Desert Hot Springs City Council
May 2, 2023

City of Desert Hot Springs

ACTION MINUTES
City Council Meeting
6:00 PM - Tuesday, May 2, 2023
Council Chambers
CLOSED SESSION - 4:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Matas called the Closed Session to order at 4:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL

Present:

Council Members: Russell Betts, Gary Gardner, Jan Pye
Mayor Pro Tem: Roger Nuñez
Mayor: Scott Matas

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

Jennifer Mizrahi, City Attorney, announced the Closed Session Items.

CLOSED SESSION:

1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8:

Property: 13700 Palm Drive, Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 (APN 641-294-042); and 17825 Indian Avenue, Palm Springs, CA 92258 (APNs 666-150-003, 666- 150-007, and 666-150-008)
Agency Negotiator: Doria Wilms, Interim City Manager
Jennifer Mizrahi, City Attorney
Negotiating Parties: Doria Wilms, Interim City Manager
Jennifer Mizrahi, City Attorney
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms

2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8:

Property: APN 641-262-010
Agency Negotiator: Doria Wilms, Interim City Manager
Jennifer Mizrahi, City Attorney

City Council
May 2, 2023
Lynn F. Coker, Broker
Negotiating Parties: Nancy Portolesi
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms

3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8:

Property: APN 642-081-003 and 004
Agency Negotiator: Doria Wilms, Interim City Manager
Jennifer Mizrahi, City Attorney
Negotiating Parties: Howard Koenig
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms

4. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8:

Property: APNs 642-150-003 and 642-150-018
Agency Negotiator: Doria Wilms, Interim City Manager
Jennifer Mizrahi, City Attorney
Negotiating Parties: Buena Vista Development
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms

5. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8:

Property: APN 642-281-008
Agency Negotiator: Doria Wilms, Interim City Manager
Jennifer Mizrahi, City Attorney
Negotiating Parties: Talat Radwan
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms

6. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION
(Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9)
Name of case: (In Re: 66220 1st Street Desert Hot Springs, California 92260; Riverside Superior Court Case Number CVRI2204747)

7. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
(Government Code Section 54957.6)
Unrepresented employee: City Manager
PRESENTATIONS - 5:30 P.M.

City Employee Years of Service Recognition
Clyde Thomas, Human Resources Manager, presented 15-year, 10-year, and 5-year service recognitions to:

City Council
May 2, 2023
Glenn White, Program and Financial Specialist; Caleb Leyva, Maintenance Technician; James Bradley, Crossing Guard; Doria Wilms, Interim City Manager; Daniel McVey, Deputy City Clerk; Jason Kupka, Detective; Lynne Paul, Management Analyst; Christina Newsom, Compliance Director; Roberta Crncic, Recreation and Community Services Director; Floylaina Smith, Police Records Specialist; Melissa Purcell, Administrative Assistant; Tiyler Messer, Code Compliance Officer; Emily Granados, Administrative Assistant; Kathlyn Palmer, Administrative Assistant; Jason Jimenez, Sergeant; Christopher James, Detective; Craig Barnes, IT Technician; Klarrisa Vera, Dispatcher; and Patricia Villagomez, Principal Planner.

Special Recognition Presented to City Employee
Doria Wilms, Interim City Manager, presented a Certificate of Recognition to Vivian Rivera, Counter/Permit Technician, for her involvement in the Art in Public Places Program and going above and beyond her duties REGULAR SESSION - 6:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Matas called the Regular Session to order at 6:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL

Present:

Council Members: Russell Betts, Gary Gardner, Jan Pye
Mayor Pro Tem: Roger Nuñez
Mayor: Scott Matas

INVOCATION
Candess Tarrant gave the Invocation.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Betts led the Pledge of Allegiance.

CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
Jennifer Mizrahi, City Attorney, advised that the City Council voted 5-0 under Closed Session Item No. 2 to enter into a Purchase and Sale Agreement for APN 641-262- 010.

City Council
May 2, 2023

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
ACTION: Approve the May 2, 2023 Regular Meeting agenda, withdrawing Item 9; and approve the Consent Calendar in its entirety.

Moved by Council Member Betts
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Nuñez
Carried 5-0 by the following votes:

AYES: Betts, Gardner, Pye, Nuñez, and Matas

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Tom Moen suggested a statue of Cabot Yerxa at Highway 62 and Pierson Boulevard.

Barbara Valadez expressed concern regarding an illegally parked recreation vehicle.

Juliana Dawson announced the Elks Lodge Golf Tournament event and requested sponsorship.

CITY MANAGER REPORT
Geoffrey Buchheim, Administrative Services Director, provided a financial update.

Nicholas Haecker, Public Works Director, provided an update regarding various Public Works projects.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Councilmember Pye reported on the various meetings and events she attended.

Mayor Pro Tem Nuñez reported on the various meetings and events he attended.

Councilmember Betts reported on the various meetings and events he attended.

Councilmember Gardner reported on the various meetings and events he attended.

Mayor Matas reported on the various meetings and events he attended.

Item 12 was considered at this time.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

8. An Ordinance Amending Cannabis Storefront Retail Business Hours Recommendation:
1) Staff Report;
2) Entertain questions of Staff from the City Council;

City Council
May 2, 2023
3) Open the Public Hearing;
4) Take public testimony from those in favor;
5) Take public testimony from those opposed;
6) Take public testimony of those in a neutral position; 7) Close the Public Hearing;
8) City Council discussion and questions to Staff; and
9) Introduce for First Reading and read by title only: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Desert Hot Springs, amending Section 5.50.080 “General Operating Requirements” of Chapter 5.50 “Cannabis Businesses” of Title 5 “Business Licenses and Regulations” and amending Sections 17.180.040 (“Marijuana Storefront Retail Facilities”), 17.180.045 (“Marijuana Non-Storefront Retail Facilities”) of Chapter 17.180 (“Marijuana Facilities Operation and Location”) of Title 17 (“Zoning”) of the Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code in order to update regulations for hours of operation.”
Staff Report - SR-23-093 - Pdf
Christina Newsom, Compliance Director, presented the staff report and responded to questions.

Mayor Matas opened the Public Hearing.

There was no public testimony.

Mayor Matas closed the Public Hearing.

ACTION: Approve Staff recommendation.

Moved by Council Member Betts
Seconded by Council Member Gardner
Carried 5-0 by the following votes:

AYES: Betts, Gardner, Pye, Nuñez, and Matas

9. An Appeal (APP 23-1) of the Planning Commission Decision to Approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Development Permit No. 22-4, An Application to Develop a 60,000 Square Foot Warehouse Facility Recommendation:
1) Staff Report
2) Entertain questions of Staff from the City Council;
3) Open the Public Hearing;
4) Take testimony from Appellant (SAFER);
5) Take testimony for those in favor of Appeal (reversal of Planning Commission’s decision);
6) Take testimony from those in opposition of Appeal (upholding Planning Commission’s decision);
7) Take testimony from those in a neutral position;
8) Opportunity for Appellant’s rebuttal;

City Council
May 2, 2023
9) Close the Public Hearing
10) City Council discussion and questions to Staff; and 11) City Council may adopt (with amendments if desired) one of the following:

A) A Resolution to Uphold and Affirming the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the following 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration and 2) Development Permit No. 22-4 to develop a 60,000 sq. ft. warehouse facility, thereby approving the Project; OR
B) A Resolution to Overturn Planning Commission’s decision to approve 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration and 2) Development Permit No. 22-4 to develop an 60,000 sq. ft. warehouse facility, thereby denying the Project; OR
C) Provide other direction as City Council deems fit.

Staff Report - SR-23-105 - Pdf
This item was withdrawn from the agenda. No action was taken.

ADMINISTRATIVE CALENDAR:

10. Professional Services Agreement With Bob Murray and Associates Recommendation:

Take any action that the City Council deems fit related to entering into the Professional Services Agreement with Bob Murray and Associates for recruitment of a City Manager.

Staff Report - SR-23-102 - Pdf
Mayor Matas presented the report. A discussion ensued.

ACTION: Approve the Professional Services Agreement with Bob Murray and Associates.

Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Nuñez
Seconded by Council Member Betts
Carried 5-0 by the following votes:

AYES: Betts, Gardner, Pye, Nuñez, and Matas

11. Resolution of Intention for Placing Desert Valley Disposal Annual Billings for Services of Residential Properties on the County Tax Rolls, Fiscal Year 2023-24
Recommendation:
1) Adopt a Resolution of the City Council Declaring the Intention to Levy Annual Billing for Desert Valley Disposal Inc., Solid Waste Refuse Services for Residential Properties on the County Tax Roll for the Fiscal Year 2023-24; 2) Approving the Attachment F Rate Schedule for July 1, 2023, Rate Year; and 3) Setting a Time and Place for the Public Hearing.

Staff Report - SR-23-096 - Pdf

City Council
May 2, 2023
Geoffrey Buchheim, Administrative Services Director, presented the staff report and responded to questions.

ACTION: Approve Staff recommendation and adopt Resolution No. 2023-015.

Moved by Council Member Pye
Seconded by Council Member Gardner
Carried 5-0 by the following votes:

AYES: Betts, Gardner, Pye, Nuñez, and Matas

12. Increase Budget Appropriations for Property Abatements Recommendation:
1) Increase budget appropriations in the Public Safety Fund by $1,849,387 to cover the cost of property abatements; and
2) Authorize use of General Fund fund balance to transfer $1,849,387 to the Public Safety Fund to cover the increased budget appropriations.

Staff Report - SR-23-104 - Pdf
Item 12 was considered prior to Item 8.

Christina Newsom, Compliance Director, presented the staff report and responded to questions.

A discussion ensued.

ACTION: Approve Staff recommendation.

Moved by Council Member Betts
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Nuñez
Carried 5-0 by the following votes:

AYES: Betts, Gardner, Pye, Nuñez, and Matas

13. Proposed Revisions to Section 13.1 of the "City Council and Commissions Meeting Guidelines and Procedures"
Recommendation:

That the City Council take any action as it deems fit related to the Council Policies, as amended in Section 13.1.

Staff Report - SR-23-099 - Pdf
Councilmember Gardner presented the report and responded to questions.

A discussion ensued.

Cheryl Nardel suggested a buddy system to avoid empty seats at events.

City Council
May 2, 2023
ACTION: Approve the revisions to Section 13.1.

Moved by Council Member Gardner
Seconded by Council Member Pye
Carried 4-1 by the following votes:

AYES: Gardner, Pye, Nuñez, and Matas
NOES: Betts

14. City Council Meeting Schedule for Summer/Winter 2023 Recommendation:

Approve the proposed City Council Meeting Schedule for Summer/Winter 2023.

Staff Report - SR-23-095 - Pdf
Jerryl Soriano, City Clerk, presented the staff report.

ACTION: Approve Staff recommendation.

Moved by Council Member Gardner
Seconded by Council Member Betts
Carried 5-0 by the following votes:

AYES: Betts, Gardner, Pye, Nuñez, and Matas

15. County Service Area 152 (CSA 152) Budget and Proposed Assessment For Fiscal Year 2022-23 Assessment For Fiscal Years 2023-24, 2024-25, and 2025-26
Recommendation:
1) Review the budget and assessment for County Service Area 152; and 2) Adopt a Resolution of the City Council making its findings and establishing the rates for County Service Area 152 to fund the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.

Staff Report - SR-23-098 - Pdf
Jilleen Ferris, City Engineer, presented the staff report.

ACTION: Approve Staff recommendation and adopt Resolution No. 2023-016.

Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Nuñez
Seconded by Council Member Gardner
Carried 5-0 by the following votes:

AYES: Betts, Gardner, Pye, Nuñez, and Matas

16. Resolution Listing Projects to be Funded by Senate Bill 1 for Fiscal Year 2023-2024

City Council
May 2, 2023
Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council listing projects to be funded in Fiscal Year 2023-2024 by Senate Bill 1 (SB1)– Road Maintenance Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) Funds with an estimated amount of $1,390,973.

Staff Report - SR-23-100 - Pdf
Jilleen Ferris, City Engineer, presented the staff report and responded to questions.

ACTION: Approve Staff recommendation and adopt Resolution No. 2023-017.

Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Nuñez
Seconded by Council Member Betts
Carried 5-0 by the following votes:

AYES: Betts, Gardner, Pye, Nuñez, and Matas
CONSENT CALENDAR:

17. City Council Special Meeting (Closed Session) Minutes: April 17, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes: April 18, 2023
Staff Report - SR-23-106 - Pdf
ACTION: Approve the Minutes as presented.

18. Second Reading and Adoption of Temporary Cannabis Cultivation Tax Reduction Ordinance
Staff Report - SR-23-097 - Pdf
ACTION: Approve Second Reading, read by title only and adopt Ordinance 778:
"An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Desert Hot Springs, California, amending Chapters 3.33 (titled “Marijuana Cultivation Tax”) and 3.35 (titled “Medical Marijuana Cultivation Tax”) to amended sections 3.33.005 (titled “Imposition of Tax”) and 3.35.005 (titled “Imposition of Tax”) to lower recreational and medical cultivation taxes of the Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code (“DHSMC”) during the temporary term of January 1, 2023, to June 30, 2023."

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

ADJOURN
Mayor Matas adjourned the meeting at 7:13 P.M.

City Council
May 2, 2023
Jerryl Soriano, CMC, City Clerk

SR-23-093
City of Desert Hot Springs
City Council

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
To: City Council
Date: May 2, 2023
Department: Code & Cannabis Compliance
Prepared by: Christina Newsom, Compliance Director
Subject: An Ordinance Amending Cannabis Storefront Retail Business Hours RECOMMENDATION:
1) Staff Report;
2) Entertain questions of Staff from the City Council;
3) Open the Public Hearing;
4) Take public testimony from those in favor;
5) Take public testimony from those opposed;
6) Take public testimony of those in a neutral position; 7) Close the Public Hearing;
8) City Council discussion and questions to Staff; and
9) Introduce for First Reading and read by title only: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Desert Hot Springs, amending Section 5.50.080 “General Operating Requirements” of Chapter 5.50 “Cannabis Businesses” of Title 5 “Business Licenses and Regulations” and amending Sections

17.180.040 (“Marijuana Storefront Retail Facilities”), 17.180.045 (“Marijuana Non-Storefront Retail Facilities”) of Chapter 17.180 (“Marijuana Facilities Operation and Location”) of Title 17 (“Zoning”) of the Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code in order to update regulations for hours of operation.” BACKGROUND:

Chapter 5.50 of the Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code (“DHSMC”) provides the regulatory framework for the operation of cannabis facilities, including the hours of operation.

Section 5.50.080(L) of the DHSMC currently limits the hours of operation of storefront retail cannabis facilities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.

Section 17.180 of the Zoning Code provides the zoning regulations for the operation of Cannabis Storefront Retail, Cannabis Non-Storefront Retail, Cannabis Cultivation, Cannabis Manufacturing, Cannabis Testing, and Cannabis Distribution facilities (collectively Cannabis Facilities”).

The proposed amendment will afford consistency with current State Law by amending current regulations to allow cannabis retail facilities to operate between 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM.

DISCUSSION:

SR-23-093
The proposed ordinance seeks to amend Chapter 5.50 and Chapter 17.180 to update operating hours for retail Cannabis Facilities to the following:

5.50.080 General operating requirements.

M. Hours of Operation. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 17.180 of this code, cannabis facilities may operate only between the hours of 8:00 6:00a.m. and 10:00 p.m. an up to seven days per week.

17.180.040 Marijuana storefront retail facilities.

F. Hours of operation. All marijuana storefront retail facilities operating in any district may only operate between the hours of 8:00 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. an up to seven days per week.

17.180.045 Marijuana non-storefront retail facilities.

G. Hours of operation. All marijuana storefront retail facilities operating in any district may only operate between the hours of 8:00 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. an up to seven days per week.

On April 11, 2023, the Planning Commission approved making a recommendation to the City Council to adopt this proposed ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

The adoption of this ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

ATTACHMENTS:

Exhibit 1 - Ordinance

C2014/000 - 1116578.1
ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DESERT
HOT SPRINGS, AMENDING SECTION 5.50.080 “GENERAL
OPERATING REQUIREMENTS” OF CHAPTER 5.50 “CANNABIS
BUSINESSES” OF TITLE 5 “BUSINESS LICENSES AND
REGULATIONS” AND AMENDING SECTIONS 17.180.040
(“MARIJUANA STOREFRONT RETAIL FACILITIES”), 17.180.045
(“MARIJUANA NON-STOREFRONT RETAIL FACILITIES”) OF
CHAPTER 17.180 (“MARIJUANA FACILITIES OPERATION AND
LOCATION”) OF TITLE 17 (“ZONING”) OF THE DESERT HOT

SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO UPDATE REGULATIONS

FOR HOURS OF OPERATION
WHEREAS, the City of Desert Hot Springs (“City”) is a charter city organized pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution; and WHEREAS, Chapter 5.50 of the Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code regulates the operating conditions of cannabis facilities, such as business hours, security plans, background checks, and odor control; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 17.180 of the Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code sets forth zoning regulations and operating requirements of cannabis facilities, including section

17.180.040 for storefront retail facilities, section 17.180.045 for non-storefront retail facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Chapters 5.50 and 17.180 of the Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code to update regulations related to hours of operation for cannabis storefront and non-storefront retailers and to maintain consistency with state regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the passage of this Ordinance is in the best interest of the public interest, health, safety, convenience, and welfare.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. RECITALS.

The Recitals are hereby incorporated by this reference.

C2014/000 - 1116578.1
Section 2. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 5.50.080 “GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS” OF CHAPTER 5.50 “CANNABIS
BUSINESSES” OF TITLE 5 “BUSINESS LICENSES AND
REGULATIONS” OF THE DESERT HOT SPRINGS MUNICIPAL
CODE
Section 5.50.080 (“General Operating Requirements”) of Chapter 5.50 (“Cannabis Businesses”) of Title 5 (“Business Licenses and Regulations”) of the Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

5.50.080 General operating requirements.

All cannabis facilities must comply with the requirements set forth in this section.

A. Every cannabis facility shall operate in compliance with all applicable state and local laws and regulations governing cannabis facilities.

