Agenda packet — Fontana City Council, May 14, 2024 (part 3 of 11)

6689-009acp
printed on recycled paper
We urge the City Council to uphold this appeal and require the City to prepare and circulate a revised EIR which accurately discloses cumulative GHG impacts, requires all feasible mitigation measures, and analyzes all feasible alternatives to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If a revised Statement of Overriding Considerations is considered for subsequent adoption, we urge the City to consider whether the Project will result in employment opportunities for highly trained workers.

II. CONCLUSION
As a result of these errors, the Planning Commission’s decision to certify the FEIR and approval of Master Case No. 21-038 violated CEQA and must be overturned. We urge the City Council to grant this appeal and direct staff to prepare an EIR that complies with CEQA. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Richard M. Franco
Christina Caro
Attachments
CMC:acp
459

EXHIBIT A
460
6689-008j

ARIANA ABEDIFARD
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

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

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

A T T O RN E Y S A T L A W
6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 - 7 0 3 7 ___________
T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2
r f r a n c o @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m
printed on recycled paper
March 19, 2024

VIA EMAIL
Cathline Fort, Chair
Idilio Sanchez, Vice Chair
Ricardo Quintana, Secretary
Raj Sangha, Commissioner
Ralph Thrasher, Commissioner
City of Fontana Planning Commission
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Email: [email protected]

VIA EMAIL
Patty Nevins, Director of Planning
Planning Department
Email: [email protected]
Jon Dille, Associate Planner
Email: [email protected]
Re: Agenda Item PH-B –March 19, 2024 City of Fontana Planning Commission hearing on Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2021120059, MCN No. 21-038, DRP No. 21-013, TPM No. 20456, and TPM No. 21-007)
Dear Chair Fort, Vice Chair Sanchez, Members of Planning Commission:

We are writing on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”) in opposition to the Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2021120059, MCN No. 21-038, DRP No. 21-013, TPM No. 20456, and TPM No. 21- 007) (“Project”), proposed by Duke Realty Limited Partnership (“Applicant”). The Project appears as agenda item PH-B for the March 19, 2024 City of Fontana (“City”) Planning Commission (“Commission”) meeting. The Commission will consider adopting resolutions to (1) certify the Project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”), adopt a statement of overriding considerations, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program and a statement of facts and findings, and direct staff to file a Notice of Determination; (2) approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456); and (3) approve Design Review No. 21-013. 461
March 19, 2024

Page 2 ends

6689-008j
printed on recycled paper
The City, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act1 (“CEQA”), prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) and FEIR for the Project. CARE CA’s comments on the DEIR explained how the DEIR failed to comply with CEQA’s requirement to act as an informational document, in that it lacked proper analysis in crucial areas including the Project’s individual and cumulative impacts in the areas of air quality, public health, hazards and noise.

Those comments further explained how these flaws made the DEIR deficient as a matter of law because it failed to properly analyze, disclose and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impacts, and lacked substantial evidence supporting the City’s conclusions regarding those impacts.

The City’s FEIR includes responses to CARE CA’s DEIR comments and purports to address the issues raised. As discussed below however, the FEIR fails to adequately resolve these issues or to mitigate all of the Project’s potentially significant impacts. We reviewed the FEIR and available supporting documentation with the assistance of air quality, GHG, and hazardous materials expert James Clark Ph.D.,
2 and noise expert Jack Meighan.3 We reserve the right to supplement these comments at a later date, and at any later proceedings related to this Project.4
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CARE CA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards, and the environmental impacts of the Project. The coalition includes Fontana residents Juan Chavez, Jose Chavez, Jeffry Davis, and Calos Diaz, and the District Council of Ironworkers and Southern California Pipe Trades DC 16, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in Fontana and in San Bernardino County.

CARE CA advocates for protecting the environment and the health of their communities’ workforces. CARE CA seeks to ensure a sustainable construction industry over the long-term by supporting projects that offer genuine economic and employment benefits, and which minimize adverse environmental and other 1 Pub. Resources Code (“PRC”) §§ 21000 et seq.
2 Dr. Clark’s technical comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Clark FEIR Comments”).
3 Mr. Meighan’s technical comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit B (“Meighan FEIR Comments”).
4 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
462
March 19, 2024

Page 3 ends

6689-008j
printed on recycled paper
impacts on local communities. CARE CA members live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Fontana and surrounding communities. Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.

In addition, CARE CA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Indeed, continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.

II. THE CITY MAY NOT APPROVE THE PROJECT BECAUSE THE FEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE PROJECT’S SIGNIFICANT

IMPACTS
CEQA requires that a lead agency evaluate and provide a written response to DEIR comments raising significant environmental issues.5 Such comments must be addressed in detail and include good faith reasoned analysis; conclusory statements unsupported by facts do not suffice.6 A lead agency’s failure to adequately respond to comments raising significant environmental issues before approving a project frustrates CEQA’s informational purposes and renders the EIR legally inadequate.7 Here, many of the City’s responses to CARE CA’s DEIR comments lack any reasoned analysis and include wholly conclusory statements unsupported by any facts. The FEIR is therefore legally inadequate under CEQA and the Commission may not certify the FEIR nor grant the requested Project approvals at this time.

