks/trailers. The overall site design presents several potential conflicts in maneuvering area for both passenger cars and trucks/trailers that have not been analyzed. An EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance as the MND has not provided any meaningful evidence to support a less than significant finding.

The MND states regarding emergency access that, “Adequate emergency access to the project site would be provided by two 35-foot-wide driveways along South McKinley Avenue at the north and south ends of the project site and continue around the perimeter of the proposed building.

Furthermore, the TIS evaluated truck circulation at the project site and determined that it would be adequate with implementation of MM TRANS-2. Therefore, it can be assumed that large emergency vehicles would be able to circulate the project site safely.” This does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)). The MND has not provided any details regarding the requirements for emergency access or meaningful analysis of the project’s compliance or noncompliance with these 13 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1331
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 14 ends

requirements. Turning maneuvers, staging requirements, and access demands by the fire apparatus and other emergency vehicles are not the exact same as the turning maneuvers of a standard WB57 truck/trailer. Deferring this environmental analysis required by CEQA to the construction permitting phase is improper mitigation and does not comply with CEQA’s requirement for meaningful disclosure and adequate informational documents. An EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance as the MND has not provided any meaningful evidence to support a less than significant finding.

2.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance
The MND has not provided an adequate cumulative analysis of the proposed project. There is no discussion of the buildout conditions of the City’s General Plan or its Municipal Services Review (MSR). The MND also excludes discussion and analysis of the project’s location outside of the City’s MSR 10-year Horizon. There is no meaningful evidence to support the project will have less than significant impacts or that adequate public services can be provided within the required timeframes. An EIR must be prepared to state that the project is not consistent with the existing MSR because it is outside of the 10-year Horizon area. Further, an EIR must also be prepared to discuss and analyze the project’s location within the French Camp Disadvantaged Urban Community26 and associated environmental impacts. Additionally, since approval of the revised MSR 10-year Horizon area lies with LAFCO and not the lead agency, an EIR cannot provide reasonable assurance that the revised MSR 10-year Horizon area provides adequate services for the project or will be approved and therefore the impact will remain significant and unavoidable necessitating a finding of significance in an EIR.

Notably, Table 2-7: Development Demand Forecast 10-Year and 20-Year Planning Horizons of the 2020 Municipal Service Review27 states that the maximum industrial development forecast in the General Plan analysis28 is 6.2 million square feet through 2040. The document allocates 5.3 million square feet to two pending projects - Airpark 599 and Sanchez Annexation Project. The remaining 900,000 square feet in the growth forecast is not enough to cover the proposed 184,166 square foot project and earlier projects Mariposa 1 and 2 (5,396,260 square feet of industrial space). The MND has not included analysis of other industrial projects in the pipeline either, such 26 Figure 4-1: Disadvantaged Urban Communities https://www.sjlafco.org/files/62a876ed2/stockton--- august-2020.pdf
27 2020 Municipal Service Review https://www.sjgov.org/uploadedfiles/sjc/departments/lafco/msrsoi/stockton%20msr%20aug%202020.pdf 28 Stockton 2040 General Plan EIR and Technical Memos
http://www.stocktonca.gov/files/EnvisionStockton2040GP_DEIR.pdf 14 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1332
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 15 ends

as the EIR published in October 2021 for the South Stockton Commerce Center29 to construct 6,091,551 square feet of industrial space. Cumulatively, at least 11,671,977 square feet of industrial space have been approved and/or are in the pipeline and this is not included for analysis.

SJCOG’s Population, Household, and Employment Projections30 notes that the City will add approximately 42,602 jobs between 2020 - 2045. Utilizing the U.S. EIA calculation of 151 employees, the project represents 0.3% of the City’s employment growth from 2020 - 2050. A single project accounting for this amount of the projected employment growth over 30 years represents a significant amount of growth, especially given the proposed project site is outside of the 2030 Planning Horizon Area defined in the City’s adopted Municipal Service Review and requires an amendment to the Municipal Service Review to include the project site in the 2030 Planning Horizon Area to proceed.

Other recent industrial projects such as South Stockton Commerce Center (6,091,551 square feet of industrial development; 2,964 employees) and Mariposa 1 and 2 (5,396,260 square feet of industrial development; 4,403 employees) combined with the proposed project will cumulatively generate 7,518 employees, which is 17.6% of the City’s employment growth forecast over 30 years accounted for by only three recent industrial projects. The amount of growth accounted for by cumulative projects multiplies exponentially when other commercial and industrial development activity approved since 2020 are added to the calculation. An EIR must be prepared to include a quantified analysis of the employees generated during project construction and operations. An EIR must also provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since 2020 and projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the project will exceed SJCOG’s employment growth forecast for the City and/or General Plan/MSR growth forecasts.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, GSEJA believes the MND is flawed and an EIR must be prepared for the proposed project and circulated for public review. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all 29 South Stockton Commerce Center https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2020090561/3 30 SJCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS Appendix Q- Population, Household, and Employment Projections https://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/7085/Q-Population-Household-and-EmploymentProjections 15 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1333
Nicole Moore
September 25, 2024

Page 16 ends

communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877.

Sincerely,
Gary Ho
Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
Attachments:

1. SWAPE Technical Analysis
16 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1334
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
September 25, 2024
Gary Ho
Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 4880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: Comments on the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317) Dear Mr. Ho,
We have reviewed the August 2024 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial (“Project”) located in the City of Stockton (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 179,166-square-feet (“SF”) of industrial space, 5,000-SF of office space, and 192 parking stalls on the 11.7-acre site.

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

Air Quality
Failure to Provide Complete CalEEMod Output Files
Land use development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) typically evaluate air quality impacts and calculate potential criteria air pollutant emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”).
1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be 1 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide.
17 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1335
2 justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are calculated, and “output files” are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are used in calculating the Project’s air pollutant emissions and demonstrate which default values are changed. Justifications are provided for the selected values.

Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality Supporting Information (“AQ Report”) as Appendix A to the IS/MND, reveals that the files are incomplete. The “Stockton McKinley Avenue Warehouse” model’s table of contents indicated that the output files include a “User Changes to Default Data” table as its final section (Appendix A, pp. 130). Upon further review of the output files, it was observed that the table is missing. Instead, a series of lines appear in its place (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 170).

Without access to the “User Changes to Default Data”, we are unable to verify where changes were made to the model’s default values. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to include an updated, verifiable air quality analysis that correctly provides the complete output files for CalEEMod Version 2022.1.

