16. Exhibit J - Appellant Comments Reasons for Appeal and Staff Reponses

EXHIBIT J
Appellant's comments/reasons for appeal and City staff's responses, as presented in Exhibit D.1 — 2.0 Response to Comments, Pages 9 through 34 of the Final EIR.

Appellant's Reason: The Appellant provided an introduction to their comments and requested that they be added to the distribution list for future notifications regarding the project.

City Staff's Response: The Appellant will be added to the distribution list for future notifications. No environmental issues related to the analysis presented to the DEIR are raised; and therefore, no further response is necessary.

2. Appellant's Reason: The Appellant provides a summary of the proposed project.

City Staff's Response: No environmental issues related to the analysis presented in the DEIR are raised, and therefore, no further response is necessary.

3. Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that the EIR describes the environmental setting in stating that at the date the Notice of Preparation was published (March 25, 2022), "the site was fully occupied and operational by industrial use tenants; however, the tenants have since vacated the buildings and ceased operations at the request of the property owner (Project applicant) in anticipation of implementing the proposed Project." The EIR claims that the site was occupied and actively used for business operations at the time the NOP was published, but has not provided any meaningful evidence to support the claim that the existing onsite buildings were occupied and operational at that time. The EIR has not presented any meaningful evidence to demonstrate that businesses were legally established and operational on March 25, 2022. Notably, Appendix L: Transportation Impact Study provided trip generation calculations for the "existing" onsite uses utilizing ITE trip generation average rates instead of conducting onsite traffic counts at the project driveways, which demonstrates that the onsite uses had ceased operating by March 25, 2022.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(1) states that, "Where existing conditions change or fluctuate over time, and where necessary to provide the most accurate picture practically possible of the project's impacts, a lead agency may define existing conditions by referencing historic conditions, or conditions expected when the project becomes operational, or both, that are supported with substantial evidence," and CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(3) states that, "An existing conditions baseline shall not include hypothetical conditions, such as those that might be allowed, but have never actually occurred, under existing permits or plans, as the baseline." The EIR and its appendices model the existing site as fully operational utilizing default software trip rates and emissions rates for uses that do not exist on the project site. The physical conditions and actual

EXHIBIT J
emissions/vehicle traffic counts that existed at the time of analysis are not described or discussed with meaningful supporting evidence in the EIR. Utilizing emissions default rates/average rates/rates derived from other properties instead of actual traffic counts and emissions analysis at the project site during business operations serves to artificially reduce the project's significant environmental impacts by modeling the alleged businesses onsite as more intensive than they actually were and presenting the impacts of the proposed project as "net new".

City Staff's Response: The text of the CEQA Guidelines Section cited by the commenter is only part of the guideline. The cited text is preceded by the following guidance:
"Generally, the lead agency should describe the physical environmental conditions as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective." The above portion of the CEQA guidelines states that generally, an EIR should consider the physical conditions as they exist at the time that the Notice of Preparation was published to be the baseline for analysis. The environmental analysis contained in the EIR was based on a comparison of the proposed Project with the conditions on the site on March 25, 2022 when the environmental baseline was established.

As described in Section 2.3 of the EIR, at the time the NOP was released the site was fully occupied and in use by industrial use tenants. These tenants have since vacated the buildings and ceased operations at the request of the property owner.

The tenants vacated the site between December of 2022 and January of 2023.

The TIS for the proposed Project, included with the DEIR as Appendix L, was prepared in September 2023 after the existing tenants had ceased operations.

Calculations of trip generation from the existing operations on the Project site were completed by a traffic engineer and documented in the TIS. Because the Project site was fully occupied with industrial tenants at the time of the NOP but was no longer occupied by the time the TIS was prepared, it was not possible to collect traffic counts that represented the existing uses at the time of the NOP.

Therefore, ITE Land Use Code 110 (General Light Industrial) trip generation average rates were used to model the expected traffic generation for the land uses at the time of the NOP. Analysis of mobile source emissions in the air quality (AQ) and greenhouse gas (GHG) impact analysis used trip generation assumptions consistent with the trip generation reported in the TIS, as discussed in DEIR Section 4.2.5.3. This modeling reflected existing conditions at the time of the NOP, which were then compared to the modeled impacts of the Project. As such, the claim that the Project's impacts were artificially reduced is unfounded and not supported by substantial evidence. No revisions to the EIR are required.

EXHIBIT J

4. Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that nearly every area of environmental analysis credits the project with various VMT, trip generation, and emissions reductions based on existing trips at the site based on emissions default rates/average rates/rates derived from other properties "existing uses" at the site the EIR has not proven to exist. Per Appendix L, "ITE Land Use Code 110 (General Light Industrial) trip generation average rates were used to forecast the expected traffic generation for the existing uses." It is nonsensical to utilize ITE average/default rates to calculate trip generation for "existing uses" instead of taking trip counts at the project site, particularly if the site were actually operational with tenants conducting business. This does not comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125. The EIR overstates the existing operations at the project site to artificially inflate "existing" emissions, trip generation, and VMT, which subsequently reduces the "net new" quantity of emissions, trip generation, and VMT generated by the proposed project and skews impacts downwards. A revised EIR must be prepared to remove any credit given for the "existing" operations in all areas of analysis in order to accurately and adequately analyze the project's significant impacts in accordance in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.

City Staff's Response: Refer to the response provided for Comment # 3 (above).

5. Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that the EIR does not include for analysis relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed project. This is especially significant as the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution.

According to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, CaIEPA's screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability. The proposed project's census tract (6037551102) and surrounding community, including residences to the north and east, bears the impact of multiple sources of pollution and is more polluted than average on several pollution indicators measured by CalEnviroScreen. For example, the project census tract ranks in the 88th percentile for particulate matter (PM) 2.5 burden, 86th percentile for diesel particulate matter burden, and 66th percentile for traffic burdens. All of these environmental factors are typically attributed to heavy truck activity in the area. The very small particles of diesel PM can reach deep into the lung, where they can contribute to a range of health problems. These include irritation to the eyes, throat and nose, heart and lung disease, and lung cancer.

The census tract ranks in the 92nd percentile for toxic releases. People living near facilities that emit toxic releases may breathe contaminated air regularly or if contaminants are released during an accident.