A. The FEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Cumulative Impacts.

An EIR must evaluate a cumulative impact if a project’s incremental effect combined with the effects of other projects is “cumulatively considerable.”8 This determination is based on an assessment of the project’s incremental impacts 5 14 CCR § 15088(a).
6 14 CCR § 15088(c).
7 Flanders Found. v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 615-17; Rural Landowners Ass’n v. City Council (1883) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020. 8 CEQA Guidelines § 15130(a).
463
March 19, 2024

Page 4 ends

6689-008j
printed on recycled paper
“viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”9 Proper cumulative impact analysis is vital because “the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.”10
CEQA’s requirement that the City evaluate the Project’s cumulative impacts is especially important given the proliferation of warehouses in San Bernardino County generally, and in the City of Fontana specifically. According to recent reporting:

Small cities such as Fontana show the effects of this hellbent absorption of warehouses. With a population of just over 200,000 people, Fontana houses distribution centers for CocaCola, Target, Smart & Final and FedEx, among others. Since 2010, Fontana has approved more than 70 new warehouses, which cover some 860 acres and produce more than 16,000 truck trips a day.11
According to a database compiled by researchers to track warehouse development across Southern California, Fontana has 320 existing warehouses totaling more than 68 million square feet of floor space and generating 46,000 daily truck trips.12 An additional 69 warehouses are either planned or already approved and expected to be constructed by 2025.13 These additional 69 warehouses would add 21,300,000 square feet of floor space, and an additional 14,000 daily truck trips generating 19.4 pounds of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) every day.14 Even the Project Applicant has a pending proposal before the City for approval of an additional 881,826 square foot warehouse development that is under concurrent consideration for 9 Id., §§ 15065(a)(3), 15355(b).
10 Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114.
11 https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/01/inland-empire-california-warehouse-development/, accessed on March 17, 2023.
12 https://radicalresearch.shinyapps.io/WarehouseCITY/ (data generated by entering “Fontana” in “jurisdiction” field, accessed on March 17, 2024.
13 Id.
14 Id.
464
March 19, 2024

Page 5 ends

6689-008j
printed on recycled paper
approval by the Commission.15 Under the circumstances, it is imperative that the City perform a proper evaluation of the Project’s cumulative impacts, so that the Commission can intelligently assess and address the impacts of this warehouse boom on Fontana’s residents.

1. The FEIR Fails to Include Numerous Nearby Warehouses in its Cumulative Impacts Analysis.

The CEQA Guidelines set forth two methods for satisfying the cumulative impacts analysis requirement: the list of projects approach and the summary of projections approach.16 Under the former, an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts requires “a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts…”17 Relevant factors when compiling a list of related projects include the environmental resource being examined and the location and type of the project.18 The Guidelines expressly recognize that project type may be important “when the impact is specialized, such as a particular air pollutant or mode of traffic.”19
Here, the DEIR purported to use the “summary of projections” approach, except for the evaluation of cumulative transportation effects and vehicular-related air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise impacts, for which the analysis combines the summary of projections approach with the manual addition of past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects.20 (As discussed below, the City has revised its approach to include the list of projects approach for evaluation of all Project impacts.) The DEIR sets forth a “list of projects used to supplement the summary of projections approach [which] includes known approved and pending development projects in proximity to the Project Site, which includes the fifteen (15) other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects described in Table 4.0-1, Cumulative Development Land Use Summary, and illustrated on Figure 4.0-1, Cumulative Development Location Map.”21
15 See Fontana Planning Commission 3/19/24 Agenda Item PH-D – Master Case No. 22-143:

Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 20710) No. 23-012, Design Review (DRP) No. 22-064, Development Agreement (AGR) No. 24-002, and Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2009091089) for Hemlock Warehouse Development Project.
16 CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(b)(1) and (2).
17 Id., § 15130(b)(1)(A).
18 Id., § 15130(b)(2).
19 Id.
20 DEIR, pg. 4-2.
21 Id.
465
March 19, 2024

Page 6 ends

6689-008j
printed on recycled paper
In their DEIR comments, CARE CA noted the inadequacy of the cumulative impacts analyses based on this list of projects, as it omitted at least three warehouses directly adjacent to the Project site.22 As noted in those comments, those warehouses will generate additional truck traffic with resultant traffic, vehicle noise and air emissions that will have a combined effect on residents and workers in the immediate vicinity of the Project. Air quality and hazards expert Dr.

James Clark identified an additional nine warehouse projects within a one-mile radius of the Project site that were similarly excluded from the DEIR’s cumulative projects list, and therefore were not considered in the DEIR’s cumulative impacts analyses.23
In the FEIR, the City offers three responses to CARE CA’s and Dr. Clark’s cumulative impacts comments. First, the City purports to have revised the DEIR’s cumulative impacts analysis to “address” the three projects identified by CARE CA (16296 Boyle Avenue, 16355 Slover Avenue and 16255 Slover Avenue).24 Second, the City asserts that the nine additional warehouse projects identified by Dr. Clark were already operational at the time the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for this Project’s DEIR was issued, and therefore the City was not required to consider these in its cumulative impacts analysis.25 Third, the City asserts that because it determined that the Project’s individual air quality impacts did not exceed specific quantitative thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), the Project’s cumulative air quality impacts are considered to be less than significant.26 As discussed below, none of these arguments excuse the City’s failure to perform a CEQA-compliant cumulative impacts analysis of the Project’s impacts.

The DEIR’s cumulative impacts analysis used a list of fifteen “known approved and pending development projects in proximity to the Project Site, which includes the…past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects” listed in DEIR Table 4.0-1.27 As CARE CA pointed out in its DEIR comments, this list omitted nearby warehouse projects including the three adjacent projects identified above.

