Letter 1: Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (3 pages) March 29, 2022
To Whom It May Concern:
We are submitting this letter to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission on March 15, 2022 approving application MCN 21-084 to construct a 137,000 square foot industrial commerce center building on 6.6 adjusted gross acres ("Project").
Focusing here in Fontana, along with the increased truck traffic that is in direct competition to pedestrian safety, courtesy, and pollution impacts, we are now seeing links to childhood obesity, linked to pollution from vehicles:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/04/childhood-obesity-linked-to-air-pollution 1.1 from-vehicles
As well as research studies showing that "Mouse Lung Structure and Function after Long-Term Exposure to an Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Level Predicted by Climate Change Modeling" which suggests that the early life period, when lungs are undergoing rapid growth and development, is particularly sensitive to
CO2".
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP7305
Design Review No. 21-084 demands that an environmental impact report be completed. The CEQA exemption is not appropriate because regardless of the size of the project, not doing CEOA review means that the City would not adequately address the cumulative environmental, safety, and traffic impacts that this project will bring to Fontana and San Bernardino County. As stated by the Court in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, environmental decisions must be "supported by a reasoned xplanation based on substantial evidence." The community and adjoining propert omeowners, appeal that with or without a CEQA requirement, the basic threshold has no 1.2 been met. This appeal demands that threshold
be met either with the reasonable equivalent of a CEQA to "support a reasoned explanation based on substantial evidence".
Our standing comes as a community organization representing mothers, fathers, and stakeholders in the Fontana community, that have been caught between the moneyed interests of developers, and a gaslit defense played by the city council.
Because of the use of the exemption, it is impossible to determine whether the Project is meeting the requirements of MM-GHG-1 of the City of Fontana's 2015-2035 General Plan which 1.3 requires a reduction of 28.5 percent below baseline conditions. But that is at odds with the legal precedent of the State Supreme Court's threshold for analysis in Center for Biological Diversity ATTACHMENT NO. 7
v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. There is also an interest to cite the updated scientific research that we set forth above, along with the science in our previous appeal:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arlicle/what-you-know-about-trumps-assault-on-science-was _ust-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/
"Researchers also suggested that a decrease in enforcement of the Clean Air Act may have contributed to the recent rise in pollution. That law and its subsequent updates put in place strict air pollution standards for power plants, factories, vehicles and other sources, and has been credited with dramatically improving air quality across the country and saving hundreds of thousands of lives.
The new analysis estimated that the increase of slightly more than five percent in fine particulate 1.3 pollution nationwide between 2016 and 2018 was associated with nearly 10,000 additional Cont premature deaths during that time.
Fine particulate pollution - known as PM25 because the particles are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, or one-thirtieth the size of a human hair - has been linked to a range of health problems including asthma and respiratory inflammation, lung cancer, heart attack and stroke. A recent study found a significant link between air pollution and the risk of miscarriage" New studies are showing that exposure to PM2.5 have increased since 2016, and that is more true here in the Inland Valley, especially in the city of Fontana. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/24/climate/air-pollution-increase.html In addition, we demand that the true costs of the cumulative effects, of all Fontana warehouse developments over the past ten years, be studied and released to the community, so that damages can be determined. A new EIR study needs to be conducted for the SWIP area of 1.4 South Fontana to show the updated impacts residents are facing now, not what it was ten years ago.
Finally, we demand for the health and safety of the community, that the city council approve our appeal and stop this latest development from moving forward, until a full health and safety 1.5 accounting of this project can be made public during the school year, so parents can be informed.
What Inland Valley stakeholders, especially here in Fontana, are finding out, is that government officials no longer have any courtesy for their community. This is the second project this summer, where a warehouse is being approved close to a Fontana school. It is no coincidence 1.6 that these projects are presented during the summer, during a pandemic, when kids are out of school.
Respectfully,
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
E PD
SOLUTIONS, INC
Response to Comments on the Santa Ana and Calabash Project This chapter of the Staff Report contains responses to the comments that the City of Fontana (Lead Agency) received on the Final Addendum (MCN 21-084) for the Santa Ana and Calabash Project during the appeal period, which began March 15, 2022, and closed March 29, 2022. This document has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency.