B. Every cannabis facility shall maintain and regularly update a roster of responsible persons, employees, independent contractors, and any other person engaged in the operation of the cannabis facility. The roster must include a copy of the individuals’ City-issued cannabis identification card, date of hire, and contact information. The roster shall be made available for inspection or copying by the City Manager or designee upon written or oral request. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this section, the cannabis facility shall immediately notify the City of any new or different responsible persons, employees, independent contractors, and any other person engaged in the operation of the cannabis facility in order to conduct a background check under Section 5.50.050.

C. No person who is less than 21 years of age may be employed or otherwise engaged in the operation of a cannabis facility.

D. Cannabis and cannabis goods possessed by a cannabis facility shall be kept and stored in a secured manner at all times.

E. On-site smoking, ingestion, or consumption of cannabis shall be prohibited on the premises of all cannabis facilities. “Premises,” for purposes of this section, includes the actual building as well as any accessory structures, common areas and parking areas.

F. Cannabis facilities shall not sell, provide, store, or distribute any alcoholic beverages or tobacco products, or allow such products to be consumed on the premises.

C2014/000 - 1116578.1
G. Cannabis facilities shall not advertise in a manner intended to encourage persons under 21 years of age to consume cannabis or cannabis goods.

H. Each cannabis facility shall display a copy of its cannabis facilities regulatory permit issued pursuant to this chapter in a conspicuous place at or near the entrance to the premises.

I. Cannabis facilities shall not permit a physician to evaluate potential medicinal cannabis patients or to provide a physician’s recommendation for medicinal cannabis within its premises. Cannabis facilities shall not offer or provide any form of remuneration to a physician who provides physician’s recommendations for medicinal cannabis.

J. Waste Disposal. Disposal of chemical, dangerous or hazardous waste must be conducted in a manner consistent with federal, state and local laws, regulations, rules or other requirements. This may include, but is not limited to, the disposal of all pesticide or other chemicals used in the cultivation process, certain solvents or other chemicals used in the production of cannabis concentrate.

K. Each cannabis facility must ensure that its licensed premises are maintained in a sanitary manner and activities on its licensed premises are conducted in a sanitary manner.

L. Cannabis facilities are not authorized to sublet any portion of their premises for any purpose, unless all necessary applications to modify the existing premises to accomplish any subletting have been approved by the City.

M. Hours of Operation. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 17.180 of this code, cannabis facilities may operate only between the hours of 8:00 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and up to seven days per week.

N. If consumable cannabis goods (including, but not limited to, lollipops, brownies, cookies, ice cream, etc.) are present on-site or offered for distribution, then the cannabis facility shall secure any approval from the County of Riverside Department of Health Services required for handling food products.

O. Cannabis facilities shall have an electronic point of sale system that produces historical transactional data for review by the City Manager or designee for auditing purposes.

P. Odor Control. Cannabis facilities shall provide a sufficient odor absorbing ventilation and exhaust system so that odor generated inside the cannabis facility that is distinctive to its operation is not detected outside the cannabis facility, anywhere on adjacent property or public rights-of-way, on or about any exterior or interior common area walkways, hallways, breezeways, foyers, lobby areas, or any other areas available for common use by tenants or the visiting public, or within any other unit located within

C2014/000 - 1116578.1
the same building as the cannabis facility. As such, cannabis facilities must install and maintain the following equipment or any other equipment which the City Manager or designee determines has the same or better effectiveness:

1. An exhaust air filtration system with odor control that prevents internal odors from being emitted externally; or

2. An air system that creates negative air pressure between the cannabis facility’s interior and exterior so that the odors generated inside the cannabis facility are not detectable outside the cannabis facility.

A violation of this subsection by any cannabis facility located within an Industrial District shall be excused so long as the odor is not detectable more than 150 feet beyond the cannabis facility’s property line.

Q. Each cannabis facility shall provide the City Manager or designee with the name, phone number, facsimile number, and email address of an on-site community relations or staff person or other representative to whom the City can provide notice if there are operating problems associated with the cannabis facility or refer members of the public who may have any concerns or complaints regarding the operation of the cannabis facility. Each cannabis facility shall also provide the above information to its business neighbors located within 100 feet of the cannabis facility as measured in a straight line without regard to intervening structures, between the front doors of each establishment.

R. Create and maintain an active account within the state’s track and trace system required by Business and Professions Code Section 26067 prior to commencing any commercial cannabis activity. In the event of system failure, the cannabis facility shall keep a hard copy record and transfer the information to the track and trace system within 24 hours of the system being available.

S. Cannabis facilities must pay all applicable taxes pursuant to Federal, State, and local law, including, but not limited to, the cannabis tax required by Title 3, State and local sales and use taxes, and State excise taxes.

T. Cannabis facilities shall fully comply with all applicable provisions of the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (California Business and Professions Code Sections 26000 through 26211), Compassionate Use Act of 1996, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, the 2008 Attorney General Guidelines, all applicable provisions of this code, and any specific, additional operating procedures and measures as may be imposed as conditions of approval of the regulatory permit.

U. Cannabis facilities shall create and maintain records of daily sign-in logs for all responsible person, employee, independent contractor, or any other person who will be engaged in the operation of the cannabis facility. A minimum of 30 days of daily

C2014/000 - 1116578.1
sign-in logs shall be provided to the City Manager or designee upon a verbal or written request.

V. The City Manager or designee may impose reasonable terms and conditions on the proposed operations of the cannabis facility in addition to those specified in this chapter.

Section 4. AMENDING SECTION 17.180.040 (“MARIJUANA STOREFRONT RETAIL FACILITIES”) OF CHAPTER 17.180 (“MARIJUANA
FACILITIES OPERATION AND LOCATION”) OF TITLE 17
“ZONING” OF THE DESERT HOT SPRINGS MUNICIPAL CODE
Section 17.180.040 (“Marijuana Storefront Retail Facilities”) of Chapter 17.180 (“Marijuana Facilities Operation And Location”) of Title 17 (“Zoning”) of the Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

17.180.040 Marijuana storefront retail facilities.

A. Permitted Locations. Marijuana storefront retail facilities shall only be located in any Commercial District (excluding Downtown Commercial Districts and Visitor-Serving Commercial Districts) in the City.

B. Number of Plants. Storefront retail facilities shall not cultivate more than 99 mature flowering marijuana plants on site at any one time.

C. Conditional Use Permit/Regulatory Permit Required. Storefront retail facilities shall obtain both a City-issued Conditional Use Permit and Regulatory Permit.

D. Approved storefront retail facilities operating with a City-approved Conditional Use Permit and in compliance with all local and State laws may, at their discretion, add a light manufacturing use to their current storefront retail facility and, also, become a light manufacturing facility.

E. Approved storefront retail facilities operating with a City-approved Conditional Use Permit and in compliance with all local and State laws may, at their discretion, add a light distribution use to their current storefront retail facility. Any and all light distribution uses must comply with all of the following:

1. Facility must have separate employee only loading door towards the rear of the building. Loading door shall not be located on the same building frontage as the public access door.

2. A maximum number of 1 unmarked vehicle shall be used to distribute products.

C2014/000 - 1116578.1

3. The vehicle mentioned above must have a designated and marked parking space, which space must be in close proximity to the required loading door.

4. All State and local laws and regulations must be complied with at all times.

F. Hours of Operation. All marijuana storefront retail facilities operating in any district may only operate between the hours of 8:00 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and may operate up to seven days per week.

G. Notwithstanding subsection C above, any and all light manufacturing facilities must comply with applicable State law and regulations, including the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

H. Storefront retail facilities must comply with all local and State laws as it pertains to such use at all times, which certain applicable laws are currently set forth in Title 16 Code of Regulations, Sections 5400 through 5413, as may be amended.

Section 5. AMENDING SECTION 17.180.045 (“MARIJUANA NON
STOREFRONT RETAIL FACILITIES”) OF CHAPTER 17.180
(“MARIJUANA FACILITIES OPERATION AND LOCATION”) OF
TITLE 17 “ZONING” OF THE DESERT HOT SPRINGS

MUNICIPAL CODE
Section 17.180.045 (“Marijuana Non-Storefront Retail Facilities”) of Chapter 17.180 (“Marijuana Facilities Operation and Location”) of Title 17 (“Zoning”) of the Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

17.180.045 Marijuana non-storefront retail facilities.

A. Permitted Locations. Marijuana non-storefront retail facilities shall only be located in Highway Commercial Districts (C-H), Business Park Commercial Districts (CBP), and Light Industrial Districts (I-L) in the Industrial Cannabis Overlay Zone in the City.

B. Number of Plants. Non-storefront retail facilities shall not cultivate more than 99 mature flowering marijuana plants on site at any one time.

C. Permits.

1. Non-storefront retail facilities located in C-H and C-BP districts shall obtain both a City-issued Conditional Use Permit and Regulatory Permit, except as otherwise herein allowed in subsection D.

C2014/000 - 1116578.1

2. Non-storefront retail facilities located in I-L districts shall obtain both a City-issued Administrative Use Permit and Regulatory Permit, except as otherwise herein allowed in subsection D.

D. Administrative Approval. A duly approved manufacturing facility and/or distribution facility, with a duly approved Conditional Use Permit or Administrative Use Permit, as applicable, and Regulatory Permit, and in good standing with the City, may request modification of the already approved Conditional Use Permit to operate a nonstorefront retail facility provided the Director of Community Development, or designee, finds all of the following:

1. There is a 10% or less than deviation to each of the following:
a. On-site circulation and parking, loading and landscaping; b. Placement and/or height of walls and fences;
c. Exterior architectural features, including colors, and/or modification of finished materials that do not alter or compromise the previously approved theme;
d. The density or intensity of a development project;
e. Paving; and
f. Hours of operation.

2. The marijuana manufacturing and/or distribution facility and its nonstorefront retail facility use are consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan.

3. The marijuana manufacturing and/or distribution facility and its nonstorefront retail facility use complies with all applicable zoning and other regulations.

4. The marijuana manufacturing and/or distribution facility and its nonstorefront retail facility use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

5. The location, design and operation of the marijuana manufacturing and/or distribution facility and its non-storefront retail facility use will be compatible with existing and planned land uses in the vicinity.

6. Any project contemplating this Administrative Approval must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and any and all applicable State and local laws and regulations. If CEQA is in fact implicated, as so determined by the Director of Community Development, CEQA must be adhered to, as so required by law.

C2014/000 - 1116578.1
Applications for a modification of a Conditional Use Permit under this section shall be on a form prescribed by the Director and shall be filed with the Department, pursuant to Chapter 17.68 (Applications and Fees) and must be approved by the Director, or his/her designee, who may establish additional conditions to further the intent of this section.

Any modification request which exceeds the prescribed limitations outlined in this section shall comply with requirements set forth in Section 17.180.060(B)(2). Minor modifications shall not apply when a nonconforming use, structure or site is involved.

Marijuana manufacturing and/or distribution facility applications under this section may be referred to the planning commission at the discretion of the Director.

E. Non-storefront retail facilities shall not deliver to customers within the City limits.

F. Non-storefront retail facilities may also manufacture and/or distribute marijuana, as so allowed with a Conditional Use Permit.

G. Hours of Operation. All marijuana non-storefront retail facilities operating in any permissible district may only operate between the hours of 8:00 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and may operate up to seven days per week.

H. Non-storefront retail facilities must comply with all local and State laws as it pertains to such use at all times, which certain applicable laws are currently set forth in Title 16 Code of Regulations, Sections 5414 through 5427, as may be amended.

Section 6. SEVERABILITY
That the City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this ordinance as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 7. AMENDING OF BAIL SCHEDULE

That the City Attorney’s Office is hereby directed to determine whether this ordinance necessitates amendment of the City’s Bail Schedule and to cause such necessary amendments to be made and filed with the local branches of the Superior Court of the County of Riverside.

Section 8. EFFECTIVE DATE
That this ordinance shall be effective thirty days after the second reading of the ordinance.

Section 9. CERTIFICATION

C2014/000 - 1116578.1
That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published according to law.
[REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
The foregoing Ordinance was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on ________________, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:
_______________________________
Scott Matas, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Jerryl Soriano, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Jennifer A. Mizrahi, City Attorney
____________________________________
By:

SR-23-105
City of Desert Hot Springs
City Council

AGENDA ITEM REPORT
To: City Council
Date: May 2, 2023
Department: Community Development
Prepared by: Patricia Villagomez, Principal Planner
Subject: An Appeal (APP 23-1) of the Planning Commission Decision to Approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Development Permit No. 22-4, An Application to Develop a 60,000 Square Foot Warehouse Facility RECOMMENDATION:
1) Staff Report
2) Entertain questions of Staff from the City Council;
3) Open the Public Hearing;
4) Take testimony from Appellant (SAFER);
5) Take testimony for those in favor of Appeal (reversal of Planning Commission’s decision); 6) Take testimony from those in opposition of Appeal (upholding Planning Commission’s decision); 7) Take testimony from those in a neutral position;
8) Opportunity for Appellant’s rebuttal;
9) Close the Public Hearing
10) City Council discussion and questions to Staff; and 11) City Council may adopt (with amendments if desired) one of the following:

A) A Resolution to Uphold and Affirming the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the following 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration and 2) Development Permit No. 22-4 to develop a 60,000 sq. ft. warehouse facility, thereby approving the Project; OR
B) A Resolution to Overturn Planning Commission’s decision to approve 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration and 2) Development Permit No. 22-4 to develop an 60,000 sq. ft. warehouse facility, thereby denying the Project;
OR
C) Provide other direction as City Council deems fit.

BACKGROUND:

The applicant, Almar Management, filed an application on July 14th, 2022, to develop a single story 60,000 sq. ft. warehouse facility. The 4.85-acre project property consists of vacant land and is located on the northeast corner of Calle De Los Romos and 19th Avenue (APN 666-360-017).

SR-23-105
On March 28th, 2023, the Planning Commission at a Special Meeting, voted 5-0 to approve 1) The Mitigated Negative Declaration and 2) Development Permit No. 22-4, to develop a 60,000 sq. ft. warehouse facility.

On April 10th, 2023, the Appellant, Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) submitted an application (APP 23-1) to appeal the Planning Commission decision to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Development Permit (DP 22-4) to develop a new 60,000 sq. ft. warehouse facility. The Appellant, SAFER is stating “the Project is in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The Planning Commission should have declined to approve the project until proper CEQA review was complete”. See attached EXHIBIT 3 – Applicant Appeal Packet.

DISCUSSION:

The project proposes the development of an approximately 60,000 square foot building to support a climate-controlled warehouse facility and supporting infrastructure improvements. The warehouse will house a company which moves goods in portable storage units. The units are delivered by truck to homes and businesses where they are filled with personal or business belongings, are then picked up again by truck for storage in the warehouse before the storage unit is moved to the location requested by the client. The storage units are warehoused for a short or long duration, and per the client’s needs are removed from the warehouse for delivery to a local or national destination. The proposed warehouse building is not a refrigerated/cold storage warehouse. The entire warehouse will be used for storage of the portable storage units.

SETTING
The Zoning, General Plan Land-Use designations, and current land uses for surrounding properties are as follows:

Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses

General Plan & Zoning
Designations Current Land-Use
North Industrial/Light Industrial
(I/I-L) Vacant Land
West Industrial/Specific Plan
(I/SP) Coachillin Business Park
South Industrial/Light Industrial
(I/I-L) Vacant Land
East Industrial/Light Industrial
(I/I-L) Vacant Land

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ANALYSIS

ZONING CONSISTENCY
The project proposes the development of a 60,000 square foot warehouse facility. Per Section 17.16.01 of the “Permitted Uses – Industrial Districts” a “Warehouse, Wholesaling and Distribution” is a use that is “P” Permitted by Right. Per Section 17.04.050 Definitions “Warehouse, Wholesaling, and Distribution” “Means indoor storage and sale of goods to other firms for resale, storage of goods for transfer to retail outlets of the same firm, or storage and sale of materials and supplies used in production or operation, including janitorial and restaurant supplies. Wholesalers are primarily engaged in

SR-23-105
business-to-business sales but may sell to individual consumers through mail or internet orders.

They normally operate from a warehouse or office having little or no display of merchandise and are not designed to solicit walk-in traffic.”
Staff has evaluated the proposed plans and found the project to be consistent with the development standards of the Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code (DHSMC). An analysis of the project to the DHSMC can be found in Table 2 below, which provides a comparison of the site planning aspects of the project with each of the individual development standards.

CONSISTENCY WITH THE DHSMC
Staff has provided an analysis of the elements of the project with the Development Standards, below in Table 2.

Table 2: Comparison to DHSMC:

Development Standards
Standard Light Industrial Zone Proposed Consistent
Minimum Lot Size 20,000 sq. ft. Already subdivided Yes
Maximum structure
height 120 Feet 33 Feet 6 Inches Yes
Maximum number of
stories 5 Stories 1 Story Yes
Minimum front setback 20 Feet 35’ 6’’ Feet Yes
Minimum side setback 10’ Interior
10’ Corner
57’ Interior
50’ Corner Yes
Minimum rear yard
setback 10 Feet 100 Feet Yes
Building lot coverage 75 % 35% Yes

REVIEW AUTHORITY
Pursuant to Section 17.64.010 & Table 17.64.01 of the DHSMC, applicants requesting the construction of a new commercial/industrial building specifically require the review and approval from the Planning Commission.

CIRCULATION
The project site will have three (3) entry points, two (2) on Calle De Los Romos along the western boundary and one (1) on 19th Avenue along the eastern boundary. Calle De Los Romos is currently paved with curb and gutter on the west side but not fully improved adjacent to the proposed project. 19th Avenue is not paved adjacent to the proposed project. The local north-south circulation is provided by Indian Canyon Drive located approximately 0.25 miles west of the project. Regional access to the site is provided by the I-10 Freeway located approximately 0.50 miles south of the project.

Access to the truck circulation and loading area of the project will be gated to only authorized personnel.

This may be accessed by a controlled keyed entry system such as a Knox Box for use by police and fire personnel. The project will improve Calle De Los Romos from centerline to right-of-way (39 feet), including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping. Also 19th Avenue from centerline to right-of-way (44 feet), including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping. The final street improvements will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

SR-23-105
The proposed circulation and parking for the proposed facility will be consistent with City parking standards. A parking analysis is provided below in Table 3:

Table 3: Parking Analysis
Proposed Use Zoning Requirements Spaces Required Spaces Provided Warehouse: 60,000 sq.
ft. 1 Stall/750 sq. ft. 80 Stalls 93 Stalls

ARCHITECTURE
The proposed building will be designed to create interest by using various materials. Materials used will consist of masonry block, steel doors and garage doors, and windows. The proposed structure is proposed to be a tilt up construction in neutral colors of white and grey tones with glazed windows, steel man doors, and steel garage doors.