Disproportionate Health Risk Impacts of Warehouses on Surrounding Communities Upon review of the IS/MND, we have determined that the development of the proposed Project may contribute to the disproportionate health risk impacts warehouse pose on community members living, 18 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1336
3 working, and going to school within the immediate area of the Project site. According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”):
“Those living within a half mile of warehouses are more likely to include communities of color, have health impacts such as higher rates of asthma and heart attacks, and a greater environmental burden.”2

The disproportionate health effects on communities of color are not confined to the SCAQMD jurisdiction, however. A 2024 study published in Nature Communications reveals that this is a nationwide concern, as the expansion of warehouses has significantly increased traffic-related air pollutants in marginalized and minoritized communities across the United States. 3 Another study
similarly indicates that “neighborhoods with lower household income levels and higher percentages of minorities are expected to have higher probabilities of containing warehousing facilities.”4 Additionally, a report authored by the Inland Empire-based People’s Collective for Environmental Justice and University of Redlands states:
“As the warehouse and logistics industry continues to grow and net exponential profits at record rates, more warehouse projects are being approved and constructed in low-income communities of color and serving as a massive source of pollution by attracting thousands of polluting truck trips daily. Diesel trucks emit dangerous levels of nitrogen oxide and particulate matter that cause devastating health impacts including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cancer, and premature death. As a result, physicians consider these pollutionburdened areas ‘diesel death zones.’”5 The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (“SJVAPCD”) itself admits that it faces significant air quality challenges that affect the numerous disadvantaged communities within its region.6 It is evident that the continued development of industrial warehouses within these communities poses a significant environmental justice challenge and further contributes to a nationwide trend. However, the acceleration of warehouse development is only increasing despite the consequences on public health. In 2 “South Coast AQMD Governing Board Adopts Warehouse Indirect Source Rule.” SCAQMD, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/news-archive/2021/board-adopts-waisr-may7-2021.pdf?sfvrsn=9. 3 “Air pollution impacts from warehousing in the United States uncovered with satellite data.” Gaige Hunter Kerr, et al.; June 2024, available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-50000-0. 4 “Location of warehouses and environmental justice: Evidence from four metros in California.” Metro Freight Center of Excellence, January 2018, available at:
https://www.metrans.org/assets/research/MF%201.1g_Location%20of%20warehouses%20and%20environmental %20justice_Final%20Report_021618.pdf, p. 21. 5 “Warehouses, Pollution, and Social Disparities: An analytical view of the logistics industry’s impacts on environmental justice communities across Southern California.” People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, April 2021, available at:
https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/warehouse_research_report_4.15.2021.pdf, p. 4. 6 “2024 Plan for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard.” SJVAPCD, June 2024, available at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/gw5bacvj/2024-pm25-plan.pdf, p. ES-9. 19 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1337
4 Southern California, the Inland Empire alone is adding 10 to 25 million SF of new industrial space each year.7

San Joaquin County, the setting of the proposed Project, has long borne a disproportionately high pollution burden. When using CalEnviroScreen 4.0, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the State for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, we found that the Project’s census tract is in the 99th percentile of communities that are disproportionately affected by various sources of pollution (see excerpt below).8

Additionally, according to CalEnviroScreen’s SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities Map, the Project site is located in a designated disadvantaged community (see excerpt below).9

7 “2020 North America Industrial Big Box Review & Outlook.” CBRE, 2020, available at: https://www.cbre.com/- /media/project/cbre/shared-site/insights/local-responses/industrial-big-box-report-inland-empire/local-response2020-ibb-inland-empire-overview.pdf, p. 2. 8 “CalEnviroScreen 4.0.” OEHHA, October 2021, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40, census tract #6071002204. 9 “SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities (2022 Update).” California Environmental Protection Agency, available at:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/1c21c53da8de48f1b946f3402fbae55c/page/SB-535-DisadvantagedCommunities/ 20 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1338
5 SB 535 provides funding for development projects that provide a benefit to disadvantaged communities.

CalEPA has been given the responsibility for identifying those communities based on “geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria.”10 As the Project site is within a disadvantaged community, and the Project’s census tract exhibits a high cancer risk, the proposed Project would contribute to the disproportionate health impacts warehouses impose on nearby residents.

The proposed Project may exacerbate disproportionate health risks for community members within the immediate area, a concern underscored by the mandates of SB 1000. SB 1000, enacted to address environmental justice considerations, requires local governments to integrate environmental justice elements into their planning processes, particularly focusing on reducing health risks for disadvantaged communities.11
10 “Final Designation of Disadvantaged Communities.” California Environmental Protection Agency, available at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2022/05/Updated-Disadvantaged-Communities-DesignationDAC-May-2022-Eng.a.hp_-1.pdf?emrc=e05e10. 11 “Environmental Justice in Local Land Use Planning.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/environment/sb1000.
21 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1339
6 As the Project site is located in an SB 535 disadvantaged community, we recommend reevaluating the Project's cumulative health risks to more effectively align with California Department of Justice (“CA DOJ”) guidelines and SB 1000 environmental justice requirements.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) indicates that ozone, the main ingredient in “smog,” can cause several health problems, which includes aggravating lung diseases and increasing the frequency of asthma attacks. The U.S. EPA states:
“Children are at greatest risk from exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing and they are more likely to be active outdoors when ozone levels are high, which increases their exposure. Children are also more likely than adults to have asthma.”12 Regarding the increased sensitivity of early-life exposures to inhaled pollutants, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) states:
“Children are often at greater risk from inhaled pollutants, due to the following reasons:
• Children have unique activity patterns and behavior. For example, they crawl and play on the ground, amidst dirt and dust that may carry a wide variety of toxicants. They often put their hands, toys, and other items into their mouths, ingesting harmful substances. Compared to adults, children typically spend more time outdoors and are more physically active. Time outdoors coupled with faster breathing during exercise increases children’s relative exposure to air pollution. • Children are physiologically unique. Relative to body size, children eat, breathe, and drink more than adults, and their natural biological defenses are less developed. The protective barrier surrounding the brain is not fully developed, and children’s nasal passages aren’t as effective at filtering out pollutants. Developing lungs, immune, and metabolic systems are also at risk.
• Children are particularly susceptible during development. Environmental exposures during fetal development, the first few years of life, and puberty have the greatest potential to influence later growth and development.”13 A Stanford-led study also reveals that children exposed to high levels of air pollution are more susceptible to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases in adulthood.14 Given that children are more susceptible to the negative health impacts of air pollutants, and that warehouses release more smog12 “Health Effects of Ozone Pollution.” U.S. EPA, May 2021, available at: https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozonepollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution. 13 “Children and Air Pollution.” CARB, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/children-and-airpollution. 14 “Air pollution puts children at higher risk of disease in adulthood, according to Stanford researchers and others.” Stanford, February 2021, available at: https://news.stanford.edu/2021/02/22/air-pollution-impacts-childrenshealth/. 22 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1340
7 forming pollution than any other sector, it is necessary to evaluate the specific health risk that warehouses pose to children in the nearby community.

According to the above-mentioned study by the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice and University of Redlands, a half mile radius is more commonly used for identifying sensitive receptors.

Regarding the proposed Project itself, the IS/MND states:
“The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Manteca Unified School District (MUSD) and the Stockton Unified School District (SUSD). SUSD operates 54 schools with approximately 40,000 students. The closest school to the project site is the French Camp School, located approximately 0.21 mile south of the site at 241 Fourth Street. The second closest school to the project site is Great View Elementary, located 1.65 miles northwest of the site at 4223 McDougald Boulevard” (p. 120).

