154356953.1
April 21, 2025
Town of Apple Valley
Town Council
14955 Dale Evans Parkway
Apple Valley, CA 92307
Re: Response to Comment Letter Regarding General Plan Amendment 2023-002, Development Permit 2022-014 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 20625 by Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance Town Council:
The purpose of this letter is to provide responses to the issues raised by Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (“GSEJA”) in its comment letter dated April 21, 2025, to the Town of Apple Valley Town Council regarding the Council’s April 22, 2025, consideration of the Inland Empire North Logistics Center – Apple Valley Warehouse Project (“Project”).
Based on our review we conclude GSEJA has not raised any new or significant issues beyond those previously submitted through its November 11, 2024, comment letter to the Project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). Each of these issues was responded to in detail within the Project’s Final EIR which will be considered by the Town Council during its April 22, 2025, public hearing. The responses demonstrate that the Project EIR fully complied with the statutes and accompanying guidelines that comprise the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
GSEJA once again asserts the accuracy of the Project’s Draft EIR health risk analysis cannot be verified because (1) the Draft EIR does not disclose the exposure assumptions for the analysis, and (2) the Draft EIR does not include a dose and risk equation to calculate the Project’s construction cancer risks. the HRA’s specific exposure assumptions, such as ASF and FAH values, and the dose and risk equation used to calculate construction-related cancer risk, remain undisclosed. GSEJA maintains that the Project’s Draft EIR should have provided these values and that the exclusion of this information undermines the Town’s and public's ability to review and assess methodology used to determine the Project’s potential environmental impacts. GSEJA mistakenly assumes that simply because they cannot verify the exposure assumptions or dose and risk equation information, that must mean that the Project’s potential risks cannot be valid. That assumption is baseless.
As addressed in the Project’s Final EIR (see page 3-31) the term “substantial evidence” as applied to comments on environmental impact reports has been defined in case law as evidence that is “of ponderable legal significance, reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.” Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144. CEQA includes guidance of what is and is not considered “substantial evidence” in California Public Resources Code Section 21082.2(c), which provides:
Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment, is not TO: TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER REGARDING GPA 2023-002, DP 2022-014 AND TPM NO. 20625 BY
GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE
154356953.1 2
substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.
GSEJA asserts the Project’s Draft EIR fails to provide exposure assumptions and dose and risk equations, which should have been based on the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance. However GSEJA fails to note that OEHHA guidance and equations actually were used as the basis of the Project’s health risk estimates (OEHHA 2015)(see Final EIR page 3-31.) As described in the Project’s Draft EIR (pages. 4.2-26 – 4.2-28), the construction and operational HRA health risk calculations were performed using the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP2) Air Dispersion and Risk Tool (ADMRT, Version 22118). Of import, the risk analysis algorithms and default values used in HARP2 are based on the OEHHA guidelines (OEHHA 2015), including age sensitivity factors and fraction of time at home parameters, and assumptions and results of the modeling were included in Appendix B-2 of the Project’s Draft EIR.
Furthermore, the Project’s Draft EIR (pages 4.2-26 to 4.2-28) provides the exposure parameters used in the analysis for the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR): for residential receptors during Project construction and operation, toxic air contaminant (TAC) exposure was assumed to begin in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy (assumed to be the worst-case scenario for cancer risk) for a duration of 21 months (construction) and 30 years (operations).
OEHHA describes cancer risk evaluations for 9-, 30-, and 70-year exposure durations in the 2015 Risk Assessment Guidelines Manual and identifies that the 9- and 30-year durations correspond to the average and high-end of residency time recommended by the EPA, with the 30-year exposure duration recommended for use as the basis for estimating cancer risk at the MEIR in all HRAs (OEHHA 2015). Therefore, the Project’s Draft and Final EIR adequately evaluates and discloses the Project’s potential health risk, and no revision to or recirculation of the Project’s EIR is necessary.
Specifically with regard to GSEJA’s claims regarding pollution exposures within Census Tract 6071012101 which were reiterated in its April 21, 2025, comment letter, these claims were fully discussed and addressed in the Project’s Final EIR through Response to Comment 08-6 (page 3-18 to 3-19.) Importantly, there is no affirmative requirement under CEQA to consider issues of environmental justice. Moreover, neither the Town, the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, nor the CEQA Guidelines include thresholds that consider environmental justice such as the CalEnviroScreen results, but rather account for the potential health effects of a project with project-level thresholds. As such, there is currently no air quality guidance or thresholds to analyze areas with higher pollution burden differently from areas with lower pollution burden. While CalEnviroScreen is a useful tool in assessing a community’s risk, it is not an appropriate tool for evaluating a project’s impact on the environment as required under CEQA. The appropriate tools for evaluating a project’s impact on the environment in these areas are a project-specific air quality emissions impact analysis and a construction and operation health risk assessment. Both of these analyses were prepared for the Project and incorporated into the EIR (as described in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR). As discussed in the Draft EIR, the Project would result in exceedances of NOx and PM10 thresholds after implementation of feasible mitigation and therefore, the potential health effects associated with these criteria air pollutants are conservatively considered significant and unavoidable as described in the Draft EIR (pages 4.2-32 to 4.2-40.) The Project’s incremental increase in potential cancer and non-cancer health risk impacts with regard to sensitive receptors1 in the vicinity of the Project and haul routes was determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1 The closest sensitive receptor to the Project is approximately 3,910 feet away from the site. This is the equivalent of ¾ of a mile.