The City purports to have revised the EIR to address these three warehouses, and to have “considered” them in the cumulative impacts analysis, which has been “revised as necessary.”28 These statements are demonstrably false. The FEIR’s 22 June 28, 2023, letter from Richard M. Franco to Patty Nevins and Jon Dille re Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report-Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project, pgs. 9-13. 23 Id., Exhibit A (Clark letter) at pgs. 9-14.
24 FEIR, pg. F-66.
25 Id., pg. F-71.
26 Id., pg. F-66.
27 DEIR, pgs. 4.1-4.3.
28 FEIR, pg. F-66.
466
March 19, 2024

Page 7 ends

6689-008j
printed on recycled paper
revised Table 4.0-1 now appears to include the warehouses at 16296 Boyle Avenue and 16355 Slover Avenue. But it now excludes 16477 Slover Avenue, directly across the street from the Project site at a location which was misidentified in the DEIR as the 16255 Slover Avenue warehouse. It is clear therefore that the EIR still fails to consider warehouses directly adjacent to the Project in the cumulative impacts analysis.

In addition, the revisions in the FEIR now indicate that it uses a “combined” approach (i.e., utilizing both the “summary of projections” and “list of project” methods) to evaluate cumulative impacts for all Project impacts.29 The DEIR evaluated cumulative impacts for most impact areas using only the summary of projections, as it originally stated that “the summary of projections approach is used in this EIR, except for the evaluation of cumulative transportation effects…and vehicular related air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise impacts, for which the analysis combines the summary of projections approach with the manual addition of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects (‘combined approach’)”; however, that language has been stricken from the FEIR.30 As the revised EIR now states, the City determined the combined approach to be appropriate for all impact areas because “relying solely on the summary of projections approach could underestimate localized cumulative effects in proximity to a development site or affected sensitive receptors.”31 Therefore, the City has committed to analyzing all Project cumulative impacts with an approach that includes consideration of nearby projects.

Despite recognizing the importance of evaluating cumulative impacts in conjunction with other nearby projects, the FEIR does not, in fact, include updated cumulative impacts analysis in most areas. While the City claims that the Project’s air quality impact report (Appendix B), noise impact report (Appendix M), and transportation/traffic report (Appendix N) were updated to address the three cumulative development projects identified by CARE CA,32 there are no changes in the body of the EIR nor the technical appendices in their analysis of other cumulative impacts, such as energy, land use and planning, public services or utilities. Since no changes were made to any cumulative impacts analyses other than air quality, noise, and transportation, the EIR continues to rely solely on a summary of projections approach that it admits can “underestimate localized cumulative effects in proximity to a development site or affected sensitive receptors.”33
29 FEIR, pg. 4-2.
30 Id.
31 Id.
32 Id., pg. F-117.
33 Id., pg. 4-2.
467
March 19, 2024

Page 8 ends

6689-008j
printed on recycled paper
As noted above, the City dismisses Dr. Clark’s comments identifying nine additional nearby warehouse projects because they were operational by the time the Project’s NOP was published. The City argues that the environmental effects of those projects was “already considered in the DEIR as the local context and baseline for the Project’s potential environmental impacts.”
34 This misses the entire point of
a cumulative impacts analysis, which is to consider “impacts created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts.”35 CEQA specifically requires lead agencies to examine a project’s incremental effects “in connection with the effects of past projects [emphasis added],” along with effect of other current and probable future projects. 36 The City’s position would make the CEQA Guidelines reference to “past projects” superfluous. Indeed, the courts have explained that the requirement that a cumulative impacts analysis take account of the impacts of past projects “signifies an obligation to consider the present project in the context of a reasonable historical account of relevant prior activities that have had significant environmental impacts.”37 Such historical information may help to identify past activities that have caused “intensive environmental impacts” in an area, the full impact of which “may not yet be manifested, thereby disclosing potential environmental vulnerabilities that would not be revealed merely by cataloging current conditions.”38
Finally, the City continues to insist that it is not required to analyze the Project’s cumulative impacts on air quality because it relies on SCAQMD “methodology” in finding that the Project will not have cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality.39 In fact, there is no methodology and no analysis in the FEIR’s cumulative air quality impacts analysis. The City simply concludes that because it finds the Project’s individual impacts to be less than significant, SCAQMD also considers the Projects’ cumulative impacts to be less than significant. As detailed in CARE CA’s DEIR comments, this approach is inconsistent with CEQA and has been rejected by the courts.40 And it is flatly inconsistent with the California Attorney General’s recent guidance setting forth best practices for CEQA analysis of the environmental impacts of warehouse projects like this one. That guidance states that best practices include “[w]hen 34 FEIR, pg. F-71.
35 14 CCR §§ 15130(a),15065(a)(3), 15355(b).
36 14 CCR §15065(a)(3).
37 Environmental Protection Info. Ctr. v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 C4th 459, 524.
38 Id.
39 FEIR, pgs. F-66—F-67.
40 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692 (“Kings County”); see also, Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 832, 841-42. 468
March 19, 2024

Page 9 ends

6689-008j
printed on recycled paper
analyzing cumulative impacts, thoroughly considering the project’s incremental impact in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, even if the project’s individual impacts alone do not exceed the applicable significance threshold [emphasis added].”41 This guidance is especially important in light of the discussion above detailing the ongoing wave of warehouse development in the City of Fontana. In any event, the City’s reliance on SCAQMD’s guidance only extends to evaluation of the Project’s cumulative air quality impacts, and does not excuse the City’s failure to perform a legally adequate cumulative impacts analysis in all other impact areas.

Given the foregoing, it is clear that the EIR lacks a cumulative impacts analysis that complies with CEQA, as it fails to consider the additive effects of this Project with numerous nearby warehouses that have similar harmful effects on the surrounding community.