As discussed, French Camp School is located within half a mile of the Project site. An EIR should be prepared to evaluate the Project’s contribution to the disproportionate impacts that warehouses pose on the surrounding communities, including an analysis of the impact on children and people of color who live and attend school in the surrounding area. In order to evaluate the cumulative air quality impact from the several warehouse projects proposed or built in a one-mile radius of the Project site, the analysis should prepare a revised cumulative HRA to quantify the adverse health outcome from the effects of exposure to multiple warehouses in the immediate area in conjunction with the poor ambient air quality in the Project’s census tract. This recommendation is consistent with guidance provided by SB 1000 and the CA DOJ.15
Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant health risk impact based on a quantified construction Health Risk Analysis (“HRA”). Specifically, the IS/MND estimates that the cumulative maximum cancer risk posed to nearby, existing residential sensitive receptors associated with construction would be 0.8 in one million, respectively, which would not exceed the SJVAPCD significance threshold of 20 in one million (see excerpt below) (p. 48, Table 5). 15 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, September 2022, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6. 23 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1341
8 Furthermore, the IS/MND states:
“The General Plan EIR, MM A-5 requires industrial or warehousing land uses that would generate substantial diesel truck travel (i.e., 100 diesel trucks per day or 40 or more trucks with diesel powered TRUs per day based on ARB recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses) to coordinate with the SJVAPCD and determine the appropriate level of HRA required in such cases.

Since the proposed project will generate only 20 truck trips per day, it would not be considered to generate substantial diesel truck traffic. Therefore, an HRA and consultation is not required and health risks from operation of the facility, including DPM emissions from trucks, are considered to be less than significant” (p. 49).

The IS/MND declares that an operational HRA is not necessary based on SJVAPCD standards. The IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-thansignificant impact conclusion, however, is unsupported for four reasons.

First, the IS/MND fails to mention or provide the exposure assumptions for the HRA, such as the age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) or time at home factors (“TAH”)/fraction of time at home (“FAH”) values. Until the IS/MND substantiates the use of correct exposure assumptions, the HRA may underestimate the cancer risk posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors because of Project construction. Furthermore, according to the Risk Assessment Guidelines provided by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 24 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1342
9 Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, the IS/MND’s model should have used the following equation:16 The IS/MND and associated documents fail to provide a dose and risk equation to calculate the Project’s construction cancer risks. As such, we cannot verify that the IS/MND’s HRA is accurate, and the Project’s cancer risks may be underestimated.

Second, the IS/MND relies on guidance provided in the 2005 CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook to omit an operational HRA (p. 49). As it is now July 2024, the Project should rely on the most recently updated guidance from the CEQA and the CA DOJ, as demonstrated below.

Third, by failing to prepare a quantified operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with the CEQA requirements to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”17 By failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”18The Project is also inconsistent with the CA DOJ projects prepare a quantitative HRA in accordance with the OEHHA, the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California.19
According to the IS/MND, operation of the Project is anticipated to generate about 378 daily vehicle trips, which would generate additional exhaust emissions and expose nearby sensitive receptors to diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions (p. 41). The IS/MND, however, fails to evaluate the toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions associated with Project operation or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Without making a reasonable effort to 16 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-7 Equation 8.2.4. 17 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 18 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 19 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6. 25 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1343
10 connect the Project’s operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the Project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.

Fourth, while the IS/MND conducts a construction HRA, the IS/MND fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby receptors as a result of Project construction and operation together.

According to OEHHA guidance, “the excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer risk at the receptor location.”20 The IS/MND fails to sum the total cancer risks in order to evaluate the combined cancer risk over the course of the Project’s total construction and operation. This is unsubstantiated, and an EIR should be prepared in order to quantify the Project’s total construction and operational cancer risks to compare to the SJVAPCD threshold of 20 in one million, as referenced by the HRA Report (p. 48).

Screening-Level Analysis Indicates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In accordance with CEQA, projects are required to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”21 In order to analyze the Project’s potential health risk impacts, we conducted a screening-level risk assessment relying upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.22 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”).23, 24 A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach should be conducted prior to approval of the Project.

We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM2.5 exhaust estimates from the IS/MND’s CalEEMod “Stockton McKinley Avenue Warehouse” model’s output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.25 Subtracting the 266-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 29.27 years, approximately. The IS/MND’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that 20 “Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 8-4. 21 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 22 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” U.S. EPA, April 2011, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/20110411_aerscreen_release_memo.pdf 23 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 24 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. 25 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 26 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1344
11 operational activities will generate approximately 40 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation.

Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 40 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
365 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.000575 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated as a 11.7-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 308- by 154-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.

An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of Stockton was obtained from U.S. 2022 Census data.26 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The EPA suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures.27 The IS/MND states that the nearest sensitive receptor is located 440 feet away from the project site (p. 48).

However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the maximally exposed individual receptor (“MEIR”) is located approximately 150 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 0.479 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 150 meters downwind.

Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of

0.0479 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.28
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SJVAPCD.29 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and CARB recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high-point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. 26 “Stockton.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2022, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0675000. 27 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/2000F86J.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1991+Thru+199 4&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=& QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data %5C91thru94%5CTxt%5C00000014%5C2000F86J.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h %7C-
&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeek Page=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&See kPage=x&ZyPURL. 28 See Attachment B for AERSCREEN output files. 29 “Update to District’s Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA’s Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document.” SJVAPCD, May 2015, available at: https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/staff-report-5-28-15.pdf. 27 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1345
12 The residential exposure parameters utilized for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:

Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)30
Age
Sensitivity
Factor31
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home32
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)33
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 1 350 24
Infant (0 - 2) 1090 10 2 1 350 24
Child (2 - 16) 572 3 14 1 350 24
Adult (16 - 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm:

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

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)
30 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/riskassessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 31 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 32 “Risk Assessment Procedures.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7. 33 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24. 28 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1346
13 To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:

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

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

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 * *
Construction 0.48 *
Operation 1.52 0.0479 1.02E-05
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 1.02-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0479 1.25E-05
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0479 1.92E-06
Lifetime 30 2.46E-05
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks to infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 150 meters away, over the course of Project operation, are approximately 10.2,

12.5, and 1.92 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 24.6 in one million. When summing the Project’s operational cancer risk, as estimated by SWAPE, with the IS/MND’s construction-related cancer risk of 0.8 in one million, we estimate an excess cancer risk of 25.4 in one million over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years). 29 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1347
14 As such, the child and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SJVAPCD threshold of 20 in one million, and would result in a potentially significant impact.

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

EPA, 1992).

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

The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screeninglevel assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.” As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. As our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, the future EIR should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation. If the refined analysis similarly concludes that the Project would result in a significant health risk impact, then mitigation measures should be incorporated, as described below in the “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions” section.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2):
“When an updated EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.”
The IS/MND is consequently required under CEQA to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s potential impacts. As demonstrated in the sections above, the Project would result in potentially significant health risk impacts that should be mitigated further.