TO: TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER REGARDING GPA 2023-002, DP 2022-014 AND TPM NO. 20625 BY
GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE
154356953.1 3
GSEJA also demands the Town adopt a net-zero goal for GHG emissions for this Project. That demand is neither warranted nor feasible for the Project. As discussed in the Project’s FEIR response 06-2 (pages 3-9 to 3-10) The Town rejects the comment’s suggestion to apply a net-zero threshold for this Project because it finds that its use of SCAQMD’s threshold is appropriate and supported by substantial evidence. While application of a net-zero threshold may be appropriate for residential projects, it is not appropriate to apply such a threshold to warehouse projects where the vast majority of operational GHG emissions result from mobile-source emissions, as discussed in more detail below. The Town finds it is not currently feasible to entirely mitigate the Project’s mobile-source GHG emissions due to current jurisdictional and technological constraints. Nonetheless, the Town will impose Projectspecific conditions of approval and require all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to the maximum extent practicable and anticipates that the Project’s GHG emissions will reduce over time as more stringent regulations come into effect and technology improves and becomes more widespread. Specifically, mitigation measure MM-AQ-1 requires the inclusion of additional electrical infrastructure (conduits, upsized electric room, construct roof to support maximum solar coverages, etc.) for future electrical upgrades to ensure the Project is able to support future technological and regulatory requirements.
With regards to the residential projects referenced by the comment (Newhall Ranch and Tejon Ranch Projects) the 2022 California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan notes that “. . . the Newhall and Tejon Ranch projects do not necessarily represent the type of development that California most needs to simultaneously tackle the housing and climate crises . . .”. Further, the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan and the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan both caution against using net-zero targets for all projects. According to the 2017 Scoping Plan (CARB 2017):
“Achieving net zero increases in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, may not be feasible or appropriate for every project, however, and the inability of a project to mitigate its GHG emissions to net zero does not imply the project results in a substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmental impact of climate change under CEQA.”
The 2022 Scoping Plan also notes that jurisdictions considering a net-zero target should carefully consider the implications it may have on emissions in neighboring communities and beyond. Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan states (CARB 2022):
“Jurisdictions should also avoid creating targets that are impossible to meet as a basis to determine significance. For example, a net-zero target may imply that the GHG emissions of any project that are not reduced or offset to zero would be considered potentially significant. This may lead to undue burdens and frustrate project approval processes, which may be particularly problematic for residential development in climate-smart, infill areas. In addition, some jurisdictions have more land capacity to remove and store carbon, while others host GHG-emitting facilities that serve necessary functions and will take time to transition to new technology.”
For these reasons, along with others, net-zero is not legally required and is not technologically or financially feasible for this Project given supply and technical constraints.
With regard to the assertion that Senate Bill (“SB”) 1000 requires the Town of Apple Valley to integrate environmental justice elements into its long-term general plan for the physical development of the Town. Individual development projects are not subject to the requirements of SB 1000. The Town, in designating land near TO: TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER REGARDING GPA 2023-002, DP 2022-014 AND TPM NO. 20625 BY
GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE
154356953.1 4
Interstate-15 for e-commerce and warehouse uses, has considered the requirements of SB 1000 by ensuring that new industrial uses are located away from residential land uses and other sensitive receivers. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project is approximately ¾ of a mile from the Project site. Further, the Town has designated Truck Routes that largely avoid residential and commercial areas and truck trips for the Project would primarily utilize the existing freeway interchange at Interstate-15 and Stoddard Wells Road.
Other considerations, such as socioeconomic issues, education or poverty are not environmental issues and are therefore not within the purview of CEQA. However, it must be noted that the Project would generate approximately 2,179 jobs providing both a socioeconomic benefit to the Town and improving the Town’s jobs and housing balance.
In conclusion, it is our position that GSEJA’s claims have no merit, have previously been acknowledged and addressed in the Project’s Final EIR and associated responses to comments. GSEJA has not raised any new or significant issues that would trigger either revision or recirculation of the Project’s EIR. For the foregoing reasons, the Town Council should certify the Project EIR and approve the General Plan Amendment, Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map as requested.
Sincerely,
Cindi Hoover, AICP Nicholas Lorenzen
CEQA/NEPA Project Manager Air Resources Specialist