LANDSCAPING
Landscaping has been designed to balance aesthetic, water use and security objectives. The project landscape will include large drought-tolerant flowering trees and shrubs typically found in the region, such as fan palms, live oak or mesquite tree, and blue palo verde. Exterior irrigation will use drip or micro-spray applicators to avoid overwatering and promote water efficiency. The landscaping at the project’s frontage will consist of trees, along with low level plantings and fencing to visually enhance, protect and blend the facility into its surroundings while also promoting visibility by law enforcement vehicles from the street.

WALL/FENCING PLAN
The proposed warehouse project will be installing wrought iron or tubular steel fencing with an access gate on the east side of the building.

NOTICING REQUIREMENT
The project was noticed to neighboring property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site on Thursday, April 20th, 2023, and was advertised in the Desert Star on Wednesday, April 19th, 2023, per noticing requirements.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The applicant has paid all required fees for the review and entitlement process and will be subject to all Building Permit fees and property taxes.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), an Initial Study has been prepared and has determined that development of the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2023020381) is proposed and contains certain measures for Cultural Resources and Biological Resources in conformance with Section 15070, Subsection (a), of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Development Permit Findings:

SR-23-105

1. That the proposed use is permitted within the subject land use district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of this Zoning Ordinance, including prescribed development standards and design guidelines;
The proposed warehouse facility use is a permitted use by zoning and land use, Per Section

17.16.020 of the Permitted Uses Table. Goal LU-8 encourages industrial opportunities and new development that broaden the economic and employment base of the city. Policy LU-8.1 encourages employment centers to ensure that a variety of land uses and infrastructure that will allow the City to remain economically competitive. As such, Staff recommends this finding.

2. That the subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed;
The proposed application is for the development of a 60,000 sq. ft. warehouse facility. Policy LU-8:
allow industrial opportunities and new development that broaden the economic and employment base of the City. The site is relatively flat with drainage to the southeast. Therefore, the City has determined that the type of proposed use and intensity of the use being proposed is suitable to the

4.85 acre site(s). Staff recommends this finding.

3. That the proposed development would be compatible with existing and future developments within the land use district and general area; Policy LU-8.2 promotes industrial development projects in areas with available infrastructure and adjacent to major transportation corridors. Site such uses in areas where impacts on public health and safety can be minimized. The site is surrounded by Light Industrial uses on all four sides. The City has also evaluated the building materials, architectural style and proposed landscaping and found them to be consistent with the DHSMC. Staff recommends this finding.

4. That there are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use is not detrimental to public health and safety; The project has been conditioned by City staff, the County Fire Department and by Mission Springs Water Districts to provide potable water, access to sewer, and adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services. This will ensure that the 60,000 sq. ft. warehouse facility remains well-maintained and does not become detrimental to public health and safety. Goal OS-3:
a sustainable, reliable, and clean water supply, and Policy OS-3.1: Water Conservation, requires water conservation measures in new development, equivalent to Cal Green Tier One or similar standards. Staff recommends this finding.

5. That there is adequate public access and roadway capacity to serve the subject proposal;
The current project has been conditioned to ensure that adequate public access and roadway capacity to serve the proposed project site. Goal MI-1 promotes an inclusive mobility framework that safely and efficiently moves and connects people, destination, vehicles, and goods, and Policy MI-1.1 reinforces the need for a Transportation Network Improvements and it also establishes and maintains a multimodal mobility plan which sets forth improvement plans and project prioritization for a variety of modes and users of the transportation network. The project will improve Calle De Los Romos from centerline to right-of-way (39 feet), including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and

SR-23-105
landscaping. Also 19th Avenue from centerline to right-of-way (44 feet), including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping. Staff recommends this finding.

6. That there are no significant harmful effects upon environmental quality and natural resources;
Goal OS-2 requires air quality that is healthy for residents and the environment. Policy OS-2.1 seeks to reduce air pollution through the implementation of existing regulations and the creation of new regulations where needed. Policy OS-2.2 requires finding creative means to comply with State laws addressing climate change. Policy OS-2.3 addresses minimizing the air quality impacts of new development projects on established uses. The applicant completed an Initial Study and it was found that all impacts can be mitigated. Therefore, the City has determined that the proposed project will not have or cause significant harmful effects upon environmental quality and natural resources. Staff recommends this finding.

7. That any negative impacts of the proposed use can and shall be mitigated; Mitigation measures if approved will adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program included within the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The proposed project will be required to adhere to the mitigation measures in the MND and has been conditioned by the Fire, Engineering and Planning Department’s to comply with current standards. The Building Department will review the plans upon submittal of the plan check to ensure the projects compliance with the California Building Code.

Staff recommends this finding.

8. That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan; and The General Plan identifies the site as Industrial. The Zoning Map identifies the site as Light Industrial. Therefore, staff has evaluated the consistency of the proposed project with the City’s General Plan Goals & Polices and has not identified any inconsistencies. The proposed project will also be subject to the implementation of Conditions of Approval and will be required to comply the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff recommends this finding.

9. That the proposed location, size, design, and operational characteristics of the planned use are not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.

Staff has evaluated the subject site’s location, size, design, and operational characteristics of the proposed project comply with the design standards of the Light Industrial (I) zoning designation and Land Use designation. The Planning Department, Engineering, Public Works Department, Cal Fire, Mission Springs Water District (MSWD) have all reviewed the proposed project and found it to meet all development criteria and have imposed conditions of approval on the proposed development.

Staff recommends this finding.

ATTACHMENTS:

EXHIBIT 1 - Resolution Upholding Planning Commission Decision EXHIBIT 2 - Resolution Overturning Planning Commission Decision EXHIBIT 3 - Applicant Appeal Packet
EXHIBIT 4 - Planning Commission Packet 3.28.23
EXHIBIT 5 - Verbatim Transcript - Planning Commission Hearing 3-28-2023

SR-23-105
EXHIBIT 6 - Response to SAFER Comments
EXHIBIT 7 - Planning Commission Comment Letters
EXHIBIT 8 - Full Set of Plans
EXHIBIT 9 - Material Board
EXHIBIT 10 - Preliminary Grading
EXHIBIT 11 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

RESOLUTION NO. ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING: 1) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; AND 2) DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 22-4, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 60,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE FACILITY THEREBY APPROVING THE PROJECT.

WHEREAS, the Applicant, Almar Management, filed an application on July 14th, 2022, to develop a single story 60,000 sq. ft. climate-controlled warehouse facility, and supporting infrastructure. within the City of Desert Hot Springs, California (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the location of the Project is on a 4.85-acre vacant property located on the northeast corner of Calle De Los Romos and 19th Avenue (APN 666-360-017) (Industrial/Light Industrial Zoning District within the City of Desert Hot Springs, California (the “Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has filed Applications with the City of Desert Hot Springs for approval of Development Permit No. 22-4 and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project (collectively, the “Application”); and WHEREAS, on March 15th, 2023, the City noticed a public hearing for the Planning Commission to consider the Application; and
WHEREAS, at the March 28, 2023, public hearing Planning Commission reviewed the Application and voted to approve the Application; and WHEREAS, on April 10th, 2023, the Appellant, Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) submitted an application to appeal the Planning Commission decision to approve the Project (APP 23-1); and WHEREAS, the primary basis of SAFER’s appeal is that “…the Project is in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)”; and WHEREAS, on April 19th, 2023 the City noticed the public hearing of the City Council of the City of Desert Hot Springs to consider the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve the Application; and
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2023, the City Council held the public hearing on appeal of the Application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Application, the entire record, all evidence and testimony, and has determined that Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve the Application should be upheld and affirmed, based upon the findings detailed below.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals.

That the Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. Findings.

In addition to any findings made by the Planning Commission, the findings in the MND and in addition to any findings orally made by the City Council after the closed of the public hearing, the City Council makes the following findings regarding the Application:

A. Environmental Findings.

Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council determines:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), an Initial Study has been prepared and has determined that development of the Project would not have a significant impact on the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2023020381) is proposed and contains certain measures for Cultural Resources and Biological Resources in conformance with Section 15070, Subsection (a), of the CEQA. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment, The MND is part of the record. This is the independent judgement of the City Council.

B. Development Permit Findings.

A. The proposed use is permitted within the subject land use district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of this Zoning Ordinance, including prescribed development standards and design guidelines.

The proposed warehouse facility use is a permitted use by zoning and land use, Per Section 17.16.020 of the Permitted Uses Table. Goal LU-8 encourages industrial opportunities and new development that broaden the economic and employment base of the city. Policy LU-8.1 encourages employment centers to ensure that a variety of land uses and infrastructure will allow the City to remain economically competitive. As such, Staff recommends this finding.

B. The Project Site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed.

The proposed application is for the development of a 60,000 sq. ft. warehouse facility. Policy LU-8: allow industrial opportunities and new development that broaden the economic and employment base of the City. The site is relatively flat with drainage to the southeast. Therefore, the City has determined that the type of proposed use and intensity of the use being proposed is suitable to the 4.85 acre site(s). Staff recommends this finding.

C. The proposed development would be compatible with existing and future developments within the land use district and general area.

Policy LU-8.2 promotes industrial development projects in areas with available infrastructure and adjacent to major transportation corridors. Site such uses in areas where impacts on public health and safety can be minimized. The site is surrounded by Light Industrial uses on all four sides. The City has also evaluated the building materials, architectural style and proposed landscaping and found them to be consistent with the DHSMC. Staff recommends this finding.

D. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use is not detrimental to public health and safety.

The project has been conditioned by City staff, the County Fire Department and by Mission Springs Water Districts to provide potable water, access to sewer, and adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services. This will ensure that the 60,000 sq. ft. warehouse facility remains well-maintained and does not become detrimental to public health and safety. Goal OS-3: a sustainable, reliable, and clean water supply, and Policy OS-3.1: Water Conservation, requires water conservation measures in new development, equivalent to Cal Green Tier One or similar standards. Staff recommends this finding.

E. There is adequate public access and roadway capacity to serve the subject proposal.

The current project has been conditioned to ensure that adequate public access and roadway capacity to serve the proposed project site. Goal MI-1 promotes an inclusive mobility framework that safely and efficiently moves and connects people, destination, vehicles, and goods, and Policy MI-1.1 reinforces the need for a Transportation Network Improvements and it also establishes and maintains a multimodal mobility plan which sets forth improvement plans and project prioritization for a variety of modes and users of the transportation network. The project will improve Calle De Los Romos from centerline to right-of-way (39 feet), including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping. Also 19th Avenue from centerline to right-of-way (44 feet), including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping. Staff recommends this finding.

F. There are no significant harmful effects upon environmental quality and natural resources.

Goal OS-2 requires air quality that is healthy for residents and the environment.

Policy OS-2.1 seeks to reduce air pollution through the implementation of existing regulations and the creation of new regulations where needed. Policy OS-2.2 requires finding creative means to comply with State laws addressing climate change. Policy OS-2.3 addresses minimizing the air quality impacts of new development projects on established uses. The applicant completed an Initial Study and it was found that all impacts can be mitigated. Therefore, the City has determined that the proposed project will not have or cause significant harmful effects upon environmental quality and natural resources. Staff recommends this finding.

G. Any negative impacts of the proposed use can and shall be mitigated.

Mitigation measures if approved will adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program included within the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The proposed project will be required to adhere to the mitigation measures in the MND and has been conditioned by the Fire, Engineering and Planning Department’s to comply with current standards. The Building Department will review the plans upon submittal of the plan check to ensure the projects compliance with the California Building Code.

Staff recommends this finding.

H. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan.

The General Plan identifies the site as Industrial. The Zoning Map identifies the site as Light Industrial. Therefore, staff has evaluated the consistency of the proposed project with the City’s General Plan Goals & Polices and has not identified any inconsistencies. The proposed project will also be subject to the implementation of Conditions of Approval and will be required to comply the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff recommends this finding.

I. The Proposed Site, size, design, and operational characteristics of the planned use are not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.

Staff has evaluated the subject site’s location, size, design, and operational characteristics of the proposed project comply with the design standards of the Light Industrial (I) zoning designation and Land Use designation. The Planning Department, Engineering, Public Works Department, Cal Fire, Mission Springs Water District (MSWD) have all reviewed the proposed project and found it to meet all development criteria and have imposed conditions of approval on the proposed development. Staff recommends this finding.

Section 3. Upholding and Re-affirming the Planning Commission’s

Decision to Approve the Application.

That the City Council hereby upholds and re-affirms the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve the Application.

Section 4. Certification.

That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution, enter the same in Section 5. Severability.

That if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Resolution as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 6. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions.

That all the provisions heretofore adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed.

Section 7. Effective Date.

That this Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption. [REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Desert Hot Springs at a regular meeting held on the ______ day of May 2023 by the following vote:

AYES, and in favor thereof, Council members:

NAYS, Council members:

ABSENT, Council members:

ABSTAINING, Council members:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________________ _____________________ Jerryl Soriano, CMC City Clerk Scott Matas, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Jennifer A. Mizrahi, City Attorney

RESOLUTION NO. ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING: 1) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; AND 2) DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 22-4, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 60,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE FACILITY THEREBY DENYING THE PROJECT.

WHEREAS, the Applicant, Almar Management, filed an application on July 14th, 2022, to develop a single story 60,000 sq. ft. climate-controlled warehouse facility, and supporting infrastructure. within the City of Desert Hot Springs, California (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the location of the Project is on a 4.85-acre vacant property located on the northeast corner of Calle De Los Romos and 19th Avenue (APN 666-360-017) (Industrial/Light Industrial Zoning District within the City of Desert Hot Springs, California (the “Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has filed Applications with the City of Desert Hot Springs for approval of Development Permit No. 22-4 and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project (collectively, the “Application”); and WHEREAS, on March 15th, 2023, the City noticed a public hearing for the Planning Commission to consider the Application; and
WHEREAS, at the March 28, 2023, public hearing Planning Commission reviewed the Application and voted to approve the Application; and WHEREAS, on April 10th, 2023, the Appellant, Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) submitted an application to appeal the Planning Commission decision to approve the Project (APP 23-1); and WHEREAS, the primary basis of SAFER’s appeal is that “…the Project is in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)”; and WHEREAS, on April 19, 2023, the City noticed the public hearing of the City Council of the City of Desert Hot Springs to consider the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve the Application; and
WHEREAS, on May 2, 2023, the City Council held the public hearing on appeal of the Application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Application, the entire record, all evidence and testimony, and has determined that Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve the Application should be upheld and affirmed, based upon the findings detailed below.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals.

That the Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. Findings.

In addition to any findings made by the Planning Commission, the findings in the MND and in addition to any findings orally made by the City Council after the closed of the public hearing, the City Council makes the following findings regarding the Application:

A. Environmental Findings.

Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council determines pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080 (b)(5), this Project is exempt from CEQA because it is a project which the public agency “rejects or disapproves.”
B. Development Permit Findings.

A. There are significant harmful effects upon environmental quality and natural resources.

The Project does not possess sufficient safeguards regarding air quality, traffic mitigation, and does not sufficiently address climate change. Therefore, the Project has or causes significant harmful effects upon environmental quality and natural resources.

B. Any negative impacts of the proposed use cannot and shall be mitigated.

The mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring Program included within the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) are insufficient and cannot be mitigated.

Section 3. Overturning the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve the Application, thereby Denying the Project.

That the City Council hereby overturns the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve the Application, thereby denying the Project.

Section 4. Certification.

That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution, enter the same in Section 5. Severability.

That if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Resolution as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 6. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions.

That all the provisions heretofore adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed.

Section 7. Effective Date.

That this Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption. [REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Desert Hot Springs at a regular meeting held on the ______ day of May 2023 by the following vote:

AYES, and in favor thereof, Council members:

NAYS, Council members:

ABSENT, Council members:

ABSTAINING, Council members:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________________ _____________________ Jerryl Soriano, CMC City Clerk Scott Matas, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Jennifer A. Mizrahi, City Attorney

Application for Appeal - 1 - 08/19/19
City of Desert Hot Springs
11999 Palm Drive, Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240
www.cityofdhs.org  760-329-6411  Fax: 760-288-0639

APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS, CONDITIONS, OR STAFF

DETERMINATION
This fillable application can be found on:
http://www.cityofdhs.org/Applications
Applicant Name
Date
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Home Phone Mobile Phone
Work Phone Fax
E-Mail Address
Re: Case No.

APPEAL FEE:

See current schedule of development fees
To be filed with the Planning Department:
___ Conditional Use Permit ___ Parcel Map
___ Home Occupation Permit ___ Tract Map
___ Re-Zone/Pre-Zone ___ Sign Permit
___ Plot Plan ___ Variance
___ Environmental Assessment ___ Other ________________________________________ Please state basis for appeal and include any supportive evidence. If applicable, indicate the number of the specific condition(s) which is (are) being protested. In the case(s) of Tract Map Appeals/Parcel Map Appeals, an 8½x11” reduction of the tentative map must be submitted with this appeal application.

Use additional sheets if necessary.

Signature of Applicant:
_________________________________________________ ____________________________ Date

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Case No.

Fee:

Related Apps:

Accepted By:

Patricia Villagomez, Principal Planner
Planning Division
City of Desert Hot Springs
11-999 Palm Dr.

Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240
[email protected]
Jerryl Soriano, City Clerk
City of Desert Hot Springs
11-999 Palm Dr.

Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240
[email protected]
Re: PODS Warehouse Project (Development Permit No. 22-4) Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:

I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND” or “MND”) prepared for the PODS Warehouse Project (“Project”) (Case No.: PL20-0654), for Applicant Almar Management (hereinafter the “Applicant”), including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction and operation of an approximately 60,000-square-foot warehouse facility on a 4.85-acre vacant site, to be located at the northeast corner of Calle De Los Romos and 19th Avenue, in the City of Desert Hot Springs (APN No.: 666-360-017).

SAFER is concerned that the IS/MND prepared for the Project is legally inadequate.

SAFER’s review of the Project has been assisted by wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D; and air quality experts Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. and Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the environmental consulting firm, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”). The expert comments of Dr. Smallwood and SWAPE are attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively.