To reduce the DPM emissions associated with Project construction and operation, we recommend the IS/MND consider several mitigation measures (see list below). 30 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1348
15 The CARB recommends: 34
• Require all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction to be equipped with Tier 4 or cleaner engines, except for specialized construction equipment in which Tier 4 engines are not available. In place of Tier 4 engines, off-road equipment can incorporate retrofits, such that, emission reductions achieved are equal to or exceed that of a Tier 4 engine. • Requires all off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) used during project construction be battery powered. • Require all heavy-duty trucks entering the construction site during the grading and building construction phases be model year 2014 or later. All heavy-duty haul trucks should also meet CARB’s lowest optional low-oxides of nitrogen (NOx) standard starting in the year 2022. • Require all construction equipment and fleets to be in compliance with all current air quality regulations.
• Requiring all TRUs entering the project-site be plug-in capable. • Require future tenants to exclusively use zero-emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans.
• Require all heavy-duty trucks entering or on the project site to be zero-emission vehicles, and be fully zero-emission. A list of commercially available zero-emission trucks can be obtained from the Hybrid and Zero-emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP). Additional incentive funds can be obtained from the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program. • Restrict trucks and support equipment from idling longer than two minutes while on site. • Require the installation of vegetative walls or other effective barriers that separate loading docks and people living or working nearby.

In addition to recommending similar mitigation as the above-mentioned measures from CARB, the CA DOJ suggests:
35 • Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, air filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the project.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project, and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the 34 “Recommended Air Pollution Emission Reduction Measures for Warehouses and Distribution Centers.” CARB, August 2023, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/CARB%20Comments%20- %20NOP%20for%20the%20%20Oak%20Valley%20North%20Project%20DEIR.pdf; Attachment A, p. 5 – 8. 35 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, September 2022, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 8 – 10. 31 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1349
16 affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air.
• Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel.

Lastly, SCAQMD staff recommends: 36
• Clearly mark truck routes with trailblazer signs so that trucks will not travel next to or near sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, daycare centers, etc.). • Design the Proposed Project such that truck entrances and exits are not facing sensitive receptors and trucks will not travel past sensitive land uses to enter or leave the Proposed Project site.
• Design the Proposed Project such that any truck check-in point is inside the Proposed Project site to ensure no trucks are queuing outside.
• Design the Proposed Project to ensure that truck traffic inside the Proposed Project site is as far away as feasible from sensitive receptors.
• Restrict overnight truck parking in sensitive land uses by providing overnight truck parking inside the Proposed Project site.

The CalEEMod User’s Guide confirms that the methods for mitigating DPM emissions include the use of “alternative fuel, electric equipment, diesel particulate filters (DPF), oxidation catalysts, newer tier engines, and dust suppression.”37
As demonstrated above, we have provided several mitigation measures that would reduce Projectrelated DPM developed from sources including CARB, the CA DOJ and others. These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation.

An EIR should be prepared that includes all feasible mitigation measures, as well as an updated health risk analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s potentially significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is 36 “Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (Proposed Project).” SCAQMD, April 2024, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/comment-letters/2024/april-2024/RVC240313-05.pdf?sfvrsn=8, p. 3 - 4. 37 “Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-a2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6, Appendix A, p. 60. 32 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1350
17 made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

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

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment B: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul Rosenfeld CV
33 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1351
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.05 Total DPM (lbs) 72.87671233 Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.02 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.273972603 Total DPM (g) 33056.87671 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.109589041 Construction Duration (days) 266 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.001438356 Total DPM (lbs) 40 Total DPM (lbs) 72.87671233 Release Height (meters) 3 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.000575342 Total DPM (g) 33056.87671 Total Acreage 11.7 Release Height (meters) 3 Start Date 4/1/2024 Max Horizontal (meters) 307.73 Total Acreage 11.7 End Date 12/23/2024 Min Horizontal (meters) 153.86 Max Horizontal (meters) 307.73 Construction Days 266 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Min Horizontal (meters) 153.86 Setting Stockton Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Population 321,819 Setting Stockton
Start Date 4/1/2024 Population 321,819
End Date 12/23/2024
Total Construction Days 266
Total Years of Construction 0.73
Total Years of Operation 29.27
Construction Operation
2024 Total Emission Rate
Attachment A
BLUM -1 EXHIBIT
34 of 60
1 1352
Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 * *
Construction 0.48 * *
Operation 1.52 0.0479 1.02E-05
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 1.02E-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0479 1.25E-05
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0479 1.92E-06
Lifetime 30 2.46E-05
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor 35 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1353
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 09/20/24
12:00:18
TITLE: SouthMcKinley, Operational
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ******************************  AREA PARAMETERS  **************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.575E‐03 g/s 0.457E‐02 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE: 0.122E‐07 g/(s‐m2) 0.964E‐07 lb/(hr‐m2) AREA HEIGHT: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: 307.73 meters 1009.61 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: 153.86 meters 504.79 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN: URBAN
POPULATION: 321819
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE = 5000. meters 16404. feet
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ***********************  BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS  ********************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON‐POINT SOURCES
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ **************************  FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS  *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters ‐ 5000. meters
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM  IMPACT  RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE   1‐HR CONC  RADIAL  DIST   TEMPORAL
SECTOR    ROUGHNESS  (ug/m3)    (deg)   (m)    PERIOD
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1*       1.000    0.4788      10   150.0     WIN
* = worst case diagonal
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Attachment B
36 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1354
**********************  MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS  ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE:    250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT:     10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE:    Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO: 0.35
BOWEN RATIO: 1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED

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

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

10.0 310.0 2.0
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES **********************

OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

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

1.00 0.3725 2525.00 0.1071E‐01
37 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1355