The census tract also ranks in the 78th percentile for solid waste facility impacts and 89th percentile for hazardous waste facility impacts. Solid waste facilities can

EXHIBIT J
expose people to hazardous chemicals, release toxic gases into the air (even after these facilities are closed), and chemicals can leach into soil around the facility and pose a health risk to nearby populations. Hazardous waste generators and facilities contribute to the contamination of air, water and soil near waste generators and facilities can harm the environment as well as people.

The census tract also bears more impacts from cleanup sites than 61 % of the state. Chemicals in the buildings, soil, or water at cleanup sites can move into nearby communities through the air or movement of water.

Further, the census tract is a diverse community including 81 % Hispanic, 6% African -American and 6% Asian -American residents, who are especially vulnerable to the impacts of pollution. The community has a high rate of low educational attainment, meaning 70% of the census tract over age 25 has not attained a high school diploma, which is an indication that they may lack health insurance or access to medical care. The community also has a high rate of poverty, meaning 71 % of the households in the census tract have a total income before taxes that is less than the poverty level. Income can affect health when people cannot afford healthy living and working conditions, nutritious food and necessary medical care. Poor communities are often located in areas with high levels of pollution. Poverty can cause stress that weakens the immune system and causes people to become ill from pollution. Living in poverty is an indication that residents may lack health insurance or access to medical care. Medical care is vital for this census tract as it ranks in the 77th percentile for incidence of low birth weights and 59th percentile for cardiovascular disease.

Additionally, the project census tract (6037551102 ) and the census tracts adjacent to the project site (6037550300 (east), 6037551101 (west), 6037551800 (northwest), and 6037551800 (south)) are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities. This indicates that cumulative impacts of development and environmental impacts in the area are disproportionately impacting these communities. The negative environmental, health, and quality of life impacts resulting from a saturation of the industrial, warehousing, and logistics industry in the City have become distinctly inequitable. The severity of significant and unavoidable impacts particularly on these Disadvantaged Communities must be included for analysis as part of a revised EIR. Each section of the revised EIR must include the specific analysis of each environmental impact on the Disadvantaged Communities, including cumulative analysis and irreversible environmental effects.

City Staff's Response: There are currently no formal requirements, procedures, or standards of significance to evaluate potential environmental justice impacts under CEQA. DEIR Section 4.2.2 disclosed carcinogenic risk from exposure to existing air toxics in the Project area, as reported by the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study V (MATES V). A Health Risk Assessment has been prepared for this Project and is

EXHIBIT J
included in the DEIR as part of Appendix B. The Health Risk Assessment evaluated potential community health risks from exposure to diesel particulate matter emitted by off -road construction equipment, construction haul trucks, and trucks related to operation of the proposed warehouse. The assessment found that community cancer risk, chronic health risk, and cancer burden would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. Please see DEIR Section 4.2.2 and DEIR Appendix B for additional information about the Health Risk Assessment performed for this Project. For information about hazardous materials, please see DEIR Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

6. Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that the State of California lists three approved compliance modeling softwares for non-residential buildings: CBECC- Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE. CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software.

The CalEEMod modeling does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and under reports the project's significant Energy impacts and fuel consumption to the public and decision makers. Since the EIR did not accurately or adequately model the energy impacts in compliance with Title 24, a finding of significance must be made. A revised EIR with modeling using one of the approved software types must be prepared and circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the project's significant environmental impacts. This is vital as the EIR utilizes CalEEMod as a source in its methodology and analysis, which is clearly not an approved software.

City Staff's Response: Quantification of building energy use is not a CEQA requirement, it is a statutory requirement to be completed prior to issuing Project building permits. Title 24 analysis is required pursuant to the California Energy Code. A condition of approval is proposed for the project requiring compliance with said code. As discussed in DEIR Section 4.4.4, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G significance criteria for CEQA analysis of a land use development project energy impact are: Would the project: a) Result in potentially significance environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation; and/or b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Nowhere in the DEIR is CalEEMod utilized as a source for methodology or analysis of energy impacts. A mention of CalEEMod does not appear anywhere in the DEIR Section 4.4, Energy. CalEEMod was appropriately used as an approved model for estimating the Project emissions of criteria pollutants, criteria pollutant precursors, and GHGs for the purpose of evaluating the Project's potential air quality and GHG emissions impacts. No revisions to the EIR are required based on this comment.

7. Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that the EIR does not provide any information regarding the buildout conditions of the City's General Plan. Notably, the horizon year of the City's General Plan and its associated EIR is 2025. The project is proposed within one year of the horizon and buildout timeline of the

EXHIBIT J
prior environmental analysis. The EIR must be revised to provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since General Plan adoption and projects "in the pipeline" to determine if the project will exceed the City's General Plan buildout scenario.

City Staff's Response: As of the writing of this Final EIR, Vision 2025 General Plan is the current general plan approved by the City of Downey. The analysis contained in this EIR considers the requirements and planned buildout described in the City's adopted General Plan.

Potential cumulative impacts, including projects in and adjacent to the City of Downey that are "in the pipeline" are evaluated throughout Chapter 4 of the DEIR at the end of each resource section. The list of cumulative projects evaluated in the EIR can be found in Chapter 3.0, Basis for Cumulative Analysis. No revisions to the EIR are required based on this comment.

8. Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that the inadequate and inaccurate trip generation analysis also impacts the project's LOS analysis and compliance with the General Plan. The EIR has not demonstrated the project's compliance or conflicts with the General Plan LOS requirements and other items that impact the circulation system, including queuing and trip distribution. A revised EIR must be prepared to include impacts to the circulation system as a cumulatively considerable significant impact as the Project conflicts with Transportation Impact Threshold A and Land Use and Planning Impact Threshold B because it is has not adequately or accurately demonstrated that the project is consistent with the following General Plan threshold:

Circulation Element Page 2-6: The General Plan advances programs to reduce congestion to provide acceptable LOS, defined as "A", "B", "C", or "D".

City Staff's Response: See response to Comment # 3 (above), which explains why modeling was used for existing trip calculations.

The proposed Project's potential impacts related to Level of Service (LOS) requirements are evaluated in the DEIR in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, as well as Section 4.11, Transportation. Both sections conclude that the proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element's requirements for an acceptable LOS. Additional information about the modeling used to calculate LOS can be found in DEIR Appendix L, Transportation Impact Study. Trip generation and distribution is also evaluated in Section 5.0, Non-CEQA Analysis, of Appendix L Transportation Impact Study.

The trips generated by the Project would not conflict with the requirements of the General Plan in such a way as to create a significant impact.