The following appeal letter was submitted to the City during the public review period:
Center for Community Action and Environmental, Received March 29, 2022 (3 pages) The appeal letter and responses to comments are included in the public record and are available to the Lead Agency decision-makers for their review and consideration prior to making their decision whether to approve the proposed Project.
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) the lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EiR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The comment does not provide substantial evidence that the Project would result in any of the conditions requirement requires preparation of a subsequent EIR under State CEQA Guidelines Section Although State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 does not require a Lead Agency to prepare written esponses to comments received, the City of Fontana has elected to prepare the following writter esponses with the intent of providing a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposer Project. The number designations in the responses are correlated to the bracketed and identified portions of each comment letter.
Urban Planning a Due Diligence • Entitlements • CEQA/NEPA a Development Services a Management • Public Outreach 2355 Main Street, Suite 100 a Irvine, Calif. 92614
EPD
SOLUTIONS, INC
Letter 1: Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (3 pages) March 29, 2022
To Whom It May Concern:
We are submitting this letter to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission on March 15, 2022 approving application MCN 21-084 to construct a 137,000 square foot industrial commerce center building on 6.6 adjusted gross acres ("Project").
Focusing here in Fontana, along with the increased truck traffic that is in direct competition to pedestrian safety, courtesy, and pollution impacts, we are now seeing links to childhood obesity, linked to pollution from vehicles:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/04/childhood-obesity-linked-to-air-pollution 1.1 from-vehicles
As well as research studies showing that "Mouse Lung Structure and Function after Long-Term Exposure to an Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Level Predicted by Climate Change Modeling" which "suggests that the early life period, when lungs are undergoing rapid growth and development, is particularly sensitive to
CO2"
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP7305
Design Review No. 21-084 demands that an environmental impact report be completed. The EQA exemption is not appropriate because regardless of the size of the project, not doing EQA review means that the City would not adequately address the cumulative environmental, safety, and traffic impacts that this project will bring to Fontana and San Bernardino County. As stated by the Court in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, environmental decisions must be "supported by a reasoned explanation based on substantial evidence." The community and adjoining property homeowners, appeal that with or without a CEQA requirement, the basic threshold has not 1.2 been met. This appeal demands that threshold
be met either with the reasonable equivalent of a CEQA to "support a reasoned explanation based on substantial evidence".
Our standing comes as a community organization representing mothers, fathers, and stakeholders in the Fontana community, that have been caught between the moneyed interests of developers, and a gaslit defense played by the city council.
Because of the use of the exemption, it is impossible to determine whether the Project is meeting the requirements of MM-GHG-1 of the City of Fontana's 2015-2035 General Plan which 1.3 requires a reduction of 28.5 percent below baseline conditions. But that is at odds with the legal precedent of the State Supreme Court's threshold for analysis in Center for Biological Diversity Urban Planning • Due Diligence • Entitlements • CEQA/NEPA = Development Services • Management • Public Outreach 2355 Main Street, Suite 100 • Irvine, Calif. 92614
EPD
SOLUTIONS, INC
v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. There is also an interest to cite the updated scientific research that we set forth above, along with the science in our previous appeal:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-you-know-about-trumps-assault-on-science-was -just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/
"Researchers also suggested that a decrease in enforcement of the Clean Air Act may have contributed to the recent rise in pollution. That law and its subsequent updates put in place strict air pollution standards for power plants, factories, vehicles and other sources, and has beer credited with dramatically improving air quality across the country and saving hundreds of thousands of lives.
The new analysis estimated that the increase of slightly more than five percent in fine particulate 1.3 pollution nationwide between 2016 and 2018 was associated with nearly 10,000 additional Cont premature deaths during that time.