25.00 0.3954 2550.00 0.1056E‐01

50.00 0.4162 2575.00 0.1043E‐01

75.00    0.4344 2600.00    0.1029E‐01
100.00    0.4506 2625.00    0.1016E‐01
125.00    0.4655 2650.00    0.1003E‐01
150.00    0.4788 2675.00    0.9900E‐02
175.00    0.4389 2700.00    0.9776E‐02
200.00    0.3160 2725.00    0.9654E‐02
225.00    0.2591 2750.00    0.9535E‐02
250.00    0.2254 2775.00    0.9419E‐02
275.00    0.2003 2800.01    0.9305E‐02
300.00    0.1798 2825.00    0.9193E‐02
325.00    0.1625 2850.00    0.9170E‐02
350.00    0.1480 2875.00    0.9061E‐02
375.00    0.1355 2900.00    0.8954E‐02
400.00    0.1247 2925.00    0.8849E‐02
425.00    0.1154 2950.00    0.8747E‐02
450.00    0.1071 2975.00    0.8646E‐02
475.00    0.9987E‐01 3000.00    0.8548E‐02
500.00    0.9337E‐01 3025.00    0.8451E‐02
525.00    0.8765E‐01 3050.00    0.8357E‐02
550.00    0.8247E‐01 3075.00    0.8264E‐02
575.00    0.7777E‐01 3100.00    0.8173E‐02
600.00    0.7355E‐01 3125.00    0.8083E‐02
625.00    0.6971E‐01 3150.00    0.7996E‐02
650.00    0.6618E‐01 3175.00    0.7910E‐02
675.00    0.6297E‐01 3200.00    0.7825E‐02
700.00    0.6004E‐01 3225.00    0.7742E‐02
725.00    0.5732E‐01 3250.00    0.7661E‐02
750.00    0.5478E‐01 3275.00    0.7581E‐02
775.00    0.5243E‐01 3300.00    0.7502E‐02
800.00    0.5026E‐01 3325.00    0.7425E‐02
825.00    0.4825E‐01 3350.00    0.7350E‐02
850.00    0.4639E‐01 3375.00    0.7275E‐02
875.00    0.4465E‐01 3400.00    0.7202E‐02
900.00    0.4300E‐01 3425.00    0.7130E‐02
925.00    0.4145E‐01 3450.00    0.7060E‐02
950.00    0.4000E‐01 3475.00    0.6990E‐02
975.00    0.3863E‐01 3500.00    0.6922E‐02
1000.00    0.3734E‐01 3525.00    0.6855E‐02
1025.00    0.3613E‐01 3550.00    0.6789E‐02
1050.00    0.3498E‐01 3575.00    0.6724E‐02
1075.00    0.3390E‐01 3600.00    0.6660E‐02
1100.00    0.3288E‐01 3625.00    0.6597E‐02
1125.00    0.3191E‐01 3650.00    0.6536E‐02
1150.00    0.3098E‐01 3675.00    0.6475E‐02
1175.00    0.3009E‐01 3700.00    0.6415E‐02
1200.00    0.2925E‐01 3725.00    0.6356E‐02
1225.00    0.2845E‐01 3750.00    0.6298E‐02
1250.00    0.2769E‐01 3775.00    0.6241E‐02
38 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1356
1275.00    0.2697E‐01 3800.00    0.6185E‐02
1300.00    0.2628E‐01 3825.00    0.6130E‐02
1325.00    0.2562E‐01 3850.00    0.6076E‐02
1350.00    0.2498E‐01 3875.00    0.6022E‐02
1375.00    0.2437E‐01 3900.00    0.5969E‐02
1400.00    0.2378E‐01 3925.00    0.5917E‐02
1425.00    0.2322E‐01 3950.00    0.5866E‐02
1450.00    0.2269E‐01 3975.00    0.5816E‐02
1475.00    0.2217E‐01 4000.00    0.5766E‐02
1500.00    0.2168E‐01 4025.00    0.5717E‐02
1525.00    0.2120E‐01 4050.00    0.5669E‐02
1550.00    0.2073E‐01 4075.00    0.5621E‐02
1575.00    0.2029E‐01 4100.00    0.5574E‐02
1600.00    0.1986E‐01 4125.00    0.5528E‐02
1625.00    0.1945E‐01 4150.00    0.5483E‐02
1650.00    0.1905E‐01 4175.00    0.5438E‐02
1675.00    0.1867E‐01 4200.00    0.5394E‐02
1700.00    0.1830E‐01 4225.00    0.5350E‐02
1725.00    0.1794E‐01 4250.00    0.5307E‐02
1750.00    0.1759E‐01 4275.00    0.5265E‐02
1775.00    0.1726E‐01 4300.00    0.5223E‐02
1800.00    0.1693E‐01 4325.00    0.5182E‐02
1825.00    0.1662E‐01 4350.00    0.5141E‐02
1850.00    0.1632E‐01 4375.00    0.5101E‐02
1875.00    0.1603E‐01 4400.00    0.5061E‐02
1900.00    0.1574E‐01 4425.00    0.5022E‐02
1925.00    0.1547E‐01 4450.00    0.4983E‐02
1950.00    0.1520E‐01 4475.00    0.4945E‐02
1975.00    0.1494E‐01 4500.00    0.4908E‐02
2000.00    0.1469E‐01 4525.00    0.4871E‐02
2025.00    0.1445E‐01 4550.00    0.4834E‐02
2050.00    0.1421E‐01 4575.00    0.4798E‐02
2075.00    0.1398E‐01 4600.00    0.4762E‐02
2100.00    0.1375E‐01 4625.00    0.4727E‐02
2125.00    0.1353E‐01 4650.00    0.4693E‐02
2150.00    0.1332E‐01 4675.00    0.4658E‐02
2175.00    0.1311E‐01 4700.00    0.4624E‐02
2200.00    0.1291E‐01 4725.00    0.4591E‐02
2225.00    0.1272E‐01 4750.00    0.4558E‐02
2250.00    0.1253E‐01 4775.00    0.4525E‐02
2275.00    0.1234E‐01 4800.00    0.4493E‐02
2300.00    0.1216E‐01 4825.00    0.4461E‐02
2325.00    0.1198E‐01 4850.00    0.4430E‐02
2350.00    0.1181E‐01 4875.00    0.4399E‐02
2375.00    0.1164E‐01 4900.00    0.4368E‐02
2400.00    0.1147E‐01 4925.00    0.4338E‐02
2425.00    0.1131E‐01 4950.00    0.4308E‐02
2450.00    0.1115E‐01 4975.00    0.4278E‐02
2475.00    0.1100E‐01 5000.00    0.4249E‐02
2500.00    0.1085E‐01
39 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1357
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ **********************  AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY  ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3‐hour, 8‐hour, and 24‐hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1‐hour concentration as referenced in

SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA‐454/R‐92‐019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance
MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED 1‐HOUR 3‐HOUR 8‐HOUR 24‐HOUR ANNUAL

CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC
PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ FLAT TERRAIN 0.4820 0.4820 0.4820 0.4820 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 156.99 meters

IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.3725 0.3725 0.3725 0.3725 N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters
40 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1358
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigationand RemediationStrategies
LitigationSupport and Testifying Expert
IndustrialStormwaterCompliance
CEQAReview
Education:

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

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

ProfessionalCertifications:

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

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

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment C
41 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1359
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

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

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
42 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1360
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

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

Hydrogeology:

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

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

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 43 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1361
4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

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

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

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

Policy:

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

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 44 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1362
5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peerreview of scientific documents.

Geology:

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

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

Teaching:

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

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

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

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

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

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

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

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
45 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1363
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
46 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1364
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

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

Unpublished report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 47 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1365
8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.
48 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1366

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

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

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

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

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

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

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.
49 of 60
BLUM -1
Attachment

EXHIBIT
D
1 1367
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022
Professional History:

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

Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.

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

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

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

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

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

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

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

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. 50 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1368
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393. 51 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1369
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

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

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

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

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

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

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

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

Presentations:

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

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

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

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

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

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

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

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

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
52 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1370
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

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

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois. 53 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1371
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. 54 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1372
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

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

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

Teaching Experience:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academic Grants Awarded:

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

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

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

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

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

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. 55 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1373
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

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

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.

Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.

Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
56 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1374
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.

Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
57 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1375
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

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

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

Case No. 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
58 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1376
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
59 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1377
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

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

Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case No. cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

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

Case No. 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009
60 of 60
BLUM -1
EXHIBIT 1
1378
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-95 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Blum, Collins & Ho LLP (BLUM-1)
Response to BLUM-1-1
The commenter includes a request to be added to the notification list for any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for the proposed project. In response, the commenter will be notified.

Response to BLUM-1-2
This comment consists of introductory information and summarizes the proposed project. No response is required.

Response to BLUM-1-3
The Draft IS/MND includes all elements required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15071. The site plans provided in Exhibit 6 show a building footprint, including square footage of the proposed building, warehouse uses, office uses, and the location of doors and loading docks. Exhibit 6 also shows the location of landscaping, parking, setbacks, building width and length, and internal roadway widths.

As discussed in Section 2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft IS/MND, air space review is required for objects greater than 100 feet in height. However, the proposed building would not exceed 60 feet in height as required by the IL zoning district.

Response to BLUM-1-4
“Pre-zoning” was analyzed in the revisions to the zoning code. Annexation and Site Plan Review are listed as Required Discretionary approvals in the project description, on page 5 of the Draft IS/MND.

This Draft IS/MND will be used by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to inform their analysis of potential environmental effects of the proposed project and the annexation.

Response to BLUM-1-5
The commenter states that the MND is deficient in the that it does not discuss the City’s Municipal Services review. CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) states that reviewers commenting on Draft MNDs should focus on potential environmental effects. Accordingly, comments should focus on:
• Identifying the specific effect;
• Explaining why the reviewer believes that the effect would occur; and • Explaining why the effect would be significant. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(b)).

Moreover, the CEQA Guidelines direct commenters to “explain the basis for their comments” by submitting “data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(c)). A lead agency may reject comments that are not focused as recommended in Section 15204(b). See CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(e). This comment does not identify any specific environmental issue or provide any facts in support of a comment regarding the environment and no further discussion is warranted.

Response to BLUM-1-6
The commenter refers to a complete technical commentary and analysis from SWAPE. Responses to the individual comments are provided below.

EXHIBIT 1
1379
Responses to Written Comments City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project 1-96 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1-7
The commenter states that the MND does not include meaningful analysis of relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts. The commenter further states that the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution and ranks in the 99th percentile for overall pollution burden according to CalEnviroScreen 4.0.

The comments are noted and acknowledged. The City does not have any CEQA thresholds of significance related to environmental justice. Additionally, CEQA does not require consideration of environmental justice considerations. Of relevance here, neither the California Air Resources Board (ARB) nor the Valley Air District has recommended significance thresholds be adjusted for environmental justice considerations, and thus neither entity recommends the evaluation of the same as part of the CEQA process. As discussed in more detail in the Air Quality section of the Draft IS/MND, it utilized the currently recommended Valley Air District significance thresholds to determine health risk impacts resulting from the proposed project in accordance with the mandates of CEQA. The MND evaluated potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors through the analysis of cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant emissions and health risks under Impacts AIR-2 and AIR3. The Draft IS/MND acknowledged that the project site is adjacent to the existing sensitive receptors identified by the commenter, and therefore the Draft IS/MND identifies the potential health risk impacts that could occur as a result of project construction and operation and includes feasible mitigation to reduce these impacts.

The commenter listed the public health impacts from exposure to ozone and diesel particulate matter (DPM); these comments are noted. The environmental setting in the Draft IS/MND includes a discussion of the public health impacts from exposure to air pollutants including ozone and diesel PM. No further response is needed.

Response to BLUM-1-8
The commenter states that the census tract is severely impacted in several areas that impact water quality; however, the comment does not specifically address the proposed project or the Draft IS/MND. Analysis of the potential impacts to water quality is provided in Section 2.4, Biological Resources and Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, no impacts to water quality were identified.

Response to BLUM-1-9
The commenter states that the census tract ranks 85th percentile for hazardous waste facility impacts, which contribute to the contamination of air, water and soil and can harm the environment as well as people. As noted in Section 2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Response to BLUM-1-10
The commenter states that the census tract bears more impacts from cleanup sites than 84 percent of the State, and chemicals in the buildings, soil or water at cleanup sites can move into nearby communities through the air or movement of water. As noted in Section 2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to EXHIBIT 1
1380
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-97 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Response to BLUM-1-11
The commenter states that the census tract is a diverse community with a high rate of poverty and is burdened by high levels of pollution. The commenter further states that the community has a high rate of linguistic isolation, and that poverty can cause stress that weakens the immune system.

The comments are noted and acknowledged. This is not a CEQA issue and no further discussion is warranted. As previously stated, CEQA does not require consideration of environmental justice considerations or social issues.

Response to BLUM-1-12
The commenter states that the project census tract and the census tracts adjacent to the project site are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities, and this indicates that cumulative impacts of development and environmental impacts in the area are disproportionately impacting these communities. The commenter further states that the severity of the significant and unavoidable impacts particularly on these disadvantaged communities must be included for analysis in each section of the MND, including cumulative analysis and irreversible environmental effects.

The comments are noted and acknowledged. CEQA does not require consideration of environmental justice considerations. Of relevance here, neither the ARB nor the Valley Air District has recommended significance thresholds be adjusted for environmental justice considerations, and thus neither entity recommends the evaluation of these issues as part of the CEQA process. As discussed in more detail in the Air Quality section of the MND, the analysis utilized the currently recommended Valley Air District significance thresholds to determine health risk impacts resulting from the proposed project in accordance with the mandates of CEQA. The MND evaluated potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors through the analysis of cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant emissions and health risks under Impacts AIR-2 and AIR-3. The MND acknowledged that the project site is nearby existing sensitive receptors, and therefore the MND identifies the potential health risk impacts that could occur as a result of project construction and operation and includes feasible mitigation to reduce these impacts.

Response to BLUM-1-13
The commenter generally asserts that there are three “approved compliance modeling software” (i.e., CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE) for nonresidential buildings and purports that CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. The commenter purports that CalEEMod modeling “does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards” and therefore “under-reports” the proposed project’s significant energy impacts and fuel consumption.

The comment is noted for the record. The commenter does not provide substantial evidence regarding any significant environmental impact that was not evaluated and disclosed in the Draft EIR.

The basis for the commenter’s assertion that CalEEMod is “not approved” is unclear and unsubstantiated. Additionally, the commenter does not identify any project-specific impact that the MND failed to consider and disclose.

EXHIBIT 1
1381
Responses to Written Comments City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project 1-98 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Use of CalEEMod for purposes of modeling potential air quality and related health risk assessments is appropriate. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform to calculate construction and operational emissions from land use development projects. CalEEMod was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in collaboration with the California Air Districts. The model is a comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality impacts from land use projects located throughout California and can be used for a variety of situations where an air quality analysis is necessary, such as preparing CEQA or National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, conducting pre-project planning, and verifying compliance with local air quality rules and regulations. CalEEMod was updated in 2022 and includes the gas and electric utility emissions factors pursuant to the location of the proposed project, as well as building energy zones. The 2022 CalEEMod update generates default electricity and natural gas consumption that consider Title 24 standards.