EXHIBIT J
The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required.

9. Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that it is not appropriate to model the existing vacant site as fully operational utilizing ITE default rates/average rates and provide VMT and emission reduction credits based on "existing uses" that do not actually exist (and default ITE trip rates that do not accurately demonstrate what, if any traffic was generated on the site on March 25, 2022 instead of vehicle trip counts at the project site) and does not provide the most accurate picture practically possible of the project's impacts pursuant to CEQA Section 15125.

City Staff's Response: Refer to the response provided for Comment # 3 (above).

10. Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that nearly every area of environmental analysis credits the project with various VMT, trip generation, and emissions reductions based on existing trips at the site utilizing a prior study at a different property. As noted above in the Environmental Setting discussion, the EIR has not provided any meaningful evidence that the project site is occupied by any operational tenant and all comments regarding the Environmental Setting above are hereby reincorporated. Per Appendix L, "ITE Land Use Code 110 (General Light Industrial) trip generation average rates were used to forecast the expected traffic generation for the existing uses." It is nonsensical to utilize ITE average/default rates to calculate trip generation for "existing uses" instead of taking trip counts at the project site, particularly if the site were actually operational with tenants conducting business. This does not comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125. The EIR overstates the existing operations at the project site to artificially inflate "existing" emissions, trip generation, and VMT, which subsequently reduces the "net new" quantity of emissions, trip generation, and VMT generated by the proposed project and skews impacts downwards. A revised EIR must be prepared to remove any credit given for the "existing" operations in all areas of analysis in order to accurately and adequately analyze the project's significant impacts in accordance in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis. The inadequate and inaccurate trip generation analysis also impacts the project's LOS analysis.

City Staff's Response: The Transportation Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the proposed Project, included as Appendix L in the DEIR, modeled the proposed Project's projected VMT impacts relative to the existing conditions at the time the NOP was released. Additional information about how VMT impacts were calculated can be found in Section 4.11, Transportation and Appendix L, Transportation Impact Study, of the DEIR.

EXHIBIT J
As described in Section 2.3 of the EIR, at the time the NOP was released the site was fully occupied and in use by industrial use tenants. These tenants have since vacated the buildings and ceased operations at the request of the property owner. The tenants vacated the site in December of 2022 and January of 2023.

The TIS for the proposed Project, included with the DEIR as Appendix L, was prepared in September 2023 after the existing tenants had ceased operations.

Because the project site was fully occupied with industrial tenants at the time of the NOP but was no longer occupied by the time the TIS was prepared, it was not possible to collect traffic counts that represented the existing uses at the time of the NOP. Please see response to comment #3 of Letter #7 above which explains why modeling was used for existing trip calculations.

The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation of a revised EIR is not required.

11.Appellant's Reason: The EIR has not demonstrated the project's compliance or conflicts with the General Plan LOS requirements and other items that impact the circulation system, including queuing and trip distribution. A revised EIR must be prepared to include impacts to the circulation system as a cumulatively considerable significant impact as the project conflicts with Transportation Impact Threshold A and Land Use and Planning Impact Threshold B because it is has not adequately or accurately demonstrated that the project is consistent with the following General Plan threshold:

1. Circulation Element Page 2-6: The General Plan advances programs to reduce congestion to provide acceptable LOS, defined as "A", "B", "C", or "D".

City Staff's Response: Refer to the response provided for Comment # 8 (above).

12.Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that the EIR concludes that, "Based on the SCAG RTDM model output for TAZ 21791300, the proposed Project is forecast to generate a baseline employment VMT of 19.2 VMT per employee, which exceeds the County Guidelines threshold of 15.3 VMT." The EIR includes a combination of Project Design Feature T-2: Increase Job Density and Mitigation Measure TR-1:Transportation Demand Management Plan, including T- 7: Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing, T-8: Provide Ridesharing Program, and T-10: Provide End -of -Trip Bicycle Facilities to achieve a "11.9 percent VMT reduction would result in 15.2 VMT per employee. This is below the significance threshold of 15.3 VMT." However, the EIR has not provided meaningful evidence to support the conclusion that Project Design Feature T-2,

EXHIBIT J
Mitigation Measure TR-1, T-7, T-8, and T-10 will reduce project generated VMT to below the significance threshold of 15.3 VMT per employee continuously for the life of the project. Since future building tenants are unknown, implementation of trip reduction measures cannot be guaranteed to reduce Project generated VMT to a level of less than significant.

It is not possible for the City to ensure that Project Design Feature T-2, Mitigation Measure TR-1, T-7, T-8, and T-10 will result in reduced VMT by project employees and be implemented continuously, at all times, throughout the life of the project and maintain a VMT reduction to less than significant levels at all times. The efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures and reduction of VMT impacts below the applicable thresholds cannot be assured and the project's VMT impact is therefore considered significant and unavoidable. A revised EIR must be prepared to include a finding of significance because there is no possible assurance of the percentage of project employees that would utilize non -automobile travel associated with implementation of Project Design Feature T-2, Mitigation Measure TR-1, T-7, T-8, and T-10 and mitigation of the project's VMT impact to less than significant is not feasible.

City Staff's Response: The calculations used to support the conclusion that these measures would result in an 11.9 percent reduction in VMT are presented in Appendix L, Transportation Impact Study and its attachments. These calculations are based on methodology presented in the CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. Use of the CAPCOA Handbook for VMT analysis complies with the City of Downey requirements for analyzing VMT, which, since the City has not adopted their own VMT thresholds, are the Los Angeles County Public Works Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for calculating VMT impacts. Estimates of VMT reduction are based on CAPCOA methodology, which is consistent with City of Downey requirements and the CEQA Guidelines. The Project applicant would require that tenants enact the policies and programs identified as mitigation measures in order to ensure a reduction in VMT through preparation and implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan/program.

Mitigation Measure TRA-1 includes a provision that if new TDM measures are proposed by the site owner or tenant after City approval of the TDM plan, a new TDM plan shall be submitted for review and approval and shall include analysis that demonstrates that the selected measures are expected to achieve the same or greater trip and VMT reductions as demonstrated by the Project specific analysis conducted in the DEIR. The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required.