B. The EIR Underreports the Project’s Diesel Emissions
CARE CA’s and Dr. Clark’s comments on the DEIR pointed out that the City air quality and health risk analysis failed to address the emissions of toxic DPM from the Project’s diesel-powered fire pump and emergency generators. This failure has not been remedied in the FEIR. While acknowledging that this equipment will be used during Project operations, the City insists that it need not consider the impacts of these emissions as the equipment would not be in regular use.42 The City attempts to justify its failure to analyze these air quality impacts by stating “the commenter does not provide any evidence that inclusion of the cited pieces of emergency equipment would substantially increase the air pollution emission levels that were disclosed in the DEIR or result in a significant effect that was not disclosed in the DEIR.”43 However, it is the City’s responsibility as lead agency to prepare the EIR with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with the necessary information to make an intelligent decision regarding the Project’s environmental impacts.44 The EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the City’s bare conclusions.45 Specific data should be presented when it is necessary for a meaningful analysis and it is reasonably foreseeable to provide it.46 41 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Updated September 2022), available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf 42 FEIR, pg. F-68.
43 Id.
44 14 CCR § 15151.
45 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 522. 46 Id. at 519.
469
March 19, 2024

Page 10 ends

6689-008j
printed on recycled paper
Here, the City produced detailed modeling of the Project’s estimated diesel emissions, but conspicuously failed to include emissions from the fire pump and backup generators, key sources of operational DPM emissions. It is plainly feasible for the City to provide specific data concerning these emissions as it has done for other emissions sources, yet it chose not to do so, in violation of CEQA. Instead, the City is relying on its bare conclusion that, although it failed to quantify those emissions, they would not result in a significant impact. This conclusion is wholly without the support of any, let alone substantial, evidence, and must be remedied with an amended DPM emissions analysis in a revised DEIR.

C. The EIR Fails to Analyze Potentially Hazardous Soil
Conditions
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) performed in connection with the DEIR reveals that the Project site was used as a commercial chicken farm for some period between the 1950’s and the early 2000’s.47 As Dr. Clark noted in his DEIR comments, neither the DEIR nor the ESA mention roxarsone, an arsenicbased additive commonly used in chicken feed; more than 95 percent of the roxarsone fed to chickens is excreted in chicken waste.48 Arsenic from these applications can leach into surface and groundwater and convert to inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen. The DEIR, however, does not acknowledge the potential for arsenic impacted soils to be present on the Project site.49 The DEIR also discloses that Project grading would cut and fill approximately 263,937 cubic yards of existing soils,50 but fails to consider the possibility that particulate matter from grading activities, including dust that may contain arsenic, may migrate offsite to nearby sensitive receptors. Nor does the DEIR consider potential impacts to construction workers from exposure to arsenic while performing grading activities on the Project site. CARE CA and Dr. Clark detailed these concerns in their DEIR comments.

In response to these comments, the FEIR dismisses the issue by asserting that its consultant “conducted a thorough site reconnaissance and historical record review and found no evidence suggesting any potential sources of contamination from historic land uses—including poultry farming—on the Project site.”51 Dr.

Clark’s comments however provide substantial evidence suggesting likely sources of contamination, but the City has chosen not to investigate the potential 47 DEIR, Appendix J.
48 Clark DEIE Comments, pg. 6.
49 Id.
50 DEIR, pg. 3-14.
51 FEIR, pg. F-69.
470
March 19, 2024

Page 11 ends

6689-008j
printed on recycled paper
contamination, in violation of CEQA. The City’s failure to “find evidence” of arsenic contamination is a direct result of its failure to conduct basic investigation that could provide such evidence: the City has failed to perform soil sampling for the presence of arsenic, a reasonably foreseeable contaminant based on past use of the Project site, and instead claims that “the commenter does not provide any evidence to disprove the data collected” by its consultant or contradict the conclusions in the DEIR.52
The City’s decision to reject evidence from its own Phase I ESA and a highly qualified expert demonstrating that historical uses at the Project site warrant further investigation into potential contamination impacts is a blatant failure to comply with CEQA, and the FEIR’s subsequent conclusion that contamination impacts are less than significant based on its failure to investigate is unsupported by substantial evidence. Under CEQA, a lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.53 It is therefore the City’s obligation to support the FEIR’s conclusions with specific data and meaningful analysis, not the publics. The City has failed to do so here, and this failure must be remedied in a revised DEIR that analyzes and discloses the potential arsenic contamination in soil on the Project Site.

D. The EIR’s Noise Analysis is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence
As detailed in CARE CA’s DEIR comments, the DEIR’s noise impact analysis relied on a Noise Study (DEIR Appendix M) that analyzed a completely different project than the one described in the DEIR. The Noise Study evaluated a project that was approximately 25% of the size of the actual proposed Project, and had a different footprint, orientation and location of operational noise sources.54 The DEIR therefore lacked technical support for its analysis and conclusions.

In response to these comments, the FEIR admits “that the version of the Project’s Noise Study (DEIR Appendix M) that was released for public review is inconsistent with the scope of the Project described in the DEIR. The commenter is correct—an earlier, out-of-date, version of the Project’s Noise Study was inadvertently published with the DEIR.”55 The FEIR dismisses the significance of this error by claiming that the correct version of the Appendix M Noise Study was 52 Id.
53 Kings Cty. Farm Bur. v. Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 732. 54 CARE CA DEIR comments, pgs. 20-22.
55 FEIR, pg. F-68.
471
March 19, 2024

Page 12 ends

6689-008j
printed on recycled paper
available for review at City offices and could have been requested in electronic form.