CBECC software is approved specifically for Title 24 compliance; however, it is used to confirm that a final building design (with detailed information included in its construction drawings) is Title 24 compliant. The final designs and construction drawings are not available for the proposed project and are not typically prepared until after a proposed development project is approved/entitled.

Accordingly, the Draft IS/MND and underlying technical studies correctly use CalEEMod to estimate energy demand based on average intensity factors for similar land use types. Since the occupants of the proposed project’s buildings are unknown at this time, and information about the future building users’ energy use is also not available at this time, it is appropriate to rely upon the CalEEMod default assumptions which have been derived by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. There is no requirement in CEQA or the City’s thresholds of significance to show specific compliance with 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards based on conceptual building designs that are proposed at the entitlement stage of a project’s approval process. This will be a requirement pursuant to State law prior to issuance of each building permit and verified by the City’s Building and Safety Department. No further response is needed.

Response to BLUM-14
The commenter questions the calculation of building occupancy as well as square footage of open space. As stated in Section 2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Zone 7a allows for a maximum nonresidential density of 450 persons per acre. Given the 11.7-acre size of the property, that would allow for over 5,000 employees/occupants.

The calculation provided in the Draft IS/MND is based on the California Building Standards Code (CBC) occupancy level of 500 square feet/occupant for the 179,166 square feet of warehouse space (358 occupants) and 100 square feet per occupant for the 5,000 square feet of office use (50 occupants), for a total of 408 occupants. Although this calculation is slightly higher than the 391 reported in the Draft IS/MND, it is still well within the more than 5,000 allowed by the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The proposed project would provide 131,850 square feet of open space, which equates to 25.8 percent, which would exceed the 10 percent requirement of the ALUCP.

EXHIBIT 1
1382
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-99 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1-15
The City and applicant have consulted with the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) throughout the CEQA process, as required by Section 3.1.6.1 of the ALUCP. The ALUC did not submit a comment letter on the Draft IS/MND.

Response to BLUM-1-16
The comment is noted. The proposed project does require an amendment to the City’s land use map to incorporate the proposed project into the city limits.

Response to BLUM-1-17
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-15 above.

Response to BLUM-1-18
The proposed project is following the City’s typical process for design review concurrent with CEQA review and prior to issuance of a building permit, based upon City Municipal Code requirements and Citywide Design Guidelines which are incorporated into the Draft IS/MND by reference.

Response to BLUM-1-19
The Draft IS/MND considers General Plan policy consistency and reflects the City’s independent judgment that the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan. A finding of consistency does not require strict consistency, or perfect consistency, with every policy or with all aspects of a plan. Courts have consistently recognized that a lead agency has the discretion to find consistency even if a project does not adhere to every policy or regulation. (See Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Association v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719).

Response to BLUM-1-20
The comment does not identify a potential significant impact or provide any data or facts regarding a potential significant impact as directed by CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(b)-(c). See Response to BLUM-1-6. There is no provision in the Public Resources Code or the CEQA Guidelines requiring the inclusion of a City Services Plan in a MND or an EIR. Additionally, there is no requirement to include a fiscal impact analysis. This principle is reflected in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15382, which provide that economic and social changes may not be treated as significant effects on the environment. The Draft IS/MND thoroughly evaluates potential impacts on the physical environment Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, a proposed negative declaration must include the following information:
• A brief description of the project, including any commonly used name; • The project’s location, preferably shown on a map;
• The name of the project proponent;
• A proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; • An attached copy of the initial study documenting the reasons for the agency’s finding; and • Any mitigation measures included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects.

Here, the Draft IS/MND includes all of the required elements.

EXHIBIT 1
1383
Responses to Written Comments City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project 1-100 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1-21
Neither CEQA nor this project requires the preparation of a Municipal Services Review (MSR).

Additionally, the comment fails to identify any specific impacts to the physical environment related to public services associated with the proposed project. The proposed project will comply with Municipal Code Section 16-17.260, which requires the project applicant to pay a public facilities fee.

As explained in the Draft IS/MND, payment of these fees would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.

Response to BLUM-1-22
CEQA does not require consideration of environmental justice considerations. As noted by the comment, preparation of a MSR is conducted by LAFCo and is not indicative of any potentially significant impact. The proposed project will comply with Municipal Code Section 16-17.260, which requires the project applicant to pay a public facilities fee. As explained in the Draft IS/MND, payment of these fees would ensure that impacts related to public services would be less than significant. Additionally, the City continues to work with LAFCo on the completion of the MSR to ensure that provision of public services is maintained at appropriate levels to support forecasted growth within the MSR time horizon.

Response to BLUM-1-23
Cumulative impacts are discussed throughout the Draft IS/MND. See, e.g., Section 2.20, Mandatory Findings of Significance. The comment does not include any facts or data that the proposed project would result in cumulative impacts.

Response to BLUM-1-24
The Draft IS/MND notes that upward of 400 jobs may be generated by the proposed project, and it is reasonable to assume that employees would be drawn from the local and surrounding area.

Unemployment in this area is 6.3 percent as of November 2024.

Response to BLUM-1-25
Unemployment in the Stockton-Lodi Metropolitan Statistical Area is 6.3 percent as of November 2024.

Response to BLUM-1-26
The Draft IS/MND included a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis and also includes a robust mitigation measure outlining the requirements for a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to further reduce VMT. Based on California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) research, the analysis found that the location of the project site is within an area that is in close proximity to the airport, Downtown Stockton, and the Port of Stockton, in combination with the other industrial centers in the vicinity, could reduce VMT by approximately 13 percent. The total anticipated VMT reduction from this and the other TDM strategies would be 38 percent, as shown in Table 13.

Response to BLUM-1-27
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-26.

EXHIBIT 1
1384
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-101 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1-28
The commenter provides an alternate employment generation rate based on US Energy Administration data. The employment cited in the Draft IS/MND is more conservative (i.e., higher).

To provide a more robust analysis, the City has chosen to use the employment generation rate provided in the Draft IS/MND as a more accurate representation.

Response to BLUM-1-29
As noted in Response to BLUM-1-24 and BLUM-1-25, the proposed project is expected to be served with workers from the Stockton-Lodi area, which has a current unemployment rate of 6.3 percent.

Response to BLUM-1-30
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-24 and BLUM-1-25.

Response to BLUM-1-31
The Draft IS/MND includes a discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 2.20, Mandatory Findings of Significance.

Response to BLUM-1-32
The VMT analysis in the Draft IS/MND is based upon standard methodologies for calculating impacts as well as the effect of TDM mitigation.

Response to BLUM-1-33
The VMT analysis in the Draft IS/MND is based upon standard methodologies for calculating impacts as well as the effect of TDM mitigation. The strategies incorporated in MM TRANS-1 are used throughout the State to achieve reductions in VMT.

Response to BLUM-1-34
The strategies incorporated in MM TRANS-1 are used throughout the State to achieve reductions in VMT and have been successfully employed in other projects. The City is committed to enforcing the measures to achieve the VMT reduction, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) lists actions that will be taken to ensure success.