EXHIBIT J

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

City Staff's Response: The VMT per employee for the Project, as well as the Project's total VMT, was calculated using the Southern California Association of Governments Regional Travel Demand Model (SCAG RTDM). The Project is located within Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 21791300 and the existing land uses within the TAZ include a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The proposed Project is consistent with the land uses within the TAZ and thus, existing VMT per employee for the TAZ is an adequate proxy for the VMT per employee expected to be generated by the proposed Project. The City of Downey has not formally adopted VMT guidelines, but instead follows the methodology set forth in the Los Angeles County Public Works Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. These guidelines provide that VMT per employee is calculated based on trips between an employee's home and their workplace. The method of forecasting VMT used for this Project is consistent with the County guidelines.

For additional discussion of how VMT was calculated for this Project, please see Appendix L Transportation Impact Study and Section 4.11 Transportation Impacts of the DEIR.

14.Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that the EIR has not adequately analyzed the project's potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses; or the project's potential to result in inadequate emergency access. There are no exhibits adequately depicting the available maneuvering and queueing space for trucks/trailers at the intersection of the project driveways

EXHIBIT J
and the adjacent streets. There are also no exhibits adequately depicting the onsite turning radius available for trucks maneuvering throughout the site.

Notably, passenger car parking stalls are located immediately adjacent to the truck/trailer loading dock court on each side of the building. These parking stalls may be in use at any time and further restrict truck/trailer movement on the site and present a safety hazard with potential for conflicts between passenger cars and trucks/trailers. Additionally, all proposed driveways on the project site will be utilized for access by both truck/trailers and passenger cars. The overall site design presents several potential conflicts in maneuvering area for both passenger cars and trucks/trailers that have not been analyzed.

City Staff's Response: Hazards due to geometric design of the Project and emergency access are both evaluated in Section 4.11.6 of the DEIR. The Project has been designed in such a way that would not create geometric hazards. As shown on Figure 2-6, Project Site Plan, of the DEIR, four 26-foot-wide fire lanes are included in the Project design in order to ensure adequate emergency access throughout Project operations. The site plan has been developed to allow for adequate space for trucks to safely maneuver around the site during Project operations. Four driveways are located on the site, two on Hall Road and two on Stewart and Gray Road. The location of the driveways has been designed to provide adequate spacing from intersections in compliance with applicable engineering design standards. The site plans have been reviewed by City engineers and the Fire Department to identify and address any traffic hazard issues. For additional information please see Section 4.11, Transportation, of the DEIR.

15.Appellant's Reason: The EIR also states that, "The design of improvements at the Project site would be required to conform with applicable City and Downey Fire Department design criteria which contain provisions to minimize transportation hazards and provide emergency access. Based on compliance with City and Downey Fire Department design criteria, and the City's review process for approval of Project design and plans, impacts associated with hazards due to geometric design would be less than significant." This does not comply with CEQA's requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)). Deferring this environmental analysis required by CEQA to the construction permitting phase is improper mitigation and does not comply with CEQA's requirement for meaningful disclosure and adequate informational documents. A revised EIR must be prepared to include the City determination/review of the project and the Site Plan for review, analysis, and comment by the public and decision makers in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.

City Staff's Response: The site plan for the Project was included in the DEIR as Figure 2-6, Project Site Plan, in Chapter 2, Project Description. An analysis of the Project's potential hazards due to geometric design is included in Section

EXHIBIT J

4.11.6 of the DEIR. Please refer to the site plan and Section 4.11 Transportation for additional information. The Project has undergone multiple plan checks as part of the entitlement process and the design has accounted for City review regarding potential transportation hazards. This is not deferral of analysis of the potential for hazards, but rather part of the entitlement and design process.

16.Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that the EIR has not provided any analysis of the available horizontal and vertical sight distance at the intersection of the project driveways and adjacent streets. The EIR states that, "The Project site access points from Stewart and Gray Road and Hall Road would be designed in accordance with City standards to consider adequate sight distances for both directions," without providing any analysis or exhibits demonstrating compliance with these standards or describing what the City standards require.

Sight distance is the continuous length of street ahead visible to the driver. At unsignalized intersections, corner sight distance must provide a substantially clear line of sight between the driver of the vehicle waiting on the minor road (driveway) and the driver of an approaching vehicle. A revised EIR must be prepared with this analysis based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Stopping Sight Distance requirements.

City Staff's Response: Adequate site distances for Project operations would be provided based on compliance with applicable City engineering standards. Sight distances have been reviewed by City engineering staff as part of the City's plan checks associated with the discretionary approvals of the ongoing entitlement process.

17.Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that the EIR is required to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project which will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project (CEQA § 15126.6.). The alternatives chosen for analysis include the CEQA required "No Project" alternative and only three others - Reuse of Existing Buildings, Reduced Building Height, and Reduced Project. The EIR does not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives as only three alternatives beyond the required No Project alternative are analyzed. The EIR does not include an alternative that meets the project objectives and also eliminates all of the project's significant and unavoidable impacts. The EIR must be revised to include analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives and foster informed decision making (CEQA § 15126.6). This could include alternatives such as development of the site with a

EXHIBIT J
project that reduces all of the proposed project's significant and unavoidable impacts to less than significant levels while meeting all project objectives, and/or a mixed -use project that provides affordable housing and local -serving commercial uses that may reduce VMT, GHG emissions, and improve Air Quality.

City Staff's Response: CEQA does not require an EIR to evaluate a certain number of alternatives, nor does it require an EIR to identify an alternative that completely avoids all significant impacts and meets all project objectives.

Chapter 5.0, Alternatives, of the DEIR discusses the alternatives analyzed for this Project. As stated by the commenter, this chapter identifies four alternatives to the proposed Project: a No Project alternative, a Reuse of Existing Buildings Alternative, a Reduced Building Height alternative, and a Reduced Project alternative. These four alternatives represent a reasonable range of alternatives as described by the CEQA Guidelines. Section 5.2 describes alternatives that were considered but not carried forward for further analysis, including an alternative site location and alternatives to reduce potential VMT impacts. These alternatives were considered because of their potential to lessen significant impacts identified in the DEIR; however, they were ultimately not carried forward for further analysis because they did not meet the Project Objectives or were infeasible. The four alternatives carried forward for further analysis in Chapter 5.0 Alternatives represent a reasonable range of alternatives. The City was not able to identify any alternatives in which both the Project Objectives were met and all of the significant impacts were avoided, and therefore no such alternative could be evaluated. The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required.