After reviewing the IS/MND, it is evident that it is inadequate and fails as an informational document. Also, there is a “fair argument” that the Project may have unmitigated adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, CEQA requires that the City of Desert Hot Springs (“City”) prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq.

March 24, 2023
Via E-mail
Dirk Voss, Chairman
James Nindel, Vice Chairman
Leroy Aleman, Commissioner
Mary-Kate Stoever, Commissioner
Chris Wagstaff, Commissioner
Planning Commission
City of Desert Hot Springs
11-999 Palm Dr.

Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240

Comments to the Desert Hot Springs Planning Commission
Re: PODS Warehouse Project
March 24, 2023

SAFER respectfully requests that you do not adopt the IS/MND and instead undertake the necessary efforts to prepare an EIR, as required under CEQA.

LEGAL STANDARD
As the California Supreme Court has held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 (CBE v. SCAQMD) (citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504–505).) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382.) An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” (No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 83.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res.

Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (CBE v. CRA).)
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” (Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect. (PRC §§ 21100, 21064.) Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” (Citizens of Lake Murray v.

San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.)
Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the

Comments to the Desert Hot Springs Planning Commission
Re: PODS Warehouse Project
March 24, 2023

environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and…there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331.) In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. (PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland’s etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904–05.)
Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602.) The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:

This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in their decision making. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citation]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. (Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, §6.37 (2d ed. Cal.

CEB 2021).) The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original).) For over forty years the courts have consistently held that an accurate and stable project description is a bedrock requirement of CEQA—the sine qua non (that without which there is nothing) of an adequate CEQA document:

Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal’s benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the “no project” alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An

Comments to the Desert Hot Springs Planning Commission
Re: PODS Warehouse Project
March 24, 2023

accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.
(County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185 at 192–93.) CEQA therefore requires that an environmental review document provide an adequate description of the project to allow for the public and government agencies to participate in the review process through submitting public comments and making informed decisions.

Lastly, CEQA requires that an environmental document include a description of the project’s environmental setting or “baseline.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2).) The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. (CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at 321.) CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) states, in pertinent part, that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA:
…must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant.
(See Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124-25 (“Save Our Peninsula”).) As the court of appeal has explained, “the impacts of the project must be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted levels. (Id. at 121-23.)
I. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument That the Project Will Result in Significant Impacts to Biological Resources.

Expert wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., reviewed the IS/MND, as well as the biological resources report prepared by James W. Cornett (“Cornett report”), to inform his comments. Dr. Smallwood’s comments and CV are attached as Exhibit A.

Dr. Smallwood and his associate, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist, visited and surveyed the Project site on February 20 and 21, 2023. (Ex. A., p. 1.) During their site visits, Dr.

Smallwood detected 15 species of vertebrate wildlife (Table 1), four of which are special-status species.” (Id., p. 1.) Among the species Dr. Smallwood identified on the Project site are California gull, Cooper’s hawk, loggerhead shrike, and California horned lark. (Id., p. 2.) Importantly, Dr. Smallwood notes, “Thirty-eight percent of the species seen at or next to the project site by recent reconnaissance-level surveys have been special-status species, which is the highest percentage of special-status species we have detected at any given site that has been proposed for a project over the past 25 years.” (Id., p. 3.) Based on these observations, and his independent review of the IS/MND, Dr. Smallwood concluded that the Project would likely result in significant adverse impacts to existing biological resources. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR to fully assess and more extensively mitigate these impacts.

Comments to the Desert Hot Springs Planning Commission
Re: PODS Warehouse Project
March 24, 2023

A. The MND Mischaracterizes the Site’s Baseline Environmental Setting and Provides Insufficient Mitigation.

The Cornett report mischaracterized the Project site’s baseline environmental setting by omitting key survey details and failing to adhere to applicable survey protocols. For instance, Cornett reported that he did not detect Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard on the site. (Id., p. 11.) However, Dr. Smallwood notes, Cornett “failed to achieve the survey and reporting standards” for this species and at least two others, rendering his absence determinations “unsupportable.” (Id.) Therefore, Cornett’s “ostensible findings [regarding the absence of various species] are potentially misleading.” (Id.) In another example, Cornett failed to complete detection surveys of burrowing owls despite concluding that they could occur on the site. In fact, a CEQA study for an immediately adjacent warehouse project, Desert Gateway, found that burrowing owls were detected on a neighboring site. (Id., p. 12.) The failure to complete detection surveys for burrowing owl here is a significant omission.

The IS/MND’s oversight is problematic because, “under CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts. ‘If the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, a fair argument may be based on the limited facts in the record. Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.’” (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 311; County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.

App. 4th 1544.). Since the City has failed to sufficiently account for the presence of specialstatus species on the Project site and surrounding areas, a fair argument can be made that broader deficiencies underlie the IS/MND’s assessment of the Project’s likely impacts to biological resources.

Next, Dr. Smallwood found that the MND’s proposed mitigation of impacts to biological resources was deeply insufficient due to the Cornett report’s flawed desktop review of on-site species occurrences. For instance, Dr. Smallwood’s review of scientific databases found that 128 special-status species occur on or near the project site (Id., p. 13.) Meanwhile, the MND addresses only 8 of these species and assigns occurrence potential to only one of them (burrowing owl). (Id.) The Cornett report’s absence determinations are based upon speculation and flawed assumptions regarding the affected species. Furthermore, the proposed payment of a mitigation fee to the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (“CVMSHCP”) would protect “only a small subset of the special-status species at risk of suffering harm from the project.” (Id., p. 20.)
Dr. Smallwood thus concludes that the report’s assumptions regarding the site’s environmental baseline conditions are unsupported by scientific evidence. Importantly, he notes, “[t]he environmental baseline needs to be better informed by both on-site surveys and occurrence database review. Absence determinations need to be founded on substantial evidence. Without such evidence, the precautionary principle in risk analysis calls for erring on the side of caution, which in this application means assuming presence of each potentially occurring special-status species.” (Id., p. 20). Therefore, a “fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to

Comments to the Desert Hot Springs Planning Commission
Re: PODS Warehouse Project
March 24, 2023

more completely and accurately characterize the existing environmental setting of the project site.” (Id., p. 12.)
B. The MND Inadequately Addressed the Project’s Impact on Habitat Loss and Wildlife Movement.

Dr. Smallwood observes that the Project would contribute to the severe decline in the North American bird population (a 29% decline in overall abundance has occurred over the past 48 years). (Id., p. 21.) This context is especially important as Dr. Smallwood notes that “[t]he project area holds unusually high value to special-status species of wildlife, and the wildlife community of the area is unusually rich in special-status species.” (Id., p. 20.) Dr. Smallwood also rejects the Cornett report’s conclusory finding that the Project would not impact wildlife movement. The finding is not supported by any evidence, he writes. Instead, the “proposed project site is all the more important for wildlife movement because it provides opportunities for stopover and staging of volant wildlife during migration, and for dispersal and home range patrol while opportunities nearby diminish as anthropogenic uses expand.” (Id., p. 21.) Therefore, he adds, “a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to analyze the project’s potential impacts to wildlife movement in the region.” (Id.) C. The MND Failed to Analyze the Project’s Impact on Wildlife Due to Traffic.

The MND did not address the direct and cumulative impacts on wildlife mortality from traffic generated by the Project. (Id., pp. 21-22.) However, based upon the MND’s finding that the Project would generate approximately 570,302 annual operational vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”), Dr. Smallwood estimates that the project would result in approximately 312 wildlife fatalities per year. (Id., p. 24.) Dr. Smallwood suggests mitigation measures that would reduce the impact due to vehicle collisions. (Id., p. 27.) Because this significant impact and its feasible mitigation measures have not been considered in the MND, the City must address this impact in an EIR.

D. The MND Failed to Analyze the Project’s Cumulative Impact on Wildlife.

The MND provides no substantive analysis of cumulative effects on biological resources. (Id., p. 25.) This is despite Dr. Smallwood’s finding that at least four special-status species occur on or near the project site while many more occur within the surrounding area. (Id.) The MND implies, without any plausible explanation, that the site’s classification as a light industrial zone would mitigate the project’s impact to wildlife. Meanwhile, it fails to address the clear cumulative impacts that will result from the rapidly encroaching habitat loss that is occurring in the surrounding area due to the planned development of numerous large-scale industrial projects (e.g., Desert Gateway project south of the project site and Viento Logistics Center east of the project site). An EIR must be prepared to properly consider and mitigate these significant cumulative impacts.

Comments to the Desert Hot Springs Planning Commission
Re: PODS Warehouse Project
March 24, 2023

II. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument That the Project Will Have a Significant Impact on Air Quality, Hazardous Materials, and Greenhouse Gases.

Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the environmental consulting firm SWAPE reviewed the IS/MND’s analysis of the Project’s impacts on air quality, hazardous materials, and greenhouse gases. SWAPE’s comment letter and CVs are attached as Exhibit B.

A. Satellite Images Indicate the Potential Presence of Hazardous Materials.

The IS/MND relied upon a review of online databases to assert that the project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. However, SWAPE’s review of aerial images from Google Earth (dated August 5, 2021) (see below) demonstrate that material piles were present on the site. Therefore, SWAPE writes, “An EIR is necessary to include a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) to adequately evaluate and disclose potential hazards related to the placement of piled material and from other conditions that may exist on the Project site. (Ex. B., p. 1.) Accordingly, “The preparation of a Phase I ESA is often undertaken in the preparation of project approval documents to identify and disclose hazardous waste issues that may present impacts to the public, workers, or the environment, and which may require further investigation, including environmental sampling and cleanup. Uses of the site for the placement of material may have resulted in the release of hazardous materials that would pose a risk to workers involved in earthwork necessary for site preparation.” (Id., p. 2.)

Comments to the Desert Hot Springs Planning Commission
Re: PODS Warehouse Project
March 24, 2023

This is a significant environmental and health risk which the IS/MND has failed to address. According to SWAPE, “A Phase I ESA, completed by a licensed environmental professional, is necessary for inclusion in an EIR to identify recognized environmental conditions, if any, at the proposed Project site. If past land uses include RECs [recognized environmental conditions], a Phase II [ESA] should be conducted to sample for residual concentrations of contaminants in soil. Any contamination that is identified above regulatory screening levels, including California Department of Toxic Substances Control Soil Screening Levels, should be further evaluated and cleaned up, if necessary, in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.” (Id., p. 3.).

B. Inaccurate Air Modeling Undermines the MND’s Conclusions.

SWAPE reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files – the underlying data files used to estimate a project’s air emissions – and found that “several model inputs were not consistent with [the] information disclosed in the IS/MND.” (Ex. B., p. 3.) For instance, the air model reduced the default architectural and area coating emission factors without proper justification.

The CalEEMod user comments seek to justify these reductions by referring to compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) Rule 1113, which limits the volatile organic compound (“VOC”) contents for 57 categories of architectural coatings.

However, the VOC limit values under SCAQMD Rule 1113 range from 50 g/L to 730 g/L. (Id., p. 4.) Therefore, SWAPE “cannot verify that SCAQMD Rule 1113 substantiates reductions to the default coating values without more information regarding what category of coating would be used.” (Id.)
Furthermore, the IS/MND fails to implement any formal mitigation measure requiring the use of a specific type of architectural coating. CEQA requires mitigation measures to be legally enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. 14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(2). See, Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.

App. 4th 683, 730 (project proponent’s agreement to a mitigation by itself is insufficient; mitigation measure must be an enforceable requirement). Therefore, SWAPE writes, “by including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related and operational ROG/VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.” (Id., pp. 4-5.)
Next, SWAPE found that the model’s revised construction schedule – involving various changes from CalEEMod’s default values – is unsubstantiated because the IS/MND fails to discuss the Project’s proposed construction schedule at all. (Id., p. 5.) Furthermore, SWAPE notes, “the model is incorrect in stating that a longer construction schedule would be ‘more conservative.’” In fact, by “extending some of the individual construction phase lengths, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the prolonged phases. As a result, there will be less construction activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day.” (Id., p. 6.) Therefore, SWAPE

Comments to the Desert Hot Springs Planning Commission
Re: PODS Warehouse Project
March 24, 2023

writes, “the model underestimates the peak daily emissions associated with some phases of construction and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.” (Id.) Lastly, SWAPE found that the model improperly reduced the default number of acres that would be graded for the Project. According to the CalEEMod user guide, “the default acres of grading values are based on the model’s construction equipment and the length of the grading and site preparation phases, not on the dimensions of the Project site. (Id., p. 7.) However, the user comments in support of the value changes merely point to the total acreage of the Project site. According to SWAPE, “These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the acres of grading values to estimate the dust emissions associated with grading.” (Id.) Therefore, the model underestimates “the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.” (Id.) C. Updated Modeling Shows the Project Will Have a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact.

Provided that the Project documents did not accurately assess the Project’s constructionrelated air quality impacts, SWAPE conducted its own analysis using CalEEMod and projectspecific information disclosed in project documents. According to this updated analysis, SWAPE found that the Project would produce an estimated 80.97 lbs./day of VOC emissions. (Id., p. 8.) This estimate exceeds the SCAQMD significance threshold of 75 lbs./day and represents a potentially significant air quality impact that should be further mitigated. As such, SWAPE writes, “an EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment.” (Id.) In addition to these modeling inaccuracies, the IS/MND concluded that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). (Id., p. 9.) This is improper because CEQA requires an analysis to determine whether a Project’s toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions—including diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions—will have potentially adverse impacts on human health. Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 518 (an EIR must make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”) The failure to address potential health-related impacts resulting from the Project’s likely air emissions is problematic because operation of construction equipment during construction, as well as truck trips during future operations, will release DPM emissions into the air, affecting local and regional air quality.

The IS/MND suggests that health risks from exposure to diesel particulate matter would not be significant because the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for construction‐generated criteria pollutants. (Id., p. 9.) However, as SWAPE explains, LST “only evaluates impacts from criteria air pollutants,” which does not include DPM. “As a result, health impacts during Project operation from exposure to TACs, such as DPM, were not analyzed, thus leaving a gap in the AQ & GHG Memo’s analysis.” (Id.)

Comments to the Desert Hot Springs Planning Commission
Re: PODS Warehouse Project
March 24, 2023

DPM is a known human carcinogen which poses unique health risks to nearby sensitive receptors.. DPM contains 40 toxic chemicals, including benzene, arsenic and lead. (www.p65warnings.ca.gov/fact-sheets/diesel-engine-exhaust.) DPM is also listed by the State of California as a toxic air contaminant known to cause cancer in humans. (https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition65//p65chemicalslistsinglelisttable2021p.pdf.) According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Exposure to diesel exhaust can lead to serious health conditions like asthma and respiratory illnesses and can worsen existing heart and lung disease, especially in children and the elderly. These conditions can result in increased numbers of emergency room visits, hospital admissions, absences from work and school, and premature deaths.” (https://www.epa.gov/dera/learn-about-impacts-diesel-exhaust-and-diesel-emissions-reductionact-dera).

The failure to prepare an HRA is also directly contrary to applicable guidance from the California Department of Justice, which recommends that all warehouse projects prepare a quantitative HRA pursuant to guidance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”). (Id., p. 10.) Here, OEHHA recommends that a quantified Health Risk Assessment (“HRA”) be prepared to evaluate potential cancer risks for any short-term construction project lasting more than two months, and for the lifetime of any long-term project lasting more than six months. OEHHA guidance also recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate the individual cancer risk affecting the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”) near a proposed Project site. (Id.) Accordingly, because the Project will presumably operate for at least 30 years, the lifetime health risk to nearby sensitive receptors must be estimated by an HRA. (Id.) “These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, an EIR should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions.” (Id.)
Finally, in failing to prepare a quantified construction or operational HRA to determine the impact on nearby sensitive receptors, the Project documents also failed to compare the potentially excess cancer risk beyond the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 per million. (Id.) As such, the City lacks the necessary evidence to show that the Project will have a lessthan-significant air quality impact. Therefore, an EIR must be prepared to include an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby existing receptors.

D. Health Assessment Demonstrates that the Project Involves Significant Health Risk Impacts.

Provided that the IS/MND did not adequately assess the Project’s significant adverse health impacts, SWAPE developed a screening-level risk assessment using AERSCREEN, a modeling tool which is recommended by OEHHA for the development of Level 2 Health Risk Screening Assessments (“Level 2 HRSA”). According to SWAPE, “A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind

Comments to the Desert Hot Springs Planning Commission
Re: PODS Warehouse Project
March 24, 2023

concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.” (Id., p. 11.) Following this recommended approach for modeling potential health risks, SWAPE estimated the cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual receptor (“MEIR”), in this case a residence located approximately 900 meters from the Project site. (Id., pp. 12-13.) SWAPE’s analysis concluded that Project construction and operations would result in excess cancer risks for infants (16.2 per million) and lifetime residents (19.1 per million). (Id., p. 15.) These risk levels exceed the SCAQMD’s health risk significance threshold of 10 per million.

SWAPE explains that this analysis is based on a “screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection.” (Id., p. 16.) Therefore, “an EIR should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associates with both Project construction and operation.” (Id.) E. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have a Significant Impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 412.5 MTCO2e and asserts that this impact would be less-thansignificant. (Id., p. 17.) However, the IS/MND’s quantitative analysis is unsubstantiated because “several of the values inputted into the models are not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND.” (Id.) Because of these inaccuracies, the models may underestimate the Project’s emissions and the IS/MND’s quantitative analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Instead, an EIR should be prepared to assess the Project’s potential GHG impacts.

Furthermore, the IS/MND relied upon an outdated quantitative threshold to determine project significance. Specifically, the IS/MND compared the Project’s estimated GHG emissions to the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. However, SWAPE writes, this threshold is based upon outdated GHG emissions targets which California was required to meet by 2020. The threshold is thus irrelevant to significance determinations made in 2023. To more accurately determine the Project’s GHG significance, potential emissions should be measured according to the SCAQMD 2035 service population efficiency target of 3.0 MT C02e/SP/year, which was calculated by applying a 40-percent reduction to the 2020 targets. (Id., p. 18).

When applying this updated calculation method, which accounts for the number of residents and/or jobs that will be served by a project, SWAPE determined that the Project would have a potentially significant GHG impact. Therefore, an EIR should be prepared to include an updated GHG analysis and should include additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to less-than-significant levels. SWAPE proposes a detailed list of feasible GHG mitigation measures to reduce this impact, including a requirement that the Project incorporate a solar power system for on-site energy production. (Id., pp. 19-21.)