This claim is disingenuous at best, as no one reviewing the DEIR would have reason to believe that another, correct version of Appendix M was available. The DEIR’s noise analysis expressly stated: “[t]he analysis contained herein incorporates information contained in a technical report prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., titled “Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis” (“Noise Analysis”) and dated December 4, 2022 (Urban Crossroads, 2022e). The report is included as Technical Appendix M to this EIR.”56 The DEIR therefore specifically referenced and purported to incorporate the “earlier, out-of-date” version of the Noise Study.

The FEIR further asserts that “all data from the correct, up-to-date version of the Project’s Noise Study was incorporated in the main body of the DEIR; thus the potential noise levels disclosed in the DERI were representative of the proposed scope of the Project.”57 The correct version of Appendix M was published with the release of the FEIR.58 The FEIR also maintains that the correct version of Appendix M “does not represent new information that was not or could not have been known at the time the DEIR was released for public review.”59 However, as discussed below, the now-available version of Appendix M includes previously unavailable information which, according to noise expert Jack Meighan, reveals a potentially significant construction noise impact.

The DEIR’s noise analysis includes an analysis of the Project’s construction noise that relies on “reference noise levels” to calculate noise impacts from various pieces of construction equipment, citing Appendix M as the source for these reference levels.60 The outdated Appendix M identifies the source of these reference levels as the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”) Roadway Construction Noise Model (“RCNM”),
61 and notably, the noise reference levels set forth in the outdated Appendix M are significantly higher than those set forth in the DEIR. The updated version of Appendix M includes construction equipment reference noise levels that match those in the DEIR, but cite a different source for those levels:
“Update of Noise Database for Prediction of Noise on Construction and Open Sites by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) expressed in hourly average Leq based on estimated usage factors from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).”62
56 DEIR, pg. 4.9-1.
57 FEIR, pg. F-68.
58 Id.
59 Id.
60 DEIR, pg. 4.9-10.
61 DEIR, originally published Appendix M (Noise Study) at pg. 38, Table 8-1. 62 FEIR, updated Appendix M (Noise Study) at pg. 48, Table 10-1. 472
March 19, 2024

Page 13 ends

6689-008j
printed on recycled paper
Using the updated Appendix M construction equipment reference levels, noise expert Jack Meighan attempted to confirm the DEIR’s calculations of noise from construction equipment sources.63 Mr. Meighan’s analysis shows that the source level calculations cannot be replicated, and that noise from certain construction equipment is highly underestimated.64 For example, noise from an excavator would reach as high as 81 dBA, 17 dBA above the 64 dBA reported in the DEIR and compactors are underestimated by 4 dBA.65 Mr. Meighan concludes that under certain circumstances, the combined noise from Project construction grading equipment would cause a significant impact to the closest sensitive receptors.66 These findings require that the City revise its noise analysis and include mitigation as necessary in a revised EIR.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission should not certify the FEIR, nor approve the Project’s Design Review and Tentative Parcel Map. The Commission should direct that the City revise and recirculate the EIR with a full analysis of the Project’s potentially significant impacts and propose appropriate mitigation.

Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project.

Sincerely,
Richard M. Franco
RMF:ljl
63 Meighan FEIR Comments, pgs. 1- 2.
64 Id.
65 Id.
66 Id.
473

EXHIBIT A
474
1 | P a g e
March 19, 2024
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Mr. Richard Franco
Subject: Comment Letter on Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) Cypress & Slover Warehouse Project, City of
Fontana, CA SCH NO. 2021120059.

Dear Mr. Franco:

At the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ABJC), Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed materials related to the above referenced project.

Clark’s review of the materials in no way constitutes a validation of the conclusions or materials contained within the DEIR or FEIR. If we do not comment on a specific item, this does not constitute acceptance of the item.

Project Description:

The Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project includes the
construction and operation of a 623,460 square-foot (s.f.) industrial commerce center building and associated facilities including but not limited to a loading/unloading area with loading dock doors and trailer parking spaces, passenger vehicle parking, landscaping, and connections to existing utility infrastructure. The DEIR assumes that the Project will include a maximum of 25 percent (25%) refrigerated storage. The Project site will be developed on a 29.8-acre property 0.1 miles south of I-10.

Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc.

OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd
Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]
475
Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map
476
The City of Fontana Zoning District Map classifies the portion of the Project Site located south of Boyle Avenue for “Light Industrial (M-1)” land uses, and classifies the portion of the Project Site located north of Boyle Avenue for “General Industrial (M-2)” land uses.

Figure 2: Zoning Surround Project Site
The City fails to note in its description of the Zoning that there are a number of areas to the south and southwest of the Project Site that are zoned residential and public facilities. The Project would introduce a high cube warehouse right next to residences and schools. 477
Figure 3: Project Site Plan
The DEIR concludes that no mitigation is required to prevent impacts from the project on air quality in the area. This conclusion is in conflict with the facts provided within the DEIR.

Specific Comments On FEIR Responses To Comments:

1. Responses To A-14/A-22: Potential For Hazardous Waste In Soils Onsite That Were Not Investigated.

The City’s response to questions regarding the potential for hazardous waste (specifically arsenic from the former poultry farming) is wholly inadequate. The City states that “The Project Site 478
was evaluated for potential environmental hazards an expert firm (Apex Companies) that conducted a thorough site reconnaissance and historical record review and found no evidence suggesting any potential sources of contamination from historic land uses – including poultry farming – on the Project Site (refer to DEIR Section 4.7 and DEIR Appendix J). The commenter does not provide any evidence to disprove the data collected by the Apex Companies or contradict the conclusions in the DEIR”.