18.Appellant's Reason: The EIR has improperly credited the project with emissions reductions for "existing uses" that do not comply with CEQA, which has resulted in unduly low impacts and this section of analysis must be updated in accordance with revised modeling as part of a revised EIR. As discussed above, nearly every area of environmental analysis credits the project with various VMT, trip generation, and emissions reductions based on existing trips at the site based on emissions default rates/average rates/rates derived from other properties "existing uses" at the site the EIR has not proven to exist. For example, Appendix L states that "ITE Land Use Code 110 (General Light Industrial) trip generation average rates were used to forecast the expected traffic generation for the existing uses." It is nonsensical to utilize ITE average/default rates to calculate trip generation for "existing uses" instead of taking trip counts at the project site, particularly if the site were actually operational with tenants conducting business. This does not comply with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125. The EIR overstates the existing operations at the project site to artificially inflate "existing" emissions, trip generation, and VMT, which subsequently reduces the "net new" quantity of emissions, trip generation,

EXHIBIT J
and VMT generated by the proposed project and skews impacts downwards. A revised EIR must be prepared to remove any credit given for the "existing" operations in all areas of analysis in order to accurately and adequately analyze the project's significant impacts in accordance in order to provide an adequate and accurate environmental analysis.

A revised EIR must be prepared to include a cumulative analysis discussion here to demonstrate the impact of the proposed project in a cumulative setting. The EIR does not include any information regarding the buildout conditions of the City's General Plan in order to provide an adequate and accurate cumulative analysis. The revised EIR must provide the horizon year of the City's current adopted General Plan, the total developable building floor area analyzed within the General Manufacturing land use designation, and cumulative development since adoption of the General Plan to ensure that the proposed project is within the General Plan EIR's analysis, particularly since the EIR tiers from the General Plan EIR.

City Staff's Response: Please see response to Comment #3 of (above) which explains why modeling was used for existing trip calculations.

Please see response to Comment #8 (above) regarding LOS analysis in the DEIR.

Please see response to Comment #13 (above) regarding the VMT analysis in the DEIR.

Please see response to Comment #7 (above) regarding the City's current General Plan and the cumulative analysis in the DEIR. The commenter has stated that the DEIR tiers from the General Plan EIR are incorrect. The DEIR prepared for this Project does not tier from any other EIR. The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required.

19.Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that the EIR relies upon erroneous Energy modeling to determine that the project will meet sustainability requirements. As noted above, the EIR did not model the project's energy consumption in compliance with Title 24 modeling software. The EIR must be revised to include a finding of significance as it has not adequately or accurately analyzed the project's commitment of resources.

City Staff's Response: As discussed in the response to Comment #6 (above), a quantitative analysis of Project Title 24 building energy use is not a CEQA requirement, it is a statutory requirement to be completed prior to issuing Project building permits.

20.Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that the EIR does not adequately discuss or and analyze the commitment of resources is not consistent with regional and local growth forecasts. As noted throughout this comment letter, the project represents a significant amount of growth in the City and accounts for a significant amount of the City's employment growth over 29 years (SCAG) and through the City's General Plan horizon year of 2025. The EIR has not provided an adequate or accurate cumulative analysis discussion here to demonstrate the impact of the proposed project in a cumulative setting. The EIR must be revised to include this information for analysis and also include a cumulative development analysis of projects approved since General Plan adoption, 2016 (SCAG), and projects "in the pipeline" to determine if the proposed project exceeds the General Plan buildout scenario and/or SCAG's growth forecasts.

City Staff's Response: Please see response to Comment #7 (above) regarding the City's current General Plan and the cumulative analysis in the DEIR.

21.Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that the EIR states that "It is anticipated that the proposed Project will generate approximately 300 construction jobs and approximately 250 permanent jobs." However, the source of this calculation is not included. There are no methods for the public to verify that the project would only generate approximately 300 construction jobs and approximately 250 permanent jobs. The EIR utilizes uncertain and misleading language in stating that, "During both construction and operations, the Project is expected to hire from the existing population in the area," which does not provide any meaningful analysis or calculation of the project's population and employment (construction and operational) generation. Additionally, the geographic boundaries of the "area" of the project site are undefined. Relying on the entire labor force within Los Angeles County to fill the project's construction and operational jobs will increase VMT and emissions during all phases of construction and operations and a revised EIR must be prepared to account for longer worker trip distances. In order to comply with CEQA's requirements for meaningful disclosure and adequate informational documents, a revised EIR must be prepared to provide an accurate estimate of employees generated by all uses of the proposed project. It must also provide demographic and geographic information on the location of qualified workers to fill these positions.

The EIR has not accurately provided a calculation of the project's operational employees that accounts for all onsite uses, including proposed office areas.

EXHIBIT J
SCAG's Employment Density Study provides the following applicable average employment generation rates for Los Angeles County:

Warehouse: 1 employee per 1,518 square feet
Office: 1 employee per 319 square feet
Applying these ratios results in the following calculation:

Warehouse: 490,685 sf / 1,518 = 324 employees
Office: 45,000 sf/ 319 = 142 employees
Total: 466 employees
City Staff's Response: Estimates of Project construction jobs and permanent jobs during Project operations come from the Project Applicant and reflect the anticipated operations of the Project based on their similar facilities. As noted in Section 2.5.1, Proposed Land Uses and Operations, of the EIR, the proposed office space would be used for office uses ancillary to the warehouse operations and would not represent a stand-alone land use. Due to the population density in and around the City of Downey, as well as the availability of skilled workers in the area, it is not anticipated that additional workers will need to move to the City in order to fill either the jobs available during either construction or operations of the Project.

Please see Section 4.11, Transportation, and Appendix L, Transportation Impact Study, for information about how VMT was calculated, as well as response to Comment #13 (above).

The DEIR has provided meaningful disclosure of potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. Demographic and geographic information on the location of qualified workers to fill the construction and operation roles of the Project would be too speculative to provide at this time and is therefore not necessary. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation of a revised EIR is not required.

22.Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that utilizing SCAG's Employment Density Study ratios and accounting for all proposed uses, the proposed project will generate 466 employees. The EIR utilizes uncertain and misleading language which does not provide any meaningful analysis of the project's population and employment generation. In order to comply with CEQA's requirements for meaningful disclosure, a revised EIR must be prepared to provide an accurate estimate of employees generated by all uses of the proposed project. It must also provide demographic and geographic information on the location of qualified workers to fill these positions. A construction worker

EXHIBIT J
employment analysis must also be included to analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts adequately and accurately.