Fine particulate pollution - known as PM25 because the particles are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, or one-thirtieth the size of a human hair - has been linked to a range of health problems including asthma and respiratory inflammation, lung cancer, heart attack and stroke. A recent study found a significant link between air pollution and the risk of miscarriage" New studies are showing that exposure to PM2.5 have increased since 2016, and that is more true here in the Inland Valley, especially in the city of Fontana. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/24/climate/air-pollution-increase.html In addition, we demand that the true costs of the cumulative effects, of all Fontana warehouse developments over the past ten years, be studied and released to the community, so that damages can be determined. A new EIR study needs to be conducted for the SWIP area of 1.4 South Fontana to show the updated impacts residents are facing now, not what it was ten years ago.
Finally, we demand for the health and safety of the community, that the city council approve our appeal and stop this latest development from moving forward, until a full health and safety 1.5 accounting of this project can be made public during the school year, so parents can be informed.
What Inland Valley stakeholders, especially here in Fontana, are finding out, is that government officials no longer have any courtesy for their community. This is the second project this summer, where a warehouse is being approved close to a Fontana school. It is no coincidence 1.6 that these projects are presented during the summer, during a pandemic, when kids are out of Respectfully,
Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice
Urban Planning a Due Diligence • Entitlements • CEQA/NEPA = Development Services • Management • Public Outreach 2355 Main Street, Suite 100 = Irvine, Calif. 92614
EP D
SOLUTIONS, INC
RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 1: Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice Response to Comment 1.1: This comment introduces the appeal letter, and states that the letter is being submitted to appeal the Planning Commission's March 15, 2022 approval of the Santa Ana and Calabash Project (Master Case No. 21-084) (the "Project"). The comment suggests that the Project will have negative environmental impacts, and that the City has violated the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in approving the Project.
An Addendum to the Southwest Industrial Park ("SWIP") Specific Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report ("SWIP EIR") (State Clearinghouse #2009091089) has been prepared for the Project, and the Planning Commission adopted the Addendum on March 15, 2022. Because the SWIP EIR has already been prepared and certified, the City is not required to prepare an additional EIR, indeed it is prohibited from preparing an additional EIR, unless it determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the record, one or more of the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the SWIP EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
2. Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the SWIP EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
3. New information of substantial importance, that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the SWIP EIR was certified, shows the Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15162; see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21166.) The commenter had not presented any substantial evidence that any of these three circumstances have occurred met, and the commenter thus has not established that that additional environmental review is necessary under CEQA.
Under State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and Public Resources Code 21166 where, as here, an EIR has already been certified for a project the City's determination that further EIR is not required is entitled to significant deference, must be upheld if it is supported by any substantial evidence in the record of the City's proceedings. Here, the City's determination is supported by substantial evidence, as a detailed Addendum to the SWIP EIR, with supporting studies, has been prepared, and, as such, the Addendum has appropriately analyzed the Project's potential impacts relating to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, traffic, and a host of other factors.
In a seeming attempt to suggest some sort of violation of CEQA, the comment cites a link (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/04/childhood-obesity-linked-to-air-pollution- from-vehicles) to support its claim that increased truck traffic in Fontana related to the Project is implicates any substantial evidence regarding the Project, as defined by CEQA, in support of these contentions. (See State CEQA Guidelines, § 15384.) Notably, the referenced link from November 2018 does not concern this Project or even warehouse projects generally; and further the link does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project will exceed any thresholds of significance and/or will result in result in any significant air quality impacts.
Urban Planning • Due Diligence • Entitlements • CEQA/NEPA = Development Services • Management • Public Outreach 2355 Main Street, Suite 100 • Irvine, Calif. 92614
EP D
SOLUTIONS, INC
Similarly, the comment cites to another link to an article entitled, "Mouse Lung Structure and Function after Long-Term Exposure to an Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Level Predicted by Climate Change Modeling," but, again, this link does not concern the Project, does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project exceeds any thresholds of significance, and thus does not establish that any additional environmental review is necessary under State CEQA Guidelines section 15162.
Response to Comment 1.2: This comment states that the commenters demand that an EIR be completed. The comment states that a CEQA exemption is not appropriate because cumulative environmental, safety, and standing comes as a community organization representing mothers, fathers, and stakeholders in the Fontana community.