Comments to the Desert Hot Springs Planning Commission
Re: PODS Warehouse Project
March 24, 2023

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, there is substantial evidence that the Project will have significant adverse impacts on biological resources, air quality, hazardous materials, and greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the City is required to prepare an EIR for the Project. SAFER respectfully requests that you deny approval of the MND and instead direct staff to undertake the necessary efforts to prepare an EIR.

Sincerely,
Adam Frankel
Lozeau Drury LLP

EXHIBIT A

1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Patricia Villagomez, Principal Planner
City of Desert Hot Springs
11-999 Palm Drive
Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 27 February 2023
RE: PODS Warehouse
Dear Ms. Villagomez,
I write to comment on potential impacts to wildlife that were analyzed in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for a 60,000 square feet warehouse to house portable storage units on 4.85 acres located at the northeast corner of Calle De Los Romos and Avenue 19 (City of Desert Hot Springs 2023). I also reviewed a report on biological resources prepared by James W. Cornett (2022).

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I subsequently worked for four years as a post-graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, conservation of rare and endangered species, and on the ecology of invading species. I authored numerous papers on special-status species issues. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve been a part-time lecturer at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-five years, including at many proposed project sites. My CV is attached.

SITE VISIT
I visited the site with Noriko Smallwood, who is a wildlife biologist with a Master’s Degree from California State University, Los Angeles. We visited the site at 16:00 hours on the 20th and at 06:06 hours on the 21
st, 2023, for a total 4.58 hours. We walked the
site’s perimeter, stopping to scan for wildlife with binoculars. The sky was clear both days, winds from various directions at 3 to 8 mph, and temperatures of 70-63° F on the 20th and 51-68° F on the 22nd.

The site is graded flat and surrounded by a cyclone fence augmented by material to block views from the outside (Photo 1). However, the fence fell down in places. Creosote scrub borders the site to the north and south (Photo 2). We detected at least 15 species of vertebrate wildlife (Table 1), 4 (27%) of which are special-status species.

2 Photos 1 and 2. View of project site where the fence fell over (top, 20 February 2023) and of creosote scrub to south and north (bottom, 1 December 2022).

Table 1. Species of wildlife we observed in 4.58 hours of survey on 20―21 February 2023.

Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native California gull Larus californicus BCC, TWL Off site
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii TWL, BOP Hunted over site Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Called off site Common raven Corvus corax Foraged on site
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia TWL Aerial display - courtship Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus Perched on fence
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria Flyover
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata
Coyote Canis latrans Walked by site, crossed road
Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis Scent
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii Pellets
Pocket mouse Chaetodipus Burrows just off site
Kangaroo rat Dipodomys Burrows just off site
1 Listed as BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, SSC2 = California species of special concern priority level 2 (Shuford and Gardali 2008), TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5).

3 We saw a coyote (Photo 3), kangaroo rat burrows, California horned larks, Cooper’s hawk, and common raven (Photos 4‒6) among other species. During a survey just south of the project site on 1-2 December 2022, we saw additional species such as verdin (Photo 8) and California thrasher (Photo 9), both of which are US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern. These species and others we saw during earlier surveys, and combined with the survey outcomes of James W. Cornett (2022), totaled 37 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 14 special-status species (Table 2). Thirtyeight percent of the species seen at or next to the project site by recent reconnaissancelevel surveys have been special-status species, which is the highest percentage of specialstatus species we have detected at any given site that has been proposed for a project over the past 25 years.

In recent surveys over the past year or two, I have also seen multiple additional specialstatus species within inly 2.5 miles of the project site. These species included prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) and LeConte’s thrasher (Toxostoma leconte). The project site is situated in an area of numerous special-status species of wildlife, any of which can make use of the site at one time or another. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately characterize the existing environmental setting and analyze potential project impacts to special-status species of wildlife. In the meantime, no more damage should be inflicted to the site to suppress biological resources.

Photo 3. Coyote walked around the site, 22 February 2023.

4 Photo 4. Burrow of kangaroo rat, 22 February 2023.

Photos 5 and 6. California horned lark
(left) and Cooper’s hawk on the Coachillin
fence adjacent to project site (right), 22
February 2023. The Cooper’s hawk also
flew over the project site.

5 Photo 7. Common raven on the site, 22 February 2023.

Photo 8. Verdin on property
just south of the project site, 2
December 2022.

6 Photo 9. California thrasher on property just south of the project site, 2 December 2022.

Table 2. Species of wildlife detected offsite (x) or on site (X) during surveys by James W. Cornett and Shawn and Noriko Smallwood (surveys on neighbor property on 1 and 2 December 2022).

Common name Species name Status1 Cornett Smallwood
Side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana X
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura X
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native x
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native x Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna x
California gull Larus californicus BCC, TWL x
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP X
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii TWL, BOP X
Red-tailed hawk Nuteo jamaicensis BOP X
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP X
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya X
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 x
Common raven Corvus coras X Xx
Verdin Auriparus flaviceps BCC x
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia TWL Xx

7 Common name Species name Status1 Cornett Smallwood
Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor X
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC x
Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus x
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native x
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria X
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus Xx
Sparrow spp. x
Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater Non-native x
Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus x
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata Xx
Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis x
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC x
Desert bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis nelsoni CFP x
Coyote Canis latrans x x
Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus x x
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii x
San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia SSC x Palm Springs round-tailed
ground squirrel2
Spermophilus tereticaudus
chlorus SSC x
x
Long-tailed pocket mouse3 Chaetodipus formosus x x
Kangaroo rat spp. Dipodomys spp. x x
Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus x
Desert bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis nelsoni CFP x
1 Listed as CFP = California Fully Protected (CFG Code 3511), BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and SSC = California Species of Special Concern, and SSC2 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priority level 2 (Shuford and Gardali 2008). 2 We identified the burrows as excavated by an unidentified species of ground squirrel. 3 We identified burrows of pocket mouse of unidentified species.

Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.

Reconnaissance-level surveys, such as the surveys James W. Cornett and those we completed, can be useful for confirming presence of species that were detected, but they can also be useful for estimating the number of species that were not detected. One can model the pattern in species detections during a survey as a means to estimate the number of species that used the site but were undetected during the survey. To support such a modeling effort, the observer needs to record the times into the survey when each species was first detected. The cumulative number of species’ detections increases with increasing survey time, but eventually with diminishing returns (Figure 1). This pattern

8 reflects the relative ease of detecting the most conspicuous species early during the survey, and the difficulty with detecting the rarer and more cryptic of the species.

In the case of our survey, the pattern in the data (Figure 1) predicts that had we spent more time on site, or had we help from additional biologists, we would have detected additional species of vertebrate wildlife. Our rates of cumulative species detections remained below the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval estimated from other project sites we have surveyed in the Coachella Valley of California (Figure 1). This lower rate of detections reflects the suppressive effects of the site having been graded and surrounded with a fence. Importantly, however, the site remains valuable to wildlife despite the damage done to it (Figure 1). Natural vegetation and natural soil conditions around the site have maintained wildlife as a buffer against on-site actions to suppress biological resources.

Figure 1. Actual and predicted relationships between the number of vertebrate wildlife species detected and the elapsed survey time based on visual-scan surveys on the evening of the 20th and morning of the 22nd of February 2023. Note that although patterns in the data are very similar between the two surveys, the relationships would differ if the surveys were based on another method or during another season. Also note the cumulative number of vertebrate species across all methods, times of day, and seasons would increase.

The site supports more species of wildlife than we could detect during two brief reconnaissance-level surveys. However, although this modeling approach is useful for more realistically representing the species richness of the site at the time of a survey, it cannot represent the species richness throughout the year or across multiple years 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Model prediction
r
2 = 0.98, loss = 1.5
95% CI of visualscan surveys 2019-2022
AM count of species
Model prediction
r
2 = 0.97, loss = 1.6
PM count of species
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected

9 because many species are seasonal or even multi-annual in their movement patterns and in their occupancy of habitat.

By use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods Noriko and I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂ =
1 1⁄𝑎+𝑏×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠)
𝑐
, where 𝑅̂ represented cumulative species
richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r 2, of the models ranged 0.88 to

1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.

I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I detected

16.4 species over the first 4.58 hours of surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (4.58 hours to match the number of hours Noriko surveyed at the project site), which composed 28.8% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 15 species Noriko and I detected after our 4.58 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 28.8% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, we would likely detect 15

0.288 ⁄ = 52 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming our ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold with through the detections of all 52 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 14 specialstatus species of wildlife. With James W. Cornett’s surveys and ours at the neighboring property, my predicted number of special-status species of wildlife has already proven accurate.

Again, however, my prediction of 52 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 14 specialstatus species of wildlife, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would not detect nocturnal mammals such as bats. The true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. A reconnaissance-level survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of a site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site.

10 Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019.

A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR based on more complete surveys for wildlife and to appropriately interpret the survey outcomes for the purpose of more accurately characterizing the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting.

EXISTING ENVIRNMENTAL SETTING
The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the biological species that use the site, their relative abundances, how they use the site, key ecological relationships, and known and ongoing threats to those species with special status. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the basis for determining whether the site holds habitat value to wildlife, as well as a baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts. For these reasons, characterization of the environmental setting, including the project’s site’s regional setting, is one of CEQA’s essential analytical steps (§15125). Methods to achieve this first step typically include (1) surveys of the site for biological resources, and (2) reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In the case of this project, these essential steps remain incomplete and misleading.

Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys
To CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, it helps for the analysis to be informed of which biological species are known to 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)

11 occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, as well as the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources.

James W. Cornett (2022) completed numerous surveys, which is commendable, but it would have helped to report more details about their study methods and survey effort. It would have helped to report what times the surveys started and how long the surveys lasted. How many large mammal traps versus small mammal traps were set, and why for 24 hours each? Which species were captured in traps, and how many of each? It would have helped to report the numbers of each species detected during pedestrian transect surveys and which species were detected during night surveys. These missing details would have vastly improved the informative value of the report, and probably would have helped explain why, after all those surveys, James W. Cornett (2022) detected only one more species than did Noriko and I after we surveyed for only one evening and one morning.

James W. Cornett (2022) reports that intensive and concerted efforts were made to detect particular special-status species in the project vicinity, including Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata), Mojave Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), and flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii). However, James W. Cornett did not report having implemented the protocol-level detection survey guidelines that are available for each of these species. For one thing, it would have been inappropriate to implement survey protocols for all three species simultaneously.

According to the survey protocol for the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/survey-protocols-for-thecoachella-valley-fringe-toed-lizard.pdf), transects were supposed to be 5 m apart, but James W. Cornett’s transects were 10 yards apart, or nearly twice the recommended distance. It is unknown whether the prescribed survey start times corresponded with those of James W. Cornett (2022), because the start times were not reported. It is also unknown whether the other standards were met due to lack of reporting. Similarly, James W. Cornett failed to achieve the survey and reporting standards for the other two species. Without having completed protocol-level detection surveys for any of the abovementioned species, absence determinations are unsupportable.

James W. Cornett (2022) reports not having seen Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, Mojave desert tortoise, flat-tailed horned lizard, burrowing owl, LeConte’s thrasher, and loggerhead shrike. James W. Cornett (2022:16) concludes, “An intensive plant and animal survey was conducted within and around the proposed project boundaries. No sensitive plant or animal species were observed...” However, these ostensible findings are potentially misleading without evidence of absence. The reason the survey protocols were formulated was to provide evidence of absence where the species are truly absent, and to prevent ostensible reports of absence.

I find it curious why James W. Cornett (2022) failed to complete detection surveys for burrowing owl. After all, James W. Cornett (2022) concludes that burrowing owls could

12 occur on the project site. The Desert Gateway MND reported that burrowing owls were detected on the proposed site of the Desert Gateway project, just south of the project site at issue. These findings warrant implementation of the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines for burrowing owls, but yet they were not implemented. This is a shortfall of the IS/MND.

A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to more completely and accurately characterize the existing environmental setting of the project site.

Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review
The purpose of literature and database review, and of consulting with local experts, is to inform the reconnaissance-level survey, to augment it, and to help determine which protocol-level detection surveys should be implemented. Analysts need this information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and site conditions. This step is important because the reconnaissance-level survey is not going to detect all of the species of wildlife that make use of the site. This step can identity those species yet to be detected at the site but which have been documented to occur nearby or whose available habitat associations are consistent with site conditions. Some special-status species can be ruled out of further analysis, but only if compelling evidence is available in support of such determinations (see below).

The IS/MND is inadequately informs of a literature and data base review, i.e., the desktop review. According to the IS/MND (page 33), “Survey methodology included literature, records, collections, website, or staff review to determine resources that are known to exist within the general area and to determine the possible occurrence of sensitive species. The University of California at Riverside Herbarium, the Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, the Calflora and iNaturalist websites, and the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database were reviewed and consulted for specific information regarding the occurrence of sensitive species.” However, I found no evidence in James W. Cornett (2022) that any but one of these sources were consulted for occurrence likelihoods of special-status species. Only the results of CNDDB queries are reported in James W. Cornett (2022), and these are reported without interpretation. It is unclear how the CNDDB queries contributed to the analysis of species occurrence likelihoods.

Although the IS/MND reports that a desktop review was completed for biological resources, evidence of this review is lacking.

As evidence of deficient desktop review, the IS/MND is silent on the finding of burrowing owls on the site proposed for Desert Gateway, just south of the project site.

According to the MND for Desert Gateway, burrowing owls were detected on the project site during a general biological survey for wildlife that was completed on 31 May 2017.

Neither the IS/MND nor James W. Cornett (2022) extended the desktop review to CEQA review documents prepared for projects in the local area.

13 In my assessment based on database reviews and on reconnaissance surveys, 128 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to be analyzed for occurrence potential at one time or another (Table 3). Of these, reconnaissance surveys or occurrence databases documented 5 on site, 18 within 1.5 miles of the site, 40 (31%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (‘Nearby’), and 61 (48%) within 4 to 30 miles (‘In region’). Half (63) of the potentially-occurring species of vertebrate wildlife in Table 3 have been recorded within 4 miles of the site. With so many species known to occur so close to the project site, it is easy to conclude that the site carries a lot of potential for supporting special-status species of wildlife. On any given day, one or more of these species likely make use of the project site, but multiple surveys are needed to document that use (see Figures 1 and 2). Sufficient survey effort should be directed to the site to either confirm these species use the site or to support absence determinations.

Of the 128 special-status species of wildlife that appear in my Table 3, the IS/MND addresses only 8 of them, assigning occurrence potential only to one of them – burrowing owl. The IS/MND makes flawed arguments in defense of 0ccurrence likelihood determinations directed to the other 7 species such as “not expected” or “absent.” For example, LeConte’s thrasher is reported to be not expected because it ostensibly requires golden cholla for nesting. Even if true, nesting birds require more than a suitable nest substrate; they also require opportunities to forage and socialize – opportunities that a warehouse and parking lot would eliminate.

In another example, the IS/MND falsely claims that loggerhead shrike breeding habitat is not available in the project area because “Shrikes nest in dense shrubs or trees that are at least three feet in height.” James W. Cornett (2022) reported the minimum height to be 4 feet for shrubs or trees to serve as nest substrate for shrikes. Neither of these minimum heights are accurate (Smallwood and Smallwood 2021), and neither was it accurate to report that shrubs of this height are unavailable in the project vicinity. And in fact, Noriko and I saw a loggerhead shrike near the project site when we surveyed a neighboring property on 2 December 2022, and I heard one calling while we surveyed the project site on 20 February 2023. Loggerhead shrikes are present.

In yet another example, the IS/MND says of desert kit fox, “Mass grading, human activity, and presence of coyotes in the general areas are the likely explanation for its absence.” This explanation is pure speculation and does not comport with the many places where desert kit fox occurs amid coyotes and human activity. Evidence of absence is needed instead of convenient speculation.

As a point of correction, the IS/MND reports that “ground squirrel burrows ... may be usurped by owls,” but this is grossly misleading. Burrowing owls do not usurp ground squirrels for their burrows. The relationship is mutualistic, wherein each species alarmcalls for the other upon detection of predators, and both species benefit from the residence of burrowing owls within ground squirrel burrow systems. Survival of squirrel pups increases in the presence of burrowing owls, and burrowing owl chick survival increases with greater numbers of squirrels in close proximity.

14 Table 3. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Bold font indicates species we observed.

Common name Species name Status1
James W.

Cornett
(2022)
Database
records, Site
visits
Covered
by

CVMSHCP
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Nearby
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE In region
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC Not expected In region Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC In region
Mojave desert tortoise Gopherus agassizii FT, CT Absent Nearby Yes Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC In region Flat-tailed horned lizard Phrynosoma mcallii SSC Absent In region Yes Coachella Valley fringe-toed
lizard
Uma inornata FT, CE Not expected Very close Yes
Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC In region San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC In region Southern rubber boa Charina umbratica CT In region
Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC In region Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC Nearby Red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC Very close
Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL In region Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Nearby
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Nearby
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Nearby
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE, BCC In region
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Nearby
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Very close

15 Common name Species name Status1
James W.

Cornett
(2022)
Database
records, Site
visits
Covered
by

CVMSHCP
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Nearby
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC In region
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus BCC In region
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus BCC, WL In region Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC In region
American avocet Recurvirostra americana BCC Nearby
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC In region
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close
Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia BCC Nearby
Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC In region
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Nearby
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Nearby American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Nearby
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP On site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Very close
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, WL, BOP In region Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP,
BOP
Very close
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
Nearby
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Nearby
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP On site
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC,
CFP
Very close
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Nearby
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Nearby
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site

16 Common name Species name Status1
James W.

Cornett
(2022)
Database
records, Site
visits
Covered
by

CVMSHCP
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP In region
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP In region
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In region
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Nearby
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BCC, BOP In region Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Nearby
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2,
BOP
Potential Very close Yes
Long-eared owl Asio Otis SSC3 In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
In region
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC In region
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC In region
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Nearby
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CFP, BCC, BOP Nearby
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus BCC, WL, BOP Nearby
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Nearby Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE, BCC Nearby
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Nearby
Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Nearby Yes Gray vireo Vireo vicinior SSC2, BCC In region Yes
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Nesting unlikely Very close Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Nearby
Verdin Auriparus flaviceps BCC Very close
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL On site Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Nearby
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC In region

17 Common name Species name Status1
James W.

Cornett
(2022)
Database
records, Site
visits
Covered
by

CVMSHCP
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica CT, SSC In region Black-tailed gnatcatcher Polioptila melanura WL Nearby
Bendire’s thrasher Toxostoma bendirei SSC3, BCC In region California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close
LeConte’s thrasher Toxostoma lecontei SSC1, BCC Nesting unlikely Nearby Yes Crissal thrasher Toxostoma crissale SSC3 In region Yes
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri BCC Nearby
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL, BCC In region
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2, BCC Nearby Southern California rufouscrowned sparrowAimophila ruficeps canescens WL Nearby Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Nearby Yes
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Nearby Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Nearby
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 In region Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3, BCC In region
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia BCC, SSC2 Nearby Yes
Hepatic tanager Piranga flava WL In region
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby Yes
California leaf-nosed bat Macrotus californicus WBWG: H In range Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:

H
In region
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:

H

In region
18 Common name Species name Status1
James W.