The EIR does not provide any information regarding the buildout conditions of the City's General Plan. Table 3.3-1: Housing/Population/Employment Projections of the General Plan Downey Vision 2025 EIR notes that the City's employment population would increase by 4,900 jobs through the horizon year of 2025. The proposed project accounts for 9.5% of employees through the entire General Plan buildout/horizon year of 2025, which has not been presented for analysis.

SCAG's Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast states that the City will add 2,900 jobs between 2016 - 2045. Utilizing the SCAG Employment Density Study calculation of 466 employees, the project represents 16% of the City's employment growth from 2016 - 2045. A single project accounting for this amount of growth within the City over 29 years represents a significant amount of growth. A revised EIR must be prepared to include this analysis, and also provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since 2016 and projects "in the pipeline" to determine if the project will exceed the City's General Plan employment projections or SCAG's employment growth forecast.

City Staff's Response: Please see response to Comment #21 (above) regarding projected employment. A construction worker employment analysis would be too speculative at this point in time and is not required. Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines states that a Lead Agency is not required to evaluate speculative impacts.

Please see response to Comment #7 (above) regarding the City's current General Plan and the cumulative analysis in the DEIR.

23. Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that for the foregoing reasons, GSEJA believes the EIR is flawed and a revised EIR must be prepared for the proposed project and circulated for public review. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box79222 Corona, CA 92877 City Staff's Response: The commenter's interest in the proposed Project has been noted and they will be added to the distribution list for future notifications regarding the Project.

The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. Specific issues raised by the commenter have

EXHIBIT J
been addressed in responses to Comments #1-22 (above). Specific issues raised by the commenter in the attached letter from SWAPS have been addressed below in responses to Comments #24-35 (below). No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on these comments, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required.

24. Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that they have reviewed the December 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project ("Project") located in the City of Downey ("City"). The Project proposes to demolish the existing buildings and construct a 535,685-square-foot ("SF") industrial building, 20,000-SF of office space, 255 trailer parking spaces, and 683 auto parking spaces on the 29.16- acre site. Our review concludes that the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate the Project's air quality, and health risk impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. A revised Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, and health risk impacts that the project may have on the environment.

City Staffs Response: The commenter presents an introduction to their comments and presents a summary of the Project. Their comments related to air quality and health risk impacts are addressed in responses to Comments #25 through #33 (below). The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required.

25. Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that there was a failure to provide complete CaIEEMod Output Files. Land use development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") typically evaluate air quality impacts and calculate potential criteria air pollutant emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model ("CaIEEMod"). CaIEEMod provides recommended default values based on site -specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project -specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are used in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions and demonstrate which default values are changed.

Justifications are provided for the selected values. According to the DEIR, CaIEEMod Version 2022 is relied upon to estimate Project emissions (p. 4.2-13).

However, this poses a problem as the version of CaIEEMod 2022.1 currently available is described as a "soft release" which fails to provide complete output

EXHIBIT J
files. Specifically, the "User Changes to Default Data" table no longer provides the quantitative counterparts to the changes to the default values (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 476): [see PDF of original comment letter] However, previous CalEEMod Versions, such as 2020.4.0, include the specific numeric changes to the model's default values (see example excerpt below):
[see PDF of original comment letter]
The output files associated with CalEEMod Version 2022.1 fail to present the exact parameters used to calculate Project emissions. To remedy this issue, the DEIR should have provided access to the model's ".JSON" output files, which allow third parties to review the model's revised input parameters. Without access to the complete output files, including the specific numeric changes to the default values, we cannot verify that the DEIR's air modeling and subsequent analysis is an accurate reflection of the proposed Project. As a result, a revised EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that correctly provides the complete output files for CalEEMod Version 2022.1, or includes an updated air model using an older release of CalEEMod.

City Staff's Response: The commenter is mistaken concerning the status of CalEEMod version 2022.1 used to evaluate Project air quality and GHG emissions impact. As shown in the CalEEMod Downey Prologis Project Detailed Report (the CalEEMod output report included in Appendix B to the DEIR), CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.19 was used for Project analysis and analysis of the existing land use on the project site. Version 2022.1.1.19, released on September 6, 2023, was the most current version of CalEEMod available at the time of the analysis. All CalEEMod versions from 2022.1.13 (released December 21, 2022) onward are approved models, not "soft release".

The ".JSON" files mentioned by the commenter are not "output" file, they are data files read by the web -based CalEEMod program. These data files are not printable files that are typically included with Project public review DEIR files.

However, the Project ".JSON" files could be requested from the City. The commenter made no such request for Project modeling files. The CalEEMod detailed report output files included in Appendix B to the DEIR contain all parameters to enable someone knowledgeable in the use of CalEEEMod and air quality analysis to recreate the model on the CalEEMod website.

The commenter has not provided any substantial evidence in this comment or related preceding comments that air quality emissions impacts would be more severe than concluded in the DEIR. No revisions to the EIR are required.

26.Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that unsubstantiated input parameters were used to estimate project emissions.

As previously discussed, the DEIR relies on CalEEMod Version 2022.1 to estimate the Project's air quality emissions and fails to provide the complete

EXHIBIT J
output files required to adequately evaluate model's analysis (p. 4.2-13).

Regardless, when reviewing the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report ("AQ & GHG Report") as Appendix B to the DEIR, we were able to identify several model inputs that are inconsistent with information disclosed in the DEIR. As such, the Project's construction and operational emissions may be underestimated. A revised 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.

City Staff's Response: See the response to Comment #25 (above), concerning the model selected for air quality and GHG emissions impact analysis and the supporting evidence provided in Appendix B to the DEIR. The commenter does not specify what "model inputs that are inconsistent with information disclosed in the DEIR" are referred to. The commenter has not provided any substantial evidence in this comment or related following comments that air quality and GHG emissions impacts would be more severe than concluded in the DEIR. No revisions to the EIR are required.

27.Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states, Unsubstantiated Changes to Architectural Coating Emission Factors.

Review of the CaIEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Downey Prologis Project R2" model includes changes to the default architectural coating emission factors (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 476).

As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified. As demonstrated above in the "User Changes to Default Data" table, the justification provided for these changes is: "Building envelope and flat coating VOC limit 50 g/I per SCAQMD Rule 1113" (Appendix B, pp. 476). However, the reductions to the architectural coating emission factors remain unsubstantiated for three reasons.