This response ignores the fact that Apex only performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Subject Property. Phase I ESAs involve a site reconnaissance and data base review. This type of assessment is designed to identify potential environmental concerns but does not involve the collection of samples from potentially impacted media. The City’s conclusory statement regarding no evidence suggesting potential sources of contamination is not consistent with the facts and literature on metal contamination in poultry waste.

The DEIR’s Historical Review provided in Section 4.7 states that, “The portion of the Project Site located south of existing Boyle Avenue was used for agriculture (orchards) and residential uses beginning sometime between the early 1900s and the 1930s, except for the southeast corner of the Site which was vacant. These uses continued until the 1950s, when several residences and commercial chicken houses were constructed on the portions of the Project Site abutting the existing alignment of Slover Avenue. The chicken houses were removed from the southwestern portion of the Project Site by 1975 and were removed from the southeastern portion of the Project Site by the early 2000s.

Following the removal of the chicken houses on the southern portion of the Project Site, these areas were used for industrial purposes (a trucking business, trailer parking, and a recycling business).” 1 The Phase I clearly outlines that poultry operations were being run at the Subject Property from the 1950s through the early 2000s. This 50 years of potential waste disposal onsite is not addressed at all in the DEIR.
1 City of Fontana. 2023. DEIR. Pg 4.7.2
479
Organo-arsenicals were added to poultry feed since the 1940s to control coccidial intestinal parasites.
2,3,4
Poultry litter composed of the manure and bedding material has a high nutrient content and is used routinely as a fertilizer on cropland and pasture. 5Poultry litter consisting of bedding material (e.g., sawdust or wood chips) and excrement is generally disposed of by spreading onto agricultural fields near the poultry houses. This practice could result in locally elevated concentrations of arsenic in water and soil. 6 This lead the State of Maryland to ban the use of arsenicals in chicken feed in 2012. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdrew marketing approvals for roxarsone and for two other arsenic-based feed additives in 2013.

Given the duration of operations at the Subject Property and the obvious evidence that concentrations of arsenic can be increased by storage and disposal of poultry waste it is clear that this would be a historic recognized environmental concern (H-REC) that should have been investigated by the Proponent. As was noted previously in my comments, the grading proposed for the Project Site would cut/remove approximately 263,937 cubic yards (CY) of existing fill soils. Residual arsenic in soils will harm nearby residents when the soils are disturbed and migrates offsite. The City must reassess the hazardous waste potential onsite in a revised EIR.

2. Comment A-19 – The DEIR Fails To Adequately Disclose The Proximity Of Residential Properties To The Project Site.

The City asserts that information in the DEIR makes it clear that areas zoned for residential land uses are present south of Slover Avenue and areas zoned for public facility land uses are located south of Slover Avenue and east of Oleander Avenue. The City goes on to state that the DEIR clearly discloses – 2 Fisher, D.J., L.T. Yonkos, & K.W. Staver. 1999. Environmental Concerns of Roxarsone in Broiler Poultry Feed and Litter in Maryland, USA. Env. Sci & Tech. 49, 1999−2012 3 Rutherford, D.W., et. Al. 2003. Environmental Fate of Roxarsone in Poultry Litter. Part II. Mobility of Arsenic in Soils Amended with Poultry Litter. Env. Sci & Tech. 37(8): 1515-1520 4 Garbarino, J.R., et. Al. 2003. Environmental Fate of Roxarsone in Poultry Litter. I. Degradation of Roxarsone during Composting. Env. Sci & Tech. 37(8): 1509-1514
5 Garbarino, J.R., et. Al. 2003. Environmental Fate of Roxarsone in Poultry Litter. I. Degradation of Roxarsone during Composting. Env. Sci & Tech. 37(8): 1509-1514
6 Rutherford, D.W., et. Al. 2003. Environmental Fate of Roxarsone in Poultry Litter. Part II. Mobility of Arsenic in Soils Amended with Poultry Litter. Env. Sci & Tech. 37(8): 1515-1520 480
and adequately informs the public and City of Fontana decision makers – that areas designated for nonindustrial land uses are proximate to the Project Site. This conflicts with the Cumulative Impacts Analysis in the DEIR that states Due to the adjacency of I-10 and Union Pacific railroad tracks, which are generally not compatible with residential land uses due to air pollution concerns, the City has designated the corridor south of I-10 and north of Slover Avenue for industrial land uses within the Project Site vicinity. The City must clearly identify that they are created post hoc an industrial land use designation for an area that currently has a mix of land uses, including residential uses.

3. Comment A-24 - The DEIR’s Health Risk Analysis Fails To Include All Cumulative Impacts From Surrounding Projects.

The City’s response to the comment on the inadequacy of the cumulative impacts analysis.

The City’s response includes “Of the 12 warehouse development projects that the commenter claims are missing from the cumulative impact analysis, a total of nine (9) – representing approximately 5.4 million square feet of building area – were fully constructed and operational at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project’s EIR was advertised for public review on December 3, 2021.” While that statement may be accurate regarding the development of the projects it does not address the issue at hand – the cumulative impact of projects in the area.