Response to BLUM-1-35
The VMT analysis in the Draft IS/MND is based upon standard methodologies for calculating impacts as well as the effect of TDM mitigation. VMT analyses are required to include an evaluation of passenger cars, not truck trips. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a) states “For the purpose of this section, “vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” Here, the term “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks, as stated in December 2018 Guidance from the Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA; commercial vehicle VMT is excluded.

Response to BLUM-1-36
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-35.

EXHIBIT 1
1385
Responses to Written Comments City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project 1-102 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1-37
An updated Traffic Impact Study has been submitted to the City, which includes specific exhibits and reflects a trip generation rate of 486 daily trips. The updated trip generation does not affect the conclusions of the analysis or significance determination.

Response to BLUM-1-38
The deceleration lane is recommended; it is not required for safety. However, the current site plan can accommodate a minimum of 235 feet for a left-turn/deceleration lane for northbound traffic.

Should the City elect to impose a condition requiring creation of such a lane, it could be accomplished through striping in coordination with site development and frontage improvements along the existing right-of-way.

Response to BLUM-1-39
An updated Traffic Impact Study has been submitted to the City, which includes exhibits showing turning radius for ingress and egress via the northern driveway. The southern driveway would be restricted to egress only, and would be further restricted to right-turn egress. The City has reviewed the proposed site plan and did not identify any safety hazard concerns.

Response to BLUM-1-40
See responses to BLUM-1-32 through BLUM-1-39.

Response to BLUM-1-41
The City coordinated review by the fire department, and no concern with circulation or safety was identified.

Response to BLUM-1-42
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-41.

Response to BLUM-1-43
The Draft IS/MND includes a discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 2.20, Mandatory Findings of Significance. CEQA does not require a MSR and the comment does not identify any potentially significant impacts related to public services. Note, also, that under CEQA’s definition of environmental impacts, an increase in demands on public facilities, public services, and utilities that may result from a project, are not environmental impacts that must be evaluated. (City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 943). The City continues to work with LAFCo on the completion of the MSR to ensure that provision of public services is maintained at appropriate levels to support forecasted growth within the MSR time horizon.

Response to BLUM-1-44
The Draft IS/MND includes a discussion of public services in Section 2.15. As summarized therein, the City would be able to accommodate the proposed project and maintain the provision of all public services.

Response to BLUM-1-45
CEQA does not require consideration of environmental justice considerations. The conclusions of the Draft IS/MND confirm that the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to any local community or the public at large.

EXHIBIT 1
1386
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-103 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1-46
The conclusions of the Draft IS/MND confirm that the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to any local community or the public at large. The City continues to work with LAFCo on the completion of the MSR to ensure that provision of public services is maintained at appropriate levels to support forecasted growth within the MSR time horizon.

Response to BLUM-1-47
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-46.

Response to BLUM-1-48
The Draft IS/MND includes a discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 2.20, Mandatory Findings of Significance. The conclusions of the Draft IS/MND confirm that the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to any local community or the public at large. CEQA does not require a MSR and the comment does not identify any potentially significant impacts related to public services. Note, also, that under CEQA’s definition of environmental impacts, an increase in demands on public facilities, public services, and utilities that may result from a project, are not environmental impacts that must be evaluated. (City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 943). Additionally, the City continues to work with LAFCo on the completion of the MSR to ensure that provision of public services is maintained at appropriate levels to support forecasted growth within the MSR time horizon.

Response to BLUM-1-49
The conclusions of the Draft IS/MND confirm that the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to any local community or the public at large. The City continues to work with LAFCo on the completion of the MSR to ensure that provision of public services is maintained at appropriate levels to support forecasted growth within the MSR time horizon.

Response to BLUM-1-50
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-49.

Response to BLUM-1-51
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-48.

Response to BLUM-1-52
The employment cited in the Draft IS/MND is conservative and presents the number of employees anticipated during construction and operation. The Draft IS/MND notes that upward of 400 jobs may be generated by the proposed project, and it is reasonable to assume that employees would be drawn from the local and surrounding area. Unemployment in this area is 6.3 percent as of November 2024.

Response to BLUM-1-53
The Draft IS/MND includes a discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 2.20, Mandatory Findings of Significance. The conclusions of the Draft IS/MND confirm that the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to any local community or the public at large. CEQA does not require preparation of a MSR. The comment does not provide any data or facts demonstrating that the proposed project would have any potentially significant impacts related to public services.

EXHIBIT 1
1387
Responses to Written Comments City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project 1-104 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1-54
The commenter provides concluding statements related to the foregoing comments. Please refer to Response to BLUM-1-1 through BLUM-1-53.

Response to BLUM-1-55
The City has added Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance to the list of parties requesting notice regarding this project. No further response is required.

SWAPE Technical Memorandum Attachment
Response to BLUM-1-56
The comment summarizes project information. No response is required.

Response to BLUM-1-57
Refer to Responses to BLUM-1-58 through BLUM-1-111.

Response to BLUM-1-58
The commenter states that land use development projects under CEQA typically evaluate air quality impacts and calculate potential criteria air pollutant emissions using CalEEMod. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information; if more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values an input project-specific values, those changes should be noted and substantiated and disclosed to the reader.

The comment is noted and no further response is necessary.

Response to BLUM-1-59
The commenter states that review of the proposed project’s CalEEMod output files reveals that the files are incomplete, and are missing a table under CalEEMod Section 7.6 Health & Equity Custom Measures. The commenter further states that without access to the “User Changes to Default Data,” verification of the model’s default values is not possible.

The City disagrees. The CalEEMod output files are contained in the Draft IS/MND. The notes regarding project-specific data used in the CalEEMod modeling are shown as Page 1 of the Appendix A of the Air Quality report. The Air Quality report is included as Appendix A of the Draft IS/MND.

Therefore, the analysis properly disclosed project-specific data used to override CalEEMod default assumptions. No further response is needed.

Response to BLUM-1-60
The commenter states that without access to the “User Changes to Default Data,” they are unable to verify where the changes were made to the model’s default values, and as a result an EIR should be prepared to include an updated, verifiable air quality analysis that correctly provides the complete output files.

As stated in Response to BLUM-1-59, the complete CalEEMod output files are contained in the Draft IS/MND. As shown in the screenshot presented by the commenter in BLUM-1-59, under the header in CalEEMod Section 7.6 Health & Equity Custom Measures is the text: No Health & Equity Custom Measures created. No default values were changed under this section of CalEEMod, and there is no associated table. No further response is needed.

EXHIBIT 1
1388
City of Stockton—South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 1-105 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5576/55760004/ISMND/Final ISMND/55760004 Sec01-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to BLUM-1-61
The commenter states development of the proposed project may contribute to the disproportionate health risk impacts warehouses pose on community members living, working, and going to school within the immediate area of the project site.

The commenter did not substantiate or provide analysis or evidence to support the assertions that the proposed project may contribute to the disproportionate health risk impacts within the immediate area of the project site. No further response is needed.

Response to BLUM-1-62
The commenter references three studies which pertain to warehouse development and the associated traffic-related air pollutants.