First, these changes remain unsubstantiated as the AQ & GHG Report fails to include the abovementioned project design feature ("PDF") as a formal mitigation measure. This is incorrect, as according to the Association of Environmental Professionals' ("AEP") CEQA Portal Topic Paper on Mitigation Measures:
"While not `mitigation', a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact." As demonstrated above,

EXHIBIT J
PDFs that are not formally included as mitigation measures may be eliminated from the Project's design altogether. Until the DEIR and associated documents incorporate a formal mitigation measure that requires the Project to use low - volatile organic compound ("VOC") coatings, we cannot verify that the above changes are accurate.

City Staff's Response: The volatile organic compound (VOC) content for the Project building exterior and interior coatings was changed from the CalEEMod default of 100 g/L to 50 g/L in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1113, as discussed in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report Section 4.1.2.1 and as noted in Section 8 of the Project CalEEMod Detailed Report, included in Appendix B to the DEIR. SCAQMD Rule 1113 specifies a maximum VOC content limit for standards paints anticipated to be used for the Project building: 50 g/L for exterior surfaces ("Building Envelope Coatings"), and 50 g/L for interior surfaces ("Flat Coatings" and/or "Nonflat Coatings"). CEQA case law establishes that Project impact analysis is not required to evaluate speculative worst -case scenarios and analysis should include reasonably foreseeable conditions (High Sierra Rural Alliance v County of Plumas, 2018 5th District Court of Appeal). There is no Project -specific reasonably foreseeable condition which would require a specialty coating with a higher VOC content limit than 50 g/L to be used for Project building interior or exterior surfaces painting.

The commenter has not provided any substantial evidence that a coating with a higher VOC content than 50 g/L would be used during Project construction or operation in sufficient quantity to result in a significant impact. VOC limits for building coatings are regulated by the SCAQMD and no Project design feature or mitigation measure would be required to ensure compliance.

28. Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that they cannot verify the accuracy of the revised architectural 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.

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 will be used. As the DEIR fails to explicitly require the use of a specific type of coating which would adhere to a specific VOC limit, we are unable to verify the model's revised coating emission factors.

City Staff's Response: As discussed in the response to Comment #27 (above), CEQA case law establishes that Project impact analysis is required to evaluate reasonably foreseeable conditions, not speculative worst -case scenarios. There is no Project -specific reasonably foreseeable condition which would require a specialty coating with a higher VOC content limit than 50 g/L to be used for project building interior or exterior surfaces painting. Citing the number of coating categories and the range of VOC content for those categories in the SCAQMD Rule1113 does not constitute substantial evidence of reasonably foreseeable

EXHIBIT J
conditions that the Project building would be painted with coatings with higher VOC contents than 50 g/L. As discussed in the response to comment #27 of letter #7, above, the modeling input concerning architectural coating VOC content was disclosed in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report Section 4.1.2.1 and as noted in Section 8 of the Project CalEEMod Detailed Report, included in Appendix B to the DEIR. The commenter's inability to verify Project modeling does not constitute substantial evidence of a more severe impact than concluded in the DEIR.

29. Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states, as previously discussed, the output files for CalEEMod 2022.1 do not present the numeric changes to any model defaults. Upon further review of the output files, Table 5.5 contains the only mention of architectural coatings (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 464):

However, as demonstrated above, Table 5.5 only provides the square footage of area to be coated. Since the output files fail to demonstrate the architectural coating emission factors that the model relies on, we cannot verify that the values included in the model are accurate. These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the architectural coating emission factors to calculate the Project's volatile organic compounds ("VOC") emissions. By including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural coating emission factors, the model may underestimate the Project's construction -related VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

City Staff's Response: As discussed in responses to Comments #27 and #28 (above), in the Project air quality impact analysis, changes made to CalEEMod defaults for architectural coatings VOC content are substantiated by SCAQMD Rule 1113, as described in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report Section 4.1.2.1 and as noted in Section 8 of the Project CalEEMod Detailed Report, included in Appendix B to the DEIR. The analysis correctly analyzed reasonably foreseeable conditions concerning the VOC content of paint to be used on the Project buildings, based on compliance with SCAQMD regulations. The resulting Project VOC emissions reported on the DEIR are not underestimated. The methodology used in the Project air quality impact analysis was adequately documented and can be relied on in the assessment of potential impacts.

30.Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states, Unsubstantiated Changes to Fleet Mix Values.

Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the "Downey Prologis Project R2" model includes changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 476).

However, these changes remain unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, the output files for CalEEMod 2022.1 do not present the numeric changes to any model defaults. Upon further review of the output files, changes to fleet mix

EXHIBIT J
percentages are not mentioned outside of the "User Changes to Default Data" table. Until the DEIR verifies the breakdown of heavy -heavy duty ("HHD"), medium -heavy duty ("MHD"), light heavy duty ("LHD1, LDH2"), trucks used by the Project, we cannot verify that the values included in the model are accurate.

These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses operational vehicle fleet mix percentages to calculate the Project's operational emissions associated with on -road vehicles. By including several unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, the model may underestimate the Project's mobile -source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

City Staff's Response: Changes were made to the CalEEMod default fleet mix to ensure the air quality and GHG impact analysis was consistent with the analysis in the TIS prepared for the Project, in which a traffic engineer calculated Project -specific truck trips. These changes are fully described in Section 4.1.2.3 of the Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report included in Appendix B to the DEIR. As described in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, the Project -specific changes to model defaults for mobile sources are fully substantiated by the TIS (LLG 2023), the High -Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis report (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2016), and the SCAQMD Warehouse Indirect Source Rule Staff Report (SCAQMD 2021). The analysis correctly evaluated reasonably foreseeable conditions of Project truck trips and passenger vehicle trips, based on the substantial evidence described above. The resulting Project criteria pollutant and precursor emissions reported on the DEIR are not underestimated.

The methodology used in the Project air quality impact analysis was adequately documented and can be relied on in the assessment of potential impacts.

31.Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states, Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact.

In an effort to more accurately estimate the Project's construction -related and operational emissions, we used CaIEEMod Version 2020.4.0, as well as the Project -specific information provided by the DEIR.

Consistent with the DEIR's models, we included 488,900-SF of "Unrefrigerated Warehouse -No Rail," 26,785-SF of "Refrigerated Warehouse -No Rail," 20,000- SF of "General Office Building," 15.7-acres (zero SF) of "Parking Lot," and 12,360-SF of "Other Asphalt Surfaces." Additionally, we omitted the unsubstantiated changes to the architectural coating emission factors and operational vehicle fleet mix.