Cornett
(2022)
Database
records, Site
visits
Covered
by

CVMSHCP
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:L In region
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG: In region
Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG:H In range
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M In range Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H In range Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M In region
Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H In region Yes Western small-footed
myotis
Myotis cililabrum WBWG:M In region
Miller’s myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M In region
Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In range
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In region
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In region
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM In region
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H In range Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG:M In region San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii SSC In range
Pallid San Diego pocket
mouse
Chaetodipus fallax pallidus SSC In region Yes
Palm Springs pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris bangsi SSC In range Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
SSC In region
San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia SSC Very close Southern grasshopper
mouse
Onychomys torridus ramona SSC In region
Palm Springs round-tailed
ground squirrel
Xerospermophilus tereticaudus
chlorus
SSC Very close Yes
Mountain lion Puma concolor CCT In region

19 Common name Species name Status1
James W.

Cornett
(2022)
Database
records, Site
visits
Covered
by

CVMSHCP
Desert kit fox Vulpes macrotis arsipus CFP Not expected In region Yes American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Very close
Desert bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis nelsoni FP Very close 1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H).

20 The project would potentially affect up to 15 special-status species of wildlife in Table 3 that are covered by the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). Of these 15 species covered by the CVMSHCP in Table 3, none have been documented on site, 3 has been documented within 1.5 miles, 6 have been documented within 1.5 and 4 miles of the site, and 7 have been documented within 4 and 30 miles of the site. The project would potentially cause impacts to these 15 species for which the CVMSHCP is attempting to conserve. Importantly, 113 special-status species in Table 3 are not covered by CVMSHCP. Five of these species have been confirmed on site, 13 have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site, 34 within 1.5 and 4 miles, and 53 within 4 and 30 miles of the site. The majority of the special-status species at risk of harm due to the project are not covered by the CVMSHCP. One of the two proposed mitigation measures – BR-2, payment of the CVMSHCP mitigation fee– would benefit only a small subset of the special-status species at risk of suffering harm from the project.

The environmental baseline needs to be better informed by both on-site surveys and occurrence database review. Absence determinations need to be founded on substantial evidence. Without such evidence, the precautionary principle in risk analysis calls for erring on the side of caution, which in this application means assuming presence of each potentially occurring special-status species. Considering the results of my analysis, a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to more accurately characterize the existing environmental setting.

POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
According to James W. Cornett (2022). “Development of the proposed project site will not have significant adverse impacts upon biological resources in the region providing the mitigation and recommendations described above are implemented.” The IS/MND reports the same conclusion, though worded differently. In both cases, the conclusion is unfounded, and in fact, it is refuted by the survey findings of both James W. Cornett (2022) and our own. As I commented earlier, I have not seen a site where such a high percentage of the wildlife species detected during reconnaissance-level surveys turned out to be special-status species. The project area holds unusually high value to specialstatus species of wildlife, and the wildlife community of the area is unusually rich in special-status species.

Furthermore, the conclusion fails to consider the habitat that is under threat around the project site. It fails to consider the proposed 64.91-acre Desert Gateway project to the south of the project site and the large warehouse to be built on 94 acres east of Desert Gateway following the approval of the Viento Logistics Center (Sierra Club letter to City of Desert Hot Springs Planning Commission, 21 November 2022) nor the construction activity of the Coachillin project that devastated about 146 acres of desert vegetation just west of the project site. The IS/MND’s conclusion is made without any context to these other projects that are underway, approved or proposed, all of which together would be devastating to wildlife in the region.

21 HABITAT LOSS AND HABITAT FRAGMENTATION
A recent study documented a 29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years – a decline driven by multiple factors, but principally attributed to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation (Rosenberg et al. 2019). The project would destroy another 4.85 acres of wildlife habitat. Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but also in permanent loss of productive capacity.

Habitat fragmentation, which is the reduction of connectivity of remaining habitat patches on a landscape, can further diminish the productive capacity of a site (Smallwood 2015). Habitat fragmentation has been progressing rapidly around the project site, diminishing the open space in the area and travel routes available to terrestrial wildlife. Habitat fragmentation is one of the cumulative effects of this project that needs to be analyzed in an EIR.

WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
According to James W. Cornett (2022:15), “No concentration of animal tracks was found on or near the project boundaries. Track concentrations can be an indicator of wildlife corridors.” Indeed, track concentrations can indicate the existence of wildlife corridors, but they are not the sole indicator. Nor did James W. Cornett (2022) cite any particular threshold of track concentration that would indicate the existence of a corridor, and no source of this indicator was cited.

Furthermore, whether the site occurs within a corridor or functions as a corridor is relevant to the analysis, but the analysis of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region does not depend on this question. The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor. A site such as the proposed project site is all the more important for wildlife movement because it provides opportunities for stopover and staging of volant wildlife during migration, and for dispersal and home range patrol while opportunities nearby diminish as anthropogenic uses expand (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). The project would cut wildlife off from stopover and staging opportunities, forcing volant wildlife to travel even farther between remaining patches of stopover refugia.

A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to analyze the project’s potential impacts to wildlife movement in the region.

ROAD MORTALITY
A fundamental shortfall of the IS/MND is its failure to analyze or to even mention the impacts of the project’s added road traffic on both special-status and non-special-status species of wildlife, including many animals that would be killed far from the project’s construction footprint. To patrol home ranges, disperse from natal areas, escape predators or chase down prey, and to migrate, wildlife must cross roads traversed by

22 cars and trucks originating from or headed toward the project site (Photo 10). In the act of crossing roads, which again they must do, wild animals would face injury and death from project-generated traffic (Photos 11-15). The project’s impacts to wildlife would add to the traffic impacts of recently constructed residential, commercial and industrial projects in the area, and would reach as far from the project as cars and trucks travel to and from the project site.

Photo 10. A coyote crosses 19th Avenue immediately southeast of the site of the proposed project, 21 February 2023. This and other coyotes in the region would be jeopardized by project-generated traffic including trucks.

Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, and arthropods, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America, traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local or regional impacts can be more intense than at the national level.

23 Photo 11. A white-tailed
antelope squirrel runs across the
road just 1.6 miles from the
project site, 26 May 2022.

Photo 12. A Gambel’s quail
dashes across a road in
Coachella Valley. Such road
crossings are usually successful,
but too often prove fatal to the
animal. Photo by Noriko
Smallwood.

Photo 13. Great-tailed grackle (left) walks onto a
rural road in Imperial County, 4 February 2022.

Photo 14. Raccoon (right) killed on Road
31 just east of Highway 505 in Solano
County. Photo taken on 10 November 2018.

24 Photo 15. A mourning dove
killed by vehicle traffic on a
California road. Photo by Noriko
Smallwood, 21 June 2020.

In a recent study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality, investigators found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). Using carcass detection trials performed on land immediately adjacent to the traffic mortality study (Brown et al. 2016) to adjust the found fatalities for the proportion of fatalities not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error, the estimated traffic-caused fatalities was 12,187. This fatality estimate translates to a rate of 3,900 wild animals per mile per year killed. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife. The vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.

Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife According to the IS/MND, the proposed project would result in an estimated construction VMT of 264,943 VMT and an 570,302 annual operational VMT. During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of wildlife fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks ×

2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate applied to the construction VMT would predict 145 wildlife fatalities. Applied to the operative annual VMT, it would predict 312 wildlife fatalities per year. In its desert environment, the project’s toll on wildlife could be even higher than I predict, but even if it is lower than I predict, the toll would nevertheless be substantial and highly significant.

There is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to analyze the project’s potential impacts of wildlife-automobile collision mortality

25 resulting from project-generated traffic. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The IS/MND provides no analysis of cumulative impacts to biological resources other than to imply that cumulative impacts are really just residual impacts of incomplete mitigation of project-level impacts. If that was CEQA’s standard, then cumulative effects analysis would be merely an analysis of mitigation efficacy. And if that was the standard, then I must point out that none of the project-level impacts would be offset to any degree by the proposed preconstruction surveys to be performed for burrowing owls and nesting birds. But the IS/MND’s implied standard is not the standard of analysis of cumulative effects. CEQA defines cumulative impacts, and it outlines two general approaches for performing the analysis.

The IS/MND also implies that the project’s impacts would be mitigated by the Light Industrial zone in which it is proposed. According to CEQA Guideline 15064(h)(3), “When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.” The IS/MND provides no explanation of how the project’s location within a Light Industrial zone would mitigate particular impacts to special-status species of wildlife.

An EIR needs to be prepared, and it needs to include an appropriate, serious analysis of cumulative impacts.

MITIGATION
BR-1: Pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls “The project proponent shall ensure that burrowing owl clearance survey is performed not more than 14 days prior to project site disturbance”
To be consistent with the standards of CDFW (2012), breeding-season detection surveys need to be completed prior to preconstruction take-avoidance surveys. Preconstruction surveys are nowhere near as effective as the CDFW (2012) breeding-season survey protocol, and therefore cannot substitute for such surveys. Breeding-season surveys per the CDFW (2012) protocol are needed to inform the preconstruction survey, because no such surveys have been completed yet.

BIO-2 Pay fee to Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) “Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the City of Desert Hot Springs shall ensure compliance with the CVMSHCP and its associated Implementing Agreement and shall ensure that payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee for the proposed Project is sent to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission.”

26 This proposed mitigation measure faces several shortfalls that ought to be addressed in an EIR. One shortfall goes to the special-status species likely to be adversely affected by the project, but which are not covered for incidental take under the CVMSHCP. One hundred and thirteen of the special-status species in Table 3 lack coverage under the CVMSHCP, and therefore would not necessarily benefit from the payment of fess to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission. Each species lives within a unique habitat, so the conservation benefits gained for an HCP-covered species might not extend to other species affected by the project. For example, loggerhead shrike, which definitely occurs next to the project site and would be adversely affected by the project, likely would not benefit from conservation easements purchased on sand dunes to protect Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard.

Another shortfall goes to the assumed rather than demonstrated efficacy of the CVMSHCP. I reviewed the CVMSHCP and its supporting documents to ascertain its performance standards and measurement of progress towards those standards. I could not find biological performance standards, such as minimum numbers of individuals to be achieved through conservation actions, or minimum productivity of each species, or even a minimum species richness as a community metric. Perhaps such performance standards exist, but they were not readily apparent to me. I did find that biological monitoring reports have been delivered with CVMSHCP annual reports. The biological monitoring studies have generated many interesting results, but it remains unclear how those results relate to CVMSHCP performance standards. The biological monitoring reports include many hypothesis-tests that are of obvious interest to the investigators, and of interest to me, but most of them fail to inform the reader of whether the CVMSHCP is conserving the species it covers.

The performance standards of the CVMSHCP appear more focused on acreage conserved. Target acres to conserve have been identified specific to the habitat needs of each covered species. Total acres conserved to date are many, and certainly looks impressive on the whole. However, most of the conserved acreage has been committed by state and federal agencies, and much less so by CVMSHCP permittees. Whereas the agencies have achieved 60% of their acreage goals to the reserve system since inception of the CVMSHCP in 2008, the permittees have achieved only 13.7% of their acreage goal (Annual Report 2020). Between 1996 and 2020, permittees contributed an average 552 acres per year in exchange for an allowed authorized disturbance to 898 acres/year (22,420 acres total). Outside conservation areas, 7,016 acres of Coachella Valley fringetoed lizard habitat have been taken through 2020, whereas 2,391 acres of habitat have been conserved. It appears to me that authorized take is being front-loaded while conserved acreage from permittee fees lags.

My take on the performance standards is that the CVMSHCP is lagging. Until the performance of the CVMSHCP can be demonstrated through both acreage and species conserved, I suggest the more prudent mitigation would be to formulate measures outside the CVMSHCP process. Whether a case is made for adequate performance of the CVMSHCP or mitigation is formulated outside the CVMSHCP, a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR.

27 RECOMMENDED MEASURES
Detection Surveys: If the project goes forward, species detection surveys are needed to (1) support negative findings of species when appropriate, (2) inform preconstruction surveys to improve their efficacy, (3) estimate project impacts, and (4) inform compensatory mitigation and other forms of mitigation. Detection survey protocols and guidelines are available from resource agencies for multiple special-status species.

Otherwise, professional standards can be learned from the scientific literature and species’ experts.

Detection Surveys for Bats: Although James W. Cornett (2022) concludes that no bat roosting opportunities exist on the project site, roosting substrate is not the sole survival need of bats. Bats must also be able to find forage. Multiple special-status species of bats likely occur at the project site. A qualified bat biologist should be tasked with completing protocol-level detection surveys for bats by use of mist nets, acoustic detectors and thermal imaging. It needs to be learned whether bats roost in the area and whether bats forage on site, especially special-status species of bats.

Preconstruction surveys: Although the IS/MND completely dismisses the notion that birds might nest on site, some birds nest on barren ground. California horned larks are an example, and horned larks were courting each other right there on site while Noriko and I were there (Photo 16). Preconstruction nest surveys are needed. Also needed is the completion of reports of the methods and outcomes of preconstruction surveys. The reports should be made available to the public.

Construction Monitoring: If the project goes forward, two or more qualified biologists need to serve as construction monitors. They should have the authority to stop construction when construction poses a threat to wildlife, and they should have the authority to rectify situations that pose threats to wildlife. The events associated with construction monitoring, such as efforts to avoid impacts and findings of dead and injured wildlife, need to be summarized in a report that is subsequently made available to the public.

Habitat Loss: If the project goes forward, compensatory mitigation would be warranted for habitat loss. At least an equal area of land should be protected in perpetuity as close to the project site as possible, but a larger area is likely warranted to mitigate for the impacts to multiple special-status species of wildlife known to occur on the site. And additional compensatory mitigation should be linked to impacts identified in construction monitoring.

Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by the project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments.

Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).

28 Photo 16. California horned lark preparing for courtship display next to the project site, 22 February 2023.

Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Most of the injuries will likely be caused by the increased vehicle mileage to and from the project.

29 Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

REFERENCE CITED
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of Avian Mortality Attributed to Vehicle Collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California.

Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.

J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211 City of Desert Hot Springs. 2023. Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration: Application for 4.85-Acre Logistics Center. Prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc.

Cornett, James W. 2022. General and Focused Biological Resource Assessment and CVMSHCP Consistency Analysis 4.86-Acre Desert Hot Springs Site. Prepared for Sniders Interests, LLC, Montecito, California.

Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.

Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.

Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.

Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

30 Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C.

Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019).

Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.

Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding density and collision mortality of loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540.

Photo 17. A California horned
lark next to the project site, 20
February 2023. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood.

1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.

Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two.

Cell (530) 601-6857
[email protected]
Ecologist
Expertise
• Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities;
• Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys; • Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions.

Education
Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.

M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.

B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.

Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.

Experience
 762 professional reports, including:
 90 peer reviewed publications
 24 in non-reviewed proceedings
 646 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
 8 in mass media outlets
 92 public presentations of research results
Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.

Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.

Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised

Smallwood CV 2
the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.

Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.

Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach.

Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation.

Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines.

Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001.

Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding.

Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS.

Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape.

Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues.

Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California.

Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County

Smallwood CV 3
to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.

Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis.

Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E.

Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring.

Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers.

Projects
Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue.

Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built.

Planning for additional repowering projects is underway.

Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a beforeafter, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances.

Smallwood CV 4
Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions.

Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports.

Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities.

Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars.

Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review.

Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals.

Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below).

Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species.

Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population.

Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV.

Smallwood CV 5
Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management.

Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits.

GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County.

Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams.

Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators.

Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc.

Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China.

Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China.

Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies.

Smallwood CV 6
Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats.

Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language.

Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards.

Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California.

Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards.

Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540.

Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); https://doi.org/10.3390/d12030098 Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863.

Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities.

Smallwood CV 7
Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084.

Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844 Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 –

71. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018.

Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:

Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Turbine siting for raptors: an example from Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18.

Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.

Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions.

John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

EXHIBIT B

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]
March 13, 2023
Adam Frankel
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the PODS Warehouse Project
Dear Mr. Frankel,
We have reviewed the December 2022 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the PODS Warehouse Project (“Project”) located in the City of Desert Hot Springs (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 60,000-square-foot (“SF”) container storage facility and 92 parking spaces on the

4.85-acre site.

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

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Inadequate Disclosure and Analysis of Impacts
The IS/MND relies only on a review of online databases in determining that the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. We viewed aerial images including the image below which shows the presence of material piles on the Project site in 2021. An EIR is necessary to include a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) to adequately evaluate and disclose potential hazards related to the placement of piled material and from other conditions that may exist on the Project site.

2 Google Earth Image, Taken Aug. 5, 2021
The preparation of a Phase I ESA is often undertaken in CEQA matters to identify and disclose hazardous materials issues that may present impacts to the public, workers, or the environment, and which may require further investigation, including environmental sampling and cleanup. Uses of the site for the placement of material may have resulted in the release of hazardous materials that would pose a risk to workers involved in earthwork necessary for site preparation.

Standards for performing a Phase I ESA have been established by the US EPA and the American Society for Testing and Materials Standards (“ASTM”).1 Phase I ESAs are conducted to identify conditions that would indicate a release of hazardous substance and include:
• a review of all known sites in the vicinity of the subject property that are on regulatory agency databases undergoing assessment or cleanup activities;
• an inspection;
• interviews with people knowledgeable about the property; and • recommendations for further actions to address potential hazards.

Phase I ESAs conclude with the identification of any “recognized environmental conditions” (“RECs”) and recommendations to address such conditions. A REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous 1 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.” ASTM International, December 2021, available at: http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1527.htm.