Here, as an initial matter, the Planning Commission did not find the Project exempt from CEQA. Rather, and as discussed above, an Addendum to the SWIP EIR was prepared for the Project. According to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred. And, as discussed above, a Subsequent EIR is prohibited here because none of the criteria identified in State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 have been met.
As discussed on Page 21 of the Addendum, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the City has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence, in the light of the whole record, that implementation of the Project will not result in substantial changes to the Approved Project (the SWIP), that no substantial changes in circumstances would occur under the Project which would require major revisions to the SWIP EIR, and that no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of the SWIP EIR that would result in either new significant effects or in an increase in the severity of previously analyzed significant effects.
Response to Comment 1.3: The comment again assumes that the Planning Commission found the Project exempt from CEQA. This is not the case. As noted above, the Project was approved pursuant to an Addendum to the SWIP EIR.
The comment further asserts that the Project should comply with the GHG-related mitigation measures in the City's General Plan EIR. But to comply with CEQA Guidelines section 15162, the City was required to look already adopted by the City as a requirement for all projects develops in the SWIP, not the GHG analysis in the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, the Addendum considered whether the Project complies with the GHG analysis in the SWIP EIR. The General Plan EIR has no bearing on whether the criteria set forth under Section 15162 (concerning adequacy of the SWIP EIR) are met and whether the Addendum prepared for the Project complies with CEQA.
Moreover, the comment cites to studies that purport to demonstrate decreased air quality as a result of increased air pollution. These studies are not specific to the Project and do not provide substantial evidence that the Project would result in a new or more severe environmental impact than was disclosed in the SWIP EIR. An Air Quality Analysis, included as Appendix B to the Addendum, was conducted for the Project. As discussed on Pages 32-39 of the Addendum, the maximum daily regional and local emissions would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance thresholds. Further, the comment regarding the Clean Air Act does not provide any substantial evidence supporting any change in the findings in the Addendum. Thus, no further response is warranted.
Urban Planning a Due Diligence a Entitlements • CEQA/NEPA • Development Services • Management a Public Outreach 2355 Main Street, Suite 100 a Irvine, Calif. 92614
EPD
SOLUTIONS, INC
Response to Comment 1.4: The comment states that commenters demand the true costs of cumulative effects of all Fontana warehouse developments over the past 10 years be disclosed and requests that a new EIR be conducted for the SWIP area to show the updated impacts. There is no basis in CEQA for a new EIR to be prepared in place of the already-certified SWIP EIR and the already approved SWIP. The SWIP EIR already includes a cumulative impacts analysis. Moreover, as demonstrated in the Addendum, the Project's emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during both construction and operations. Thus, the impact would not exceed the impact findings already disclosed in the SWIP FEIR. Further, the comment does not contain any Project specific substantial evidence that would require changes to the Addendum. Thus, no further response is warranted.
Response to Comment 1.5: This comment states that commenters demand health and safety for the community and request that the City approves the appeal to delay the Project until a full health and safety analysis is made public and request that this analysis be made public during the school year so parents can be informed. A health risk assessment, included as Appendix C to the Addendum, was conducted for the Project. As discussed on page 38 and 39 of the Addendum, the estimated maximum 30-year exposure duration cancer risk is 5.5 in one million for sensitive/residential receptors, which is less than the 10 in one million threshold and thus, reflects a less than significant air quality related health impact, just as was previously found in the certified SWIP EIR.
Response to Comment 1.6: This comment states that government officials no longer have courtesy for their community and this is the second project that is being approved close to a Fontana school. The comment provides the commenter's opinion and opposition to the Project and does not provide any substantial evidence that would, pursuant to CEQA, require any changes to the City's conclusion that the Project was appropriately approved pursuant to an Addendum to the SWIP EIR.
Urban Planning a Due Diligence • Entitlements • CEQA/NEPA a Development Services • Management a Public Outreach 2355 Main Street, Suite 100 m Irvine, Calif. 92614