As I noted in my initial comments the City has failed to include a number of projects in the cumulative impact analysis within a 1-mile radius of the Project Site. Many of the projects are closer to the Project Site than the projects identified by the City in the DEIR. 481
Figure 4: Projects Not Listed In City's Cumulative Analysis Figure 6 shows the locations of projects not included in the City’s cumulative impact analysis Unaddressed in the City’s comments are my concern regarding the addition health burden on the community from the projects I identified in my comments. In addition to the diesel particulate matter from trucks at the HCW sites, receptors at or near the Project Site will be exposed to significant quantities of air toxins from tailpipe emissions. CARB’s analysis of tailpipe emissions shows that in addition to simple alkane hydrocarbons, the emissions also contain benzene (human carcinogen), 1,3- butadiene (human carcinogen), ethylbenzene (human carcinogen), toluene (neurotoxin), acetaldehyde (respiratory irritant), and formaldehyde (human carcinogen), and other air toxins. These air toxins make up approximately 22% of the total organic gases (TOGs) emitted from vehicles.

CARB
TOG Speciation Profile
Run Exhaust7
CAS# Chemical Name Fraction
75070 Acetaldehyde 0.0028
107028 Acrolein 0.0013
71432 Benzene 0.0247
7 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/speciation-profiles-used-carb-modeling 23 25 Site
24 27
26 20
19 18
17 16
21 22
482
CARB
TOG Speciation Profile
Run Exhaust7
CAS# Chemical Name Fraction
106990 1,3-Butadiene 0.0055
100414 Ethylbenzene 0.0105
50000 Formaldehyde 0.0158
110543 Hexane 0.0160
67561 Methanol 0.0012
78933 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.0002
91203 Naphthalene 0.0005
115071 Propylene 0.0306
100425 Styrene 0.0012
108883 Toluene 0.0576
1330207 Xylenes 0.0480
Clearly the majority of emissions of these compounds from the surrounding sites to the Project site will be associated with passenger vehicles, resulting in significant exposure to benzene (human carcinogen), 1,3-butadiene (human carcinogen), ethylbenzene (human carcinogen), toluene (neurotoxin), acetaldehyde (respiratory irritant), and formaldehyde (human carcinogen), and other air toxins.

The additional daily trips not accounted for by the City, along with the other projects in the area represent a significant source of DPM and air toxins from vehicle exhaust. The City must incorporate the cumulative analysis into a revised EIR to ensure the safety of the residents near the Project Site.

4. Response To Comment A-12 and A-25: The Air Quality Analysis Of Operational Emissions Is Incomplete And Fails To Include Emissions From The Fire Pump System And The Back Up Generator System(s) That Will Be Installed Onsite.

In response to the City comment that “Regarding the commenter’s claim that the omission of emergency generators and fire pumps from the emissions calculations renders the analysis and conclusions in the DEIR invalid, the commenter does not provide any evidence that inclusion of the cited pieces of emergency equipment would substantially increase the air pollution emissions levels that were disclosed in the DEIR or result in a significant effect that was not disclosed in the DEIR. 483
The equipment identified by the commenter is for use during emergencies and thus the equipment, if used at all, would not be in regular use. Moreover, during emergency situations, when emergency generators and fire pumps would be needed, the Project is unlikely to be operating at peak output; therefore, any emissions from emergency equipment is likely to be offset by a reduction in emissions from typical operational activities”. The City misses the critical point in the comment that the emissions of DPM from the equipment represent an additional source of toxic air contaminants in the vicinity.

To be compliant with the California Fire Code (CFC) and local fire authorities, the Project will be required to install a fire pump system and is likely to have a back up generator (BUG) onsite. The City’s response regarding the fire pump and BUG ignores the need to test and maintain the systems annually. Under the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines8guidance, the District may allow a new stationary emergency standby diesel-fueled Cl engine (> 50 hp) to operate up to 100 hours per year for maintenance and testing purposes on a site-specific basis, provided the diesel PM emission rate is less than or equal to 0.01 g/bhp-hr. In addition to the testing emissions the air quality analysis in the DEIR must include the substantial increase in operational emissions from BUGs in the Air Basin due to unscheduled events, including but not limited to Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events and extreme heat events. No where in the City’s response are the additional emissions of DPM from the operation of the BUGs during PSPS addressed. This failure to include the emissions from the BUGs is a significant unaddressed emission source for the Project. The City’s analysis is therefore incomplete and must be corrected in a revised DEIR for the Project.

The facts identified and referenced in this comment letter lead me to reasonably conclude that the Project could result in significant impacts if allowed to proceed. A revised EIR should be prepared to address these substantial concerns.

Sincerely,
8 Title 17, California Code of Regulations section 93115 484
James J. J. Clark, Ph.D.

Principal Toxicologist
Toxicology/Exposure Assessment Modeling
Risk Assessment/Analysis/Dispersion Modeling
Education:

Ph.D., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1995 M.S., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1993 B.S., Biophysical and Biochemical Sciences, University of Houston, 1987 Professional Experience:

Dr. Clark is a well recognized toxicologist, air modeler, and health scientist. He has 20 years of experience in researching the effects of environmental contaminants on human health including environmental fate and transport modeling (SCREEN3, AEROMOD, ISCST3, Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion Modeling); exposure assessment modeling (partitioning of contaminants in the environment as well as PBPK modeling); conducting and managing human health risk assessments for regulatory compliance and risk-based clean-up levels; and toxicological and medical literature research.

Significant projects performed by Dr. Clark include the following:

LITIGATION SUPPORT
Case: James Harold Caygle, et al, v. Drummond Company, Inc. Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama. Civil Action. CV-2009 Client: Environmental Litgation Group, Birmingham, Alabama Dr. Clark performed an air quality assessment of emissions from a coke factory located in Tarrant, Alabama. The assessment reviewed include a comprehensive review of air quality standards, measured concentrations of pollutants from factory, an inspection of the facility and detailed assessment of the impacts on the community. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc
OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd.

Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]
485
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Rose Roper V. Nissan North America, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles – Central Civil West. Civil Action.

NC041739
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to multiple chemicals, including benzene, who later developed a respiratory distress. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare an exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to respiratory irritants. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: O’Neil V. Sherwin Williams, et al. United States District Court Central District of California
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to petroleum distillates who later developed a bladder cancer. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Summary judgment for defendants.

Case: Moore V., Shell Oil Company, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to chemicals while benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. 486
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Raymond Saltonstall V. Fuller O’Brien, KILZ, and Zinsser, et al. United States District Court Central District of California
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Richard Boyer and Elizabeth Boyer, husband and wife, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-7G.

Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of a family exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
487
Case: JoAnne R. Cook, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-9R
Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Patrick Allen And Susan Allen, husband and wife, and Andrew Allen, a minor, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-W
Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Michael Fahey, Susan Fahey V. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. United States District Court Central District of California Civil Action Number CV-06 7109 JCL.
488
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons.

The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Constance Acevedo, et al., V. California Spray-Chemical Company, et al., Superior Court of the State Of California, County Of Santa Cruz. Case No. CV 146344
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive exposure assessment of community members exposed to toxic metals from a former lead arsenate manufacturing facility. The former manufacturing site had undergone a DTSC mandated removal action/remediation for the presence of the toxic metals at the site. Opinions were presented regarding the elevated levels of arsenic and lead (in attic dust and soils) found throughout the community and the potential for harm to the plaintiffs in question.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of defendant.

Case: Michael Nawrocki V. The Coastal Corporation, Kurk Fuel Company, Pautler Oil Service, State of New York Supreme Court, County of Erie, Index Number I2001-11247
Client: Richard G. Berger Attorney At Law, Buffalo, New York Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the 489
known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons.

The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Judgement in favor of defendant.

SELECTED AIR MODELING RESEARCH/PROJECTS
Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of criteria pollutants, air toxins, and particulate matter emissions from a carbon black production facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model will be used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and will be incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.

Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of air toxins and particulate matter emissions from a railroad tie manufacturing facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model have been used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and have been incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.

Client – Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), Los Angeles, California
Dr. Clark is advising the LAANE on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) operated by the Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) Authority. He is working with the LAANE and LAX staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports.
490
Client – City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica, California Dr. Clark is advising the City of Santa Monica on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the facility. He is working with the City staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports.

Client: Omnitrans, San Bernardino, California
Dr. Clark managed a public health survey of three communities near transit fueling facilities in San Bernardino and Montclair California in compliance with California Senate Bill 1927. The survey included an epidemiological survey of the effected communities, emission surveys of local businesses, dispersion modeling to determine potential emission concentrations within the communities, and a comprehensive risk assessment of each community. The results of the study were presented to the Governor as mandated by Senate Bill 1927.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized cancer types associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Researched the specific types of cancers associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Provided causation analysis of the association between cancer types and exposure for use by non-public health professionals.

Client: Confidential, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Prepared human health risk assessment of workers exposed to VOCs from neighboring petroleum storage/transport facility. Reviewed the systems in place for distribution of petroleum hydrocarbons to identify chemicals of concern (COCs), prepared comprehensive toxicological summaries of COCs, and quantified potential risks from carcinogens and non-carcinogens to receptors at or adjacent to site. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation.

Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency
Dr. Clark is part of team that performed comprehensive evaluation of soil vapor intrusion of VOCs from former landfill adjacent residences for the United Kingdom’s Environment 491
Agency. The evaluation included collection of liquid and soil vapor samples at site, modeling of vapor migration using the Johnson Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, and calculation of site-specific health based vapor thresholds for chlorinated solvents, aromatic hydrocarbons, and semi-volatile organic compounds. The evaluation also included a detailed evaluation of the use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, and toxicology of chemicals of concern (COC). The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals.

EMERGING/PERSISTENT CONTAMINANT RESEARCH/PROJECTS
Client: Ameren Services, St. Louis, Missouri
Managed the preparation of a comprehensive human health risk assessment of workers and residents at or near an NPL site in Missouri. The former operations at the Property included the servicing and repair of electrical transformers, which resulted in soils and groundwater beneath the Property and adjacent land becoming impacted with PCB and chlorinated solvent compounds. The results were submitted to U.S. EPA for evaluation and will be used in the final ROD.

Client: City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita, California Dr. Clark is managing the oversight of the characterization, remediation and development activities of a former 1,000 acre munitions manufacturing facility for the City of Santa Clarita. The site is impacted with a number of contaminants including perchlorate, unexploded ordinance, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The site is currently under a number of regulatory consent orders, including an Immanent and Substantial Endangerment Order. Dr. Clark is assisting the impacted municipality with the development of remediation strategies, interaction with the responsible parties and stakeholders, as well as interfacing with the regulatory agency responsible for oversight of the site cleanup.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of perchlorate in environment. Dr. Clark evaluated the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of perchlorate. Perchlorates form the basis of solid rocket fuels and have recently been detected in water supplies in the United States. The results of this research 492
were presented to the USEPA, National GroundWater, and ultimately published in a recent book entitled Perchlorate in the Environment.

Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Dr. Clark is performing a comprehensive review of the potential for pharmaceuticals and their by-products to impact groundwater and surface water supplies. This evaluation will include a review if available data on the history of pharmaceutical production in the United States; the chemical characteristics of various pharmaceuticals; environmental fate and transport; uptake by xenobiotics; the potential effects of pharmaceuticals on water