3 substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. If RECs are identified, then a Phase II ESA generally follows, which includes the collection of soil, soil vapor and groundwater samples, as necessary, to identify the extent of contamination and the need for cleanup to reduce exposure potential to the public.

A Phase I ESA, completed by a licensed environmental professional, is necessary for inclusion in an EIR to identify RECs, if any, at the proposed Project site. If past land uses including placement of material indicate RECs, a Phase II should be conducted to sample for residual concentrations of contaminants in soil. Any contamination that is identified above regulatory screening levels, including California Department of Toxic Substances Control Soil Screening Levels 2 , should be further evaluated and cleaned
up, if necessary, in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The IS/MND’s air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) Version 2020.4.0 (p. 28).3 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected.

When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Memorandum (“AQ & GHG Memo”), we found that several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result, model inputs were unreasonable to apply to the Project and the Project’s construction and operational emissions are underestimated. An EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality. 2 “HERO HHRA Note Number: 3, DTSC-modified Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs).” California Department Of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) & Human And Ecological Risk Office (HERO), June 2020, available at:
https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2022/02/HHRA-Note-3-June2020-Revised-May2022A.pdf. 3 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.

4 Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “2767 Logistics Center” model includes several reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors (see excerpt below) (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 6, 36, 66).

As demonstrated above, the nonresidential interior and exterior architectural and area emission factors are reduced from the default values of 250- to 50-grams per liter (“g/L”). Furthermore, the parking architectural and area coating emission factors are reduced from the default values of 250- to 100- g/L.

The CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.4 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“SCAQMD Rule 1113 require VOC limits on architectural coatings.” (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 5, 35, 65).

However, the changes to the architectural and area coating emission factors remain unsubstantiated as we cannot verify the accuracy of the revised architectural and area coating emission factors based on SCAQMD Rule 1113 alone. The SCAQMD Rule 1113 Table of Standards provides the required VOC limits (grams of VOC per liter of coating) for 57 different coating categories.5 The VOC limits for each coating varies from a minimum value of 50 g/L to a maximum value of 730 g/L. As such, we cannot verify that SCAQMD Rule 1113 substantiates reductions to the default coating values without more information regarding what category of coating would be used. As the IS/MND and associated documents fail to explicitly require the use of a specific type of coating in a formal mitigation measure, we are unable to verify the revised emission factors assumed in the models.

These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the architectural and area coating emission factors to calculate the Project’s reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound (“ROG”/“VOC”) emissions.6 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural 4 “CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14. 5 SCAQMD Rule 1113 Advisory Notice.” SCAQMD, February 2016, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf?sfvrsn=24, p. 1113-14, Table of Standards

1. 6 “CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 36, 42.

5 and area coating emission factors, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related and operational ROG/VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “2767 Logistics Center” model includes several changes to the default individual construction phase lengths (see excerpt below) (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 6, 36, 66).

As a result of these changes, the model includes the following construction schedule (see excerpt below) (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 10, 40, 69, 70).

As demonstrated above, the grading phase is increased by 150%, from the default value of 8 to 20 days; and the paving and architectural coating phases are each increased by 39%, from their default values of 18 to 25 days. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.7 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“The project does not involve a demolition phase. Default site preparation and building construction durations are accepted. Grading, paving, and architectural coating time frames are adjusted to be more conservative.” (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 5, 35, 65).

However, the model’s revised construction schedule remains unsubstantiated as the IS/MND fails to mention the Project’s proposed construction schedule whatsoever. This is incorrect, as according to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.

6 “CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site-or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.”8

Here, as the IS/MND does not mention or discuss Project’s proposed construction schedule, the IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised construction schedule. As such, we cannot verify the changes.

Furthermore, the model is incorrect in stating that a longer construction schedule would be “more conservative.” By extending some of the individual construction phase lengths, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the prolonged phases.

As a result, there will be less construction activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day. Therefore, until we are able to verify the revised construction schedule, the model underestimates the peak daily emissions associated with some phases of construction and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Reduction to Acres of Grading Values
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “2767 Logistics Center” model includes reductions to the default acres of grading values (see excerpt below) (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 6, 36, 66).

As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.9 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for this change is:
“Extent of grading will be 4 acres.” (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 5, 35, 65).

However, this change is incorrect. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“[T]he dimensions (e.g., length and width) of the grading site have no impact on the calculation, only the total area to be graded. In order to properly grade a piece of land multiple passes with equipment may be required. The acres are based on the equipment list and days in grading or site preparation phase according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8-hour workday.”10
8 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide,p. 13,14. 9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14. 10 “Appendix A – Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 9.

7 As stated above, the default acres of grading values are based on the model’s construction equipment and the length of the grading and site preparation phases. As the dimensions of the Project site have no impact on the acres of grading values, the revised values are unsubstantiated.

These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the acres of grading values to estimate the dust emissions associated with grading.11 By including unsubstantiated changes to the default acres of grading values, the models underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Incorrect Application of Area-Related Operational Mitigation Measures Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “2767 Logistics Center” model includes the following area-related mitigation measures (see excerpts below) (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 29, 31, 59, 61, 89, 92):

Area-Related Mitigation Measure:

As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.12 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for the inclusion of the area-related operational mitigation measures is:
“SCAQMD Rule 1113 require VOC limits on architectural coatings.” (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 5, 35, 65).

However, the inclusion of the above-mentioned operational mitigation measure remains unsupported for three reasons.

First, as previously discussed, the SCAQMD Rule 1113 alone cannot substantiate the use of low VOC paints. Without more information regarding what category of coatings and paints will be used, we cannot verify the inclusion of the above-mentioned mitigation measures.

Second, the IS/MND fails to formally include the use of low VOC paints as a mitigation measure. This is incorrect, as according to the AEP CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures:
11 “Appendix A – Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 9. 12 “CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.

8 “By definition, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design. Rather, mitigation measures are actions taken by the lead agency to reduce impacts to the environment resulting from the original project design. Mitigation measures are identified by the lead agency after the project has undergone environmental review and are above-and-beyond existing laws, regulations, and requirements that would reduce environmental impacts.”13 As demonstrated above, mitigation measures “are not part of the original project design” and are intended to go “above-and-beyond” existing regulatory requirements. As the use of low VOC paint is not formally included as a mitigation measure, we cannot guarantee that it would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. As such, the inclusion of the above-mentioned operational mitigation measures in the models is incorrect. As a result of these incorrect applications, the models may underestimate the Project’s area-related operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact In an effort to more accurately estimate the Project’s construction-related emissions, we prepared an updated CalEEMod model, using the Project-specific information provided by the IS/MND. In our updated model, we omitted the unsubstantiated changes to the architectural and area coating emission factors, individual construction phase lengths, and the acres of grading values; and omitted the arearelated operational mitigation measures. 14 Our updated analysis estimates that the Project’s construction-related VOC emissions would exceed the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) threshold of 75-pounds per day (“lbs/day”), as referenced by the IS/MND (p. 27, Table III-1) (see table below).15 SWAPE Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Construction VOC
(lbs/day)
IS/MND 13.57
SWAPE 80.97
% Increase 497%
SCAQMD Threshold 75
Exceeds? Yes
As you can see in the table above, the Project’s construction-related VOC emissions, as estimated by SWAPE, increase by approximately 497% and exceed the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold.

Thus, our updated model demonstrates that the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not previously identified or addressed in the IS/MND. As a result, an EIR should 13 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 5. 14 See Attachment B for updated air modeling. 15 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf.

9 be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment.

Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). Regarding the health risk impacts associated with the Project, the IS/MND states:
“The CalEEMod results summarized in Table III-4 demonstrate that the construction activities will not result in temporary emissions in excess of the lowest (most conservative) localized thresholds. Therefore, regarding the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, less than significant impacts are anticipated (p. 32) As demonstrated above, the IS/MND concludes a less-than-significant health risk impact during Project construction as emissions would not exceed localized thresholds. However, the IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for four reasons.

First, the use of a LST analysis to determine the health risk impacts posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors as a result of the Project’s operational toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions is incorrect.

While the LST method assesses the impact of pollutants at a local level, it only evaluates impacts from criteria air pollutants. According to the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology document prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), LST analyses are only applicable to NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions, which are collectively referred to as criteria air pollutants.16 Because LST methods can only be applied to criteria air pollutants, they cannot be used to determine whether emissions from TACs, specifically Diesel Particulate Matter (“DPM”), a known human carcinogen, would result in a significant health risk impact to nearby sensitive receptors. As a result, health impacts during Project operation from exposure to TACs, such as DPM, were not analyzed, thus leaving a gap in the AQ & GHG Memo’s analysis.

Second, 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.” 17 This poses a problem, as construction of the Project would produce DPM emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a duration of approximately 13 months (AQ & GHG Memo, pp. 10, 40, 69, 70). Furthermore, according to the VMT Screening and Trip Generation Assessment (“VMT Assessment”) provided as an attachment to the IS/MND, the operation of the Project is anticipated to generate 51 daily vehicle trips, which would produce additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby, existing sensitive receptors to 16 “Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.” South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Revised July 2008, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significancethresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf. 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.

10 DPM emissions (pp. 3, Table 3). However, the IS/MND fails to evaluate the TAC emissions associated with Project construction and operation or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the IS/MND is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate Project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.

Third, the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) recommends that warehouse projects prepare a quantitative HRA pursuant to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air district guidelines.18 OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015. This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically, OEHHA recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks.19 Furthermore, according to OEHHA:
“Exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project. In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs (OEHHA, 2009).”20 Thus, as the Project’s anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire 13-month construction period. Furthermore, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate the individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).21 While the IS/MND fails to provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, operation of the Project also exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the entire 30-year residential exposure duration, as indicated by OEHHA guidance. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, an EIR should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions.

Fourth, by claiming a less-than-significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the IS/MND fails to compare the Project’s 18 “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. 19 “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. 20 “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. 21 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 2-4.

11 excess cancer risk to the SCAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.22 Thus, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation should be conducted.

Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.23 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is in OEHHA guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”).24A 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 prepared prior to approval of the Project.

We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction and operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the IS/MND’s CalEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.25 The IS/MND’s CalEEMod model indicates that construction activities will generate approximately 174 pounds of DPM over the 399-day construction period.26 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 174.3 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
399 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00229 grams per second (“g/s”).

Subtracting the 399-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 28.91 years. The IS/MND’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 5 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:
22 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 23 “Air Quality Dispersion Modeling - Screening Models,” U.S. EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/airquality-dispersion-modeling-screening-models. 24 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 25 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 26 See Attachment B for health risk calculations.

12 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �
𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠
� = 4.84 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
365 𝑑𝑑
×
453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ×
1 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
×
1 ℎ 𝑜𝑜
3,600 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.0000696 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated as a 4.85-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 198- by 99-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. A rural meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution.

The population of Desert Hot Springs was obtained from U.S. 2020 Census data.27 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures.28 According to the IS/MND, there are no sensitive receptors near the Project site (p. 76). However, review of Google Earth demonstrates that there is a residence located approximately 900 meters from the Project site (see excerpt below):
27 “Desert Hot Springs.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2021, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0618996. 28 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/epa-454r-92-019_ocr.pdf.

13 As such, the maximally exposed individual receptor (“MEIR”) is located approximately 900 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 1.122 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 900 meters away. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.1122 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 0.03408 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 900 meters away. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.003408 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.29
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SCAQMD.30 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.

The residential exposure parameters utilized for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:
29 See Attachment C for AERSCREEN output files. 30 “AB 2588 and Rule 1402 Supplemental Guidelines.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-assessment/ab-2588-supplementalguidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 2.

14 Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kgday)31
Age
Sensitivity
Factor32
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home33
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)34
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)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:
31 “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. 32 “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. 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. 34 “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.

15 𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅 𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐹𝐹 ×
𝐸𝐸𝐷𝐷
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 399-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 0.84 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 1.16 years of the child 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 0.1122 1.53E-06
Construction 0.84 0.1122 1.55E-05
Operation 1.16 0.0034 6.48E-07
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 1.62E-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0034 1.23E-06
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0034 1.37E-07
Lifetime 30 1.91E-05
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 900 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 1.53, 16.2, 1.23, and 0.137 in one million, respectively.

The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 19.1 in one million, which exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million and thus results in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND.

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

EPA, 1992).

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

The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screeninglevel assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.” As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. Thus, as our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, an 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.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 412.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”), which would not exceed the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 57, Table VIII-1).

As demonstrated above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO2e threshold and therefore would not result in a significant GHG impact. However, the IS/MND’s

17 GHG analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for four reasons.
(1) The IS/MND’s quantitative analysis relies upon a flawed air model; (2) The IS/MND’s quantitative analysis relies upon an outdated threshold; and (3) The IS/MND’s unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant impact. 1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As previously stated, the IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 412.5 MTCO2e (p. 57, Table VIII-1). However, the IS/MND quantitative analysis is unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, when reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod models, provided in the AQ & GHG Memo, we found that several of the values inputted into the models are not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result, the models may underestimate the Project’s emissions, and the IS/MND’s quantitative analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the environment.
2) Incorrect Reliance on an Outdated Quantitative GHG Threshold As previously stated, the IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 412.5 MTCO2e, which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 57, Table VIII-1). However, the guidance that provided the 3,000 MT CO2e/year threshold, the SCAQMD’s 2008 Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans report, was developed when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as “AB 32”, was the governing statute for GHG reductions in California. AB 32 requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.35 Furthermore, AEP guidance states:
“[F]or evaluating projects with a post 2020 horizon, the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine 17 development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone.”36
As it is currently March 2023, thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the proposed Project and should be revised to reflect the current GHG reduction target. As such, the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project, and the IS/MND’s less-thansignificant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. Instead, we recommend that the Project 35 “Health & Safety Code 38550.” California State Legislature, January 2007, available at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=38550. 36 “Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California.” Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), October 2016, available at:
https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf, p. 39.

18 apply the SCAQMD 2035 service population efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.37 3) Failure to Identify a Potentially Significant GHG Impact In an effort to quantitatively evaluate the Project’s GHG emissions, we compared the Project’s GHG emissions, as estimated by the IS/MND, to the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year.

When applying this threshold, the Project’s incorrect and unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact.

As previously stated, the IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 412.5 MTCO2e (p. 57, Table VIII-1). According to CAPCOA’s CEQA & Climate Change report, a service population (“SP”) is defined as “the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the project.”38 According to the IS/MND, the project would support 7 employees (p. 79). As the project is not expected to support any residential land uses, we estimate an SP of 7 people. When dividing the Project’s net annual GHG emissions, as estimated by the IS/MND, by an SP of 7 people, we find that the Project would emit approximately 58.9 MT CO2e/SP/year (see table below).39 IS/MND Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Annual Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 412.5
Service Population 7
Service Population Efficiency (MT CO2e/SP/year) 58.9
SCAQMD 2035 Target 3.0
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, the Project’s service population efficiency value vastly exceeds the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, indicating a potentially significant impact not previously identified or addressed by the IS/MND. As a result, the IS/MND’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. An EIR should be prepared, including an updated GHG analysis and incorporating additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to less-thansignificant levels. 37 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 38 “CEQA & Climate Change.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), January 2008, available at: https://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/capcoa_white_paper_ceqa_and_climate_change_final.pdf?1344472764, p. 71-72. 39 Calculated: (412.5 MT CO2e/year) / (7 service population) = (58.9 MT CO2e/SP/year).

19 Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant air quality, health risk, and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. As such, in an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project.

Feasible mitigation measures can be found in the California Department of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices document.40 Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made:
• Requiring off-road construction equipment to be hybrid electric-diesel or zero emission, where available, and all diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment to be equipped with CARB Tier IV-compliant engines or better, and including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts, with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities.
• Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
• Using electric-powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers, and providing electrical hook ups to the power grid rather than use of diesel-fueled generators to supply their power. • Designating an area in the construction site where electric-powered construction vehicles and equipment can charge.
• Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area. • Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for particulates or ozone for the project area.
• Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than three minutes. • Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications.
• Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts. • Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings that have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L.
• Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction employees.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for construction employees.
• Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles engaged in drayage to or from the project site to be zeroemission beginning in 2030. 40 “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.

20 • Requiring all on-site motorized operational equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be zero-emission with the necessary charging or fueling stations provided. • Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations.
• Forbidding trucks from idling for more than three minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use.
• Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the local air district, and the building manager.
• Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity that is equal to or greater than the building’s projected energy needs, including all electrical chargers.
• Designing all project building roofs to accommodate the maximum future coverage of solar panels and installing the maximum solar power generation capacity feasible. • Constructing zero-emission truck charging/fueling stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
• Running conduit to designated locations for future electric truck charging stations. • Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the underlying property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space, constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and requiring truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs when at loading docks.
• Oversizing electrical rooms by 25 percent or providing a secondary electrical room to accommodate future expansion of electric vehicle charging capability. • Constructing and maintaining electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of employee parking spaces (for example, requiring at least 10% of all employee parking spaces to be equipped with electric vehicle charging stations of at least Level 2 charging performance)
• Running conduit to an additional proportion of employee parking spaces for a future increase in the number of electric light-duty charging stations.
• 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 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.

21 • Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks. • Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages singleoccupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation, including carpooling, public transit, and biking.
• Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking. • Designing to LEED green building certification standards. • Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations. • Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route. • Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project area.
• Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB-approved courses. Also require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. • Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and requiring tenants who own, operate, or hire trucking carriers with more than 100 trucks to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers.
• Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.

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

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

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

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of

22 care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

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

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Updated CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment B: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment C: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment D: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment E: Paul Rosenfeld CV

2767 Logistics Center
Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the IS/MND's model Land Use - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Construction Phase - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths".

Grading - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Acres of Grading Values" Architectural Coating - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors".

Area Coating - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors".

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

Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE's comment on "Incorrect Application of Energy- and Area-Related Operational Mitigation Measures".

Energy Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND/s model.