Our updated analysis estimates that the Project's construction -related VOC emissions would exceed the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management

EXHIBIT J
District ("SCAQMD") threshold of 75-pounds per day ("Ibs/day"), as referenced by the DEIR (p. 4.2-12, Table 4.2-6) (see table below).

As demonstrated in the table above, the Project's construction -related VOC emissions, as estimated by SWAPE, increase by approximately 78% and exceed the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold. 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 DEIR. A revised EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment.

City Staff's Response: The commenter's analysis is without merit and uses CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 which was superseded by CalEEMod Version 2022.1, which was the version approved for use in Project impact analysis at the time that the DEIR was prepared. The defaults for CalEEMod versions 2020.4.0 utilize outdated model defaults, such as EMFAC2017 (which has been superseded by EMFAC2021) and does not include data from the Southern California Association of Governments' regional travel demand model. In addition, the commenter's model does not include the Project -specific changes to model defaults identified in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report included in Appendix B to the DEIR. The commenter's argument that the Project air quality and GHG emissions modeling changes to CalEEMod defaults are unsubstantiated is without merit, as discussed in the response to Comments #27 through #30 (above). The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions.

No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required.

32. Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated.

The DEIR concludes that the proposed Project would result in a less -than significant health risk impact based on a quantified construction and mobile - source operational health risk assessment ("HRA").

Specifically, the DEIR estimates that the maximum incremental cancer risk posed to nearby, existing residential sensitive receptors associated with exposure to diesel particulate matter ("DPM") emissions during Project construction and operation would be 5.3 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million (p. 4.2-29, Table 4.2-13).

As demonstrated above, the DEIR indicates that the maximum incremental cancer risk would be 5.3 chance per million over a 30-year period. However, the DEIR's evaluation of the Project's potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less -than -significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for two reasons.

EXHIBIT J
First, the DEIR's construction HRA is incorrect, as it relies upon emissions estimates from an unsubstantiated air model, as discussed above in section of this letter titled "Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions." As a result, the HRA may rely on an underestimated DPM concentration to calculate the health risk associated with Project construction.

The DEIR's construction HRA and the resulting cancer risk should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Second, the DEIR fails to mention the exposure assumptions for the construction -related and operational HRAs, such as age sensitivity factors ("ASF") or fraction of time at home ("FAH") values whatsoever. Until the DEIR substantiates the use of correct exposure assumptions, the HRAs may underestimate the cancer risk posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors due to Project construction and operation. Furthermore, according to the Risk Assessment Guidelines provided by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, the DEIR's HRA should have used the following equation: [see full letter included in attachment]
However, the DEIR fails to mention or provide a dose and risk equation to calculate the Project's construction and operational cancer risks. As such, we cannot verify that the DEIR's HRA is accurate, and the Project's cancer risks may be underestimated.

City Staffs Response: The commenter is also mistaken about age sensitivity factors and fraction of time at home. As described in Section 4.1 in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, included in Appendix B to the DEIR, Project health risks were determined using CARB's Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool (ADMRT) version 22118. The ADMRT automatically applies age sensitivity factors based on the age bins included in the model. As described in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, for residential health risks, the model assumed 30 years of exposure, starting with infants in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy. Therefore, all age sensitivity factors are accounted for in the Project health risk assessment. For the fraction of time at home, because there are no schools near the modeled receptors, fraction of time at home adjustments were applied to age bins 3-years and older using the ADMRT selectable option. The fraction of time at home selected options can be verified in the HRA output included in Appendix B to the DEIR: in the Residential Cancer Risk ADMRT output summary sheets, the modeled scenario is listed as "30YrCancerRMP_Inh_FAH3to70." This scenario means: 30 years total exposure, risk management policy (RMP) intake rate percentile, inhalation only, and fraction of time at home (FAH) selected for age bins 3 through 70 years old.

The equation shown in the comment would be applicable if health risks were calculated off -model. However, the health risks results shown in the DEIR

EXHIBIT J
Section 4.2 were calculated using the CARB's ADMRT which automates the risk calculation. The model and the methodology used by the ADMRT is publicly available on CARB's website at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/harp-air-dispersion modeling -and - risk -tool.

There is no requirement to "mention or provide a dose and risk equation" in the documentation of the health risk assessment methodology. Potential cancer risks resulting from Project -related DPM emissions, as reported in the DEIR, were not underestimated. The commenter's inability to verify Project modeling does not constitute substantial evidence of a more severe impact than concluded in the DEIR.

33. Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states, Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions.

Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant air quality and health impacts that should be mitigated further. In an effort to reduce emissions, the Project should consider the implementation of the following mitigation measures found in the California Department of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices document.
• 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.

EXHIBIT J
• 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 zero emission beginning in 2030.
• 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.

City Staff's Response: The commenter is mistaken; no information or analysis was provided in the comment letter which demonstrates air quality or health impacts would be potentially significant and would require mitigation. As discussed in the responses to Comments #27 through #32 (above), the commenter's argument that the modeling used was unsubstantiated and that Project -specific changes to model defaults were unsubstantiated is without merit.

As discussed in the DEIR Section 4.2, the Project would not result in any potentially significant air quality impacts, and no mitigation measures would be required.

34. Appellant's Reason: The Appellant states that 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,

EXHIBIT J
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. A revised EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality and health risk analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds.

The revised 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.

City Staff's Response: As described in Section 2.5.4, Sustainability Features, of the DEIR, solar panels are included as part of the Project design. The Project would include a solar -ready roof structure, with an 80 mil Thermoplastic Polyolefin Cool Roof and 5 pounds per square foot on roof structure to accommodate solar loads. Solar panels would be installed with a capability to generate a minimum of 3.13 watts per square foot of office space.

The DEIR has disclosed potential environmental impacts with supporting evidence for these conclusions. As no significant impacts related to air quality or health risk are identified, no mitigation measures are required. No revisions to the EIR are necessary based on this comment, and preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required.

35.Appellant's Reason: Disclaimer - SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is 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.

City Staff's Response: This comment provides a disclaimer related to the above comments. No environmental issues related to the analysis presented in the DEIR are raised, and therefore no further response is necessary.

Downey City CouncilJune 11, 2024

Downey City Council
June 11, 2024