Water Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Industrial Park 60.00 1000sqft 1.38 60,000.00 0
Parking Lot 2.08 Acre 2.08 90,604.80 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
15 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq (Days) 28

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2024
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Attachment A

Waste Mitigation -

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation CleanPavedRoadPercentReduction 0 20 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadMoistureContent 0 50 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.1950 1.6823 1.9716 3.9000e0030.1620 0.0776 0.2396 0.0617 0.0729 0.1346 0.0000 344.2724 344.2724 0.0632 7.1100e003347.9705 2024 0.7644 0.2946 0.4009 7.5000e0040.0153 0.0132 0.0285 4.1000e0030.0124 0.0165 0.0000 66.0475 66.0475 0.0130 1.0500e00366.6867 Maximum 0.7644 1.6823 1.9716 3.9000e0030.1620 0.0776 0.2396 0.0617 0.0729 0.1346 0.0000 344.2724 344.2724 0.0632 7.1100e003347.9705 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.1950 1.6823 1.9716 3.9000e0030.1478 0.0776 0.2254 0.0582 0.0729 0.1311 0.0000 344.2721 344.2721 0.0632 7.1100e003347.9702 2024 0.7644 0.2946 0.4009 7.5000e0040.0127 0.0132 0.0259 3.4700e0030.0124 0.0158 0.0000 66.0475 66.0475 0.0130 1.0500e00366.6866 Maximum 0.7644 1.6823 1.9716 3.9000e0030.1478 0.0776 0.2254 0.0582 0.0729 0.1311 0.0000 344.2721 344.2721 0.0632 7.1100e003347.9702 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.47 0.00 6.27 6.26 0.00 2.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 3-7-2023 6-6-2023 0.6049 0.6049
2 6-7-2023 9-6-2023 0.5626 0.5626
3 9-7-2023 12-6-2023 0.5573 0.5573
4 12-7-2023 3-6-2024 0.4954 0.4954
5 3-7-2024 6-6-2024 0.6754 0.6754
Highest 0.6754 0.6754

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.3129 1.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1100e0031.1100e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1800e003 Energy 1.1100e0030.0101 8.4700e0036.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 114.3945 114.3945 8.9400e0031.2600e003114.9933 Mobile 0.0845 0.1345 0.8659 2.0500e0030.2179 1.6600e0030.2195 0.0582 1.5600e0030.0598 0.0000 192.8497 192.8497 9.9400e0039.5100e003195.9336 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 15.1025 0.0000 15.1025 0.8925 0.0000 37.4159 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.4019 32.0404 36.4423 0.4548 0.0110 51.0918 Total 0.3985 0.1446 0.8750 2.1100e0030.2179 2.4300e0030.2203 0.0582 2.3300e0030.0605 19.5044 339.2857 358.7901 1.3662 0.0218 399.4357 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.3129 1.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1100e0031.1100e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1800e003 Energy 1.1100e0030.0101 8.4700e0036.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 114.3945 114.3945 8.9400e0031.2600e003114.9933 Mobile 0.0845 0.1345 0.8659 2.0500e0030.2179 1.6600e0030.2195 0.0582 1.5600e0030.0598 0.0000 192.8497 192.8497 9.9400e0039.5100e003195.9336 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.5215 25.6323 29.1538 0.3639 8.8000e00340.8734 Total 0.3985 0.1446 0.8750 2.1100e0030.2179 2.4300e0030.2203 0.0582 2.3300e0030.0605 3.5215 332.8776 336.3991 0.3827 0.0196 351.8014 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/7/2023 3/13/2023 5 5 2 Grading Grading 3/14/2023 3/23/2023 5 8
3 Building Construction Building Construction 3/24/2023 2/8/2024 5 230 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.95 1.89 6.24 71.99 10.11 11.93 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4 Paving Paving 2/9/2024 3/5/2024 5 18
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/6/2024 3/29/2024 5 18 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 90,000; Non-Residential Outdoor: 30,000; Striped Parking Area: 5,436 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 7.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 8
Acres of Paving: 2.08
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Soil Stabilizer
Replace Ground Cover
Water Exposed Area
Water Unpaved Roads
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Clean Paved Roads
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 63.00 25.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 13.00 0.00 0.00 14.60 6.20 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0491 0.0000 0.0491 0.0253 0.0000 0.0253 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.6500e0030.0688 0.0456 1.0000e0043.1700e0033.1700e0032.9100e0032.9100e0030.0000 8.3627 8.3627 2.7000e0030.0000 8.4303 Total 6.6500e0030.0688 0.0456 1.0000e0040.0491 3.1700e0030.0523 0.0253 2.9100e0030.0282 0.0000 8.3627 8.3627 2.7000e0030.0000 8.4303 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.5000e0041.1000e0041.4000e0030.0000 4.9000e0040.0000 4.9000e0041.3000e0040.0000 1.3000e0040.0000 0.3783 0.3783 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3815 Total 1.5000e0041.1000e0041.4000e0030.0000 4.9000e0040.0000 4.9000e0041.3000e0040.0000 1.3000e0040.0000 0.3783 0.3783 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3815 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0491 0.0000 0.0491 0.0253 0.0000 0.0253 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.6500e0030.0688 0.0456 1.0000e0043.1700e0033.1700e0032.9100e0032.9100e0030.0000 8.3627 8.3627 2.7000e0030.0000 8.4303 Total 6.6500e0030.0688 0.0456 1.0000e0040.0491 3.1700e0030.0523 0.0253 2.9100e0030.0282 0.0000 8.3627 8.3627 2.7000e0030.0000 8.4303 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.5000e0041.1000e0041.4000e0030.0000 4.1000e0040.0000 4.1000e0041.1000e0040.0000 1.1000e0040.0000 0.3783 0.3783 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3815 Total 1.5000e0041.1000e0041.4000e0030.0000 4.1000e0040.0000 4.1000e0041.1000e0040.0000 1.1000e0040.0000 0.3783 0.3783 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3815 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0283 0.0000 0.0283 0.0137 0.0000 0.0137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.8400e0030.0717 0.0590 1.2000e0043.1000e0033.1000e0032.8500e0032.8500e0030.0000 10.4243 10.4243 3.3700e0030.0000 10.5085 Total 6.8400e0030.0717 0.0590 1.2000e0040.0283 3.1000e0030.0314 0.0137 2.8500e0030.0166 0.0000 10.4243 10.4243 3.3700e0030.0000 10.5085 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.9000e0041.4000e0041.8700e0031.0000e0056.5000e0040.0000 6.6000e0041.7000e0040.0000 1.8000e0040.0000 0.5044 0.5044 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.5087 Total 1.9000e0041.4000e0041.8700e0031.0000e0056.5000e0040.0000 6.6000e0041.7000e0040.0000 1.8000e0040.0000 0.5044 0.5044 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.5087 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0283 0.0000 0.0283 0.0137 0.0000 0.0137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.8400e0030.0717 0.0590 1.2000e0043.1000e0033.1000e0032.8500e0032.8500e0030.0000 10.4242 10.4242 3.3700e0030.0000 10.5085 Total 6.8400e0030.0717 0.0590 1.2000e0040.0283 3.1000e0030.0314 0.0137 2.8500e0030.0166 0.0000 10.4242 10.4242 3.3700e0030.0000 10.5085 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.9000e0041.4000e0041.8700e0031.0000e0055.4000e0040.0000 5.4000e0041.5000e0040.0000 1.5000e0040.0000 0.5044 0.5044 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.5087 Total 1.9000e0041.4000e0041.8700e0031.0000e0055.4000e0040.0000 5.4000e0041.5000e0040.0000 1.5000e0040.0000 0.5044 0.5044 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.5087 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1581 1.4457 1.6325 2.7100e0030.0703 0.0703 0.0662 0.0662 0.0000 232.9638 232.9638 0.0554 0.0000 234.3492 Total 0.1581 1.4457 1.6325 2.7100e0030.0703 0.0703 0.0662 0.0662 0.0000 232.9638 232.9638 0.0554 0.0000 234.3492 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.6300e0030.0807 0.0336 4.0000e0040.0143 6.5000e0040.0149 4.1200e0036.2000e0044.7300e0030.0000 38.4105 38.4105 3.9000e0045.6800e00340.1143 Worker 0.0205 0.0151 0.1976 5.7000e0040.0691 3.3000e0040.0695 0.0184 3.0000e0040.0187 0.0000 53.2285 53.2285 1.3200e0031.4000e00353.6780 Total 0.0231 0.0958 0.2312 9.7000e0040.0834 9.8000e0040.0844 0.0225 9.2000e0040.0234 0.0000 91.6390 91.6390 1.7100e0037.0800e00393.7922 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1581 1.4457 1.6325 2.7100e0030.0703 0.0703 0.0662 0.0662 0.0000 232.9635 232.9635 0.0554 0.0000 234.3490 Total 0.1581 1.4457 1.6325 2.7100e0030.0703 0.0703 0.0662 0.0662 0.0000 232.9635 232.9635 0.0554 0.0000 234.3490 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.6300e0030.0807 0.0336 4.0000e0040.0123 6.5000e0040.0129 3.6200e0036.2000e0044.2400e0030.0000 38.4105 38.4105 3.9000e0045.6800e00340.1143 Worker 0.0205 0.0151 0.1976 5.7000e0040.0571 3.3000e0040.0575 0.0154 3.0000e0040.0157 0.0000 53.2285 53.2285 1.3200e0031.4000e00353.6780 Total 0.0231 0.0958 0.2312 9.7000e0040.0694 9.8000e0040.0704 0.0190 9.2000e0040.0200 0.0000 91.6390 91.6390 1.7100e0037.0800e00393.7922 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0213 0.1949 0.2344 3.9000e0048.8900e0038.8900e0038.3700e0038.3700e0030.0000 33.6181 33.6181 7.9500e0030.0000 33.8169 Total 0.0213 0.1949 0.2344 3.9000e0048.8900e0038.8900e0038.3700e0038.3700e0030.0000 33.6181 33.6181 7.9500e0030.0000 33.8169 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.7000e0040.0116 4.7900e0036.0000e0052.0600e0039.0000e0052.1500e0035.9000e0049.0000e0056.8000e0040.0000 5.4564 5.4564 6.0000e0058.1000e0045.6982 Worker 2.7600e0031.9500e0030.0267 8.0000e0059.9700e0035.0000e0050.0100 2.6500e0034.0000e0052.6900e0030.0000 7.4957 7.4957 1.7000e0041.9000e0047.5559 Total 3.1300e0030.0136 0.0315 1.4000e0040.0120 1.4000e0040.0122 3.2400e0031.3000e0043.3700e0030.0000 12.9522 12.9522 2.3000e0041.0000e00313.2540 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0213 0.1949 0.2344 3.9000e0048.8900e0038.8900e0038.3700e0038.3700e0030.0000 33.6181 33.6181 7.9500e0030.0000 33.8168 Total 0.0213 0.1949 0.2344 3.9000e0048.8900e0038.8900e0038.3700e0038.3700e0030.0000 33.6181 33.6181 7.9500e0030.0000 33.8168 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.7000e0040.0116 4.7900e0036.0000e0051.7700e0039.0000e0051.8600e0035.2000e0049.0000e0056.1000e0040.0000 5.4564 5.4564 6.0000e0058.1000e0045.6982 Worker 2.7600e0031.9500e0030.0267 8.0000e0058.2400e0035.0000e0058.2900e0032.2200e0034.0000e0052.2700e0030.0000 7.4957 7.4957 1.7000e0041.9000e0047.5559 Total 3.1300e0030.0136 0.0315 1.4000e0040.0100 1.4000e0040.0102 2.7400e0031.3000e0042.8800e0030.0000 12.9522 12.9522 2.3000e0041.0000e00313.2540 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 7.9300e0030.0745 0.1100 1.7000e0043.5900e0033.5900e0033.3200e0033.3200e0030.0000 14.7423 14.7423 4.6300e0030.0000 14.8581 Paving 2.7200e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0107 0.0745 0.1100 1.7000e0043.5900e0033.5900e0033.3200e0033.3200e0030.0000 14.7423 14.7423 4.6300e0030.0000 14.8581 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.4000e0043.8000e0045.2600e0032.0000e0051.9600e0031.0000e0051.9700e0035.2000e0041.0000e0055.3000e0040.0000 1.4770 1.4770 3.0000e0054.0000e0051.4888 Total 5.4000e0043.8000e0045.2600e0032.0000e0051.9600e0031.0000e0051.9700e0035.2000e0041.0000e0055.3000e0040.0000 1.4770 1.4770 3.0000e0054.0000e0051.4888 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 7.9300e0030.0745 0.1100 1.7000e0043.5900e0033.5900e0033.3200e0033.3200e0030.0000 14.7423 14.7423 4.6300e0030.0000 14.8581 Paving 2.7200e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0107 0.0745 0.1100 1.7000e0043.5900e0033.5900e0033.3200e0033.3200e0030.0000 14.7423 14.7423 4.6300e0030.0000 14.8581 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.4000e0043.8000e0045.2600e0032.0000e0051.6200e0031.0000e0051.6300e0034.4000e0041.0000e0054.5000e0040.0000 1.4770 1.4770 3.0000e0054.0000e0051.4888 Total 5.4000e0043.8000e0045.2600e0032.0000e0051.6200e0031.0000e0051.6300e0034.4000e0041.0000e0054.5000e0040.0000 1.4770 1.4770 3.0000e0054.0000e0051.4888 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.7267 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6300e0030.0110 0.0163 3.0000e0055.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0040.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.3000e0040.0000 2.3012 Total 0.7284 0.0110 0.0163 3.0000e0055.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0040.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.3000e0040.0000 2.3012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.5000e0042.5000e0043.4200e0031.0000e0051.2800e0031.0000e0051.2800e0033.4000e0041.0000e0053.4000e0040.0000 0.9600 0.9600 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.9677 Total 3.5000e0042.5000e0043.4200e0031.0000e0051.2800e0031.0000e0051.2800e0033.4000e0041.0000e0053.4000e0040.0000 0.9600 0.9600 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.9677 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.7267 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6300e0030.0110 0.0163 3.0000e0055.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0040.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.3000e0040.0000 2.3012 Total 0.7284 0.0110 0.0163 3.0000e0055.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0045.5000e0040.0000 2.2979 2.2979 1.3000e0040.0000 2.3012 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.5000e0042.5000e0043.4200e0031.0000e0051.0600e0031.0000e0051.0600e0032.8000e0041.0000e0052.9000e0040.0000 0.9600 0.9600 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.9677 Total 3.5000e0042.5000e0043.4200e0031.0000e0051.0600e0031.0000e0051.0600e0032.8000e0041.0000e0052.9000e0040.0000 0.9600 0.9600 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.9677 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0845 0.1345 0.8659 2.0500e0030.2179 1.6600e0030.2195 0.0582 1.5600e0030.0598 0.0000 192.8497 192.8497 9.9400e0039.5100e003195.9336 Unmitigated 0.0845 0.1345 0.8659 2.0500e0030.2179 1.6600e0030.2195 0.0582 1.5600e0030.0598 0.0000 192.8497 192.8497 9.9400e0039.5100e003195.9336

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Industrial Park 202.20 152.40 74.40 576,062 576,062
Total 202.20 152.40 74.40 576,062 576,062
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Parking Lot 13.80 6.20 6.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Industrial Park 13.80 6.20 6.20 59.00 28.00 13.00 79 19 2 Improve Pedestrian Network

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Parking Lot 0.537845 0.056225 0.173186 0.138405 0.025906 0.007191 0.011447 0.018769 0.000611 0.000309 0.023821 0.001097 0.005189 Industrial Park 0.537845 0.056225 0.173186 0.138405 0.025906 0.007191 0.011447 0.018769 0.000611 0.000309 0.023821 0.001097 0.005189

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 103.4123 103.4123 8.7300e0031.0600e003103.9458 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 103.4123 103.4123 8.7300e0031.0600e003103.9458 NaturalGas
Mitigated

1.1100e0030.0101 8.4700e0036.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 10.9823 10.9823 2.1000e0042.0000e00411.0475 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

1.1100e0030.0101 8.4700e0036.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 10.9823 10.9823 2.1000e0042.0000e00411.0475

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Install High Efficiency Lighting
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Industrial Park 205800 1.1100e0030.0101 8.4700e0036.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 10.9823 10.9823 2.1000e0042.0000e00411.0475 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1100e0030.0101 8.4700e0036.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 10.9823 10.9823 2.1000e0042.0000e00411.0475 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Industrial Park 205800 1.1100e0030.0101 8.4700e0036.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 10.9823 10.9823 2.1000e0042.0000e00411.0475 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.1100e0030.0101 8.4700e0036.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 10.9823 10.9823 2.1000e0042.0000e00411.0475 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Industrial Park 551400 97.7883 8.2500e0031.0000e00398.2928 Parking Lot 31711.7 5.6239 4.7000e0046.0000e0055.6529 Total 103.4123 8.7200e0031.0600e003103.9458
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Industrial Park 551400 97.7883 8.2500e0031.0000e00398.2928 Parking Lot 31711.7 5.6239 4.7000e0046.0000e0055.6529 Total 103.4123 8.7200e0031.0600e003103.9458
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.3129 1.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1100e0031.1100e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1800e003 Unmitigated 0.3129 1.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1100e0031.1100e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1800e003

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0727 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.2402 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 5.0000e0051.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1100e0031.1100e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1800e003 Total 0.3129 1.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1100e0031.1100e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1800e003 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0727 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.2402 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 5.0000e0051.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1100e0031.1100e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1800e003 Total 0.3129 1.0000e0055.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1100e0031.1100e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1800e003 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 29.1538 0.3639 8.8000e00340.8734
Unmitigated 36.4423 0.4548 0.0110 51.0918

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Industrial Park 13.875 / 0 36.4423 0.4548 0.0110 51.0918 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 36.4423 0.4548 0.0110 51.0918
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Industrial Park 11.1 / 0 29.1538 0.3639 8.8000e00340.8734 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 29.1538 0.3639 8.8000e00340.8734
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Institute Recycling and Composting Services

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 15.1025 0.8925 0.0000 37.4159
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Industrial Park 74.4 15.1025 0.8925 0.0000 37.4159
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 15.1025 0.8925 0.0000 37.4159
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Industrial Park 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 30 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2767 Logistics Center
Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the IS/MND's model Land Use - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Construction Phase - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths".

Grading - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Reduction to Acres of Grading Values" Architectural Coating - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors".

Area Coating - See SWAPE's comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors".

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

Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE's comment on "Incorrect Application of Energy- and Area-Related Operational Mitigation Measures".

Energy Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND/s model.

Water Mitigation - Consistent with the IS/MND's model.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Industrial Park 60.00 1000sqft 1.38 60,000.00 0
Parking Lot 2.08 Acre 2.08 90,604.80 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
15 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq (Days) 28

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2024
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 25 Date: 3/13/2023 10:28 AM 2767 Logistics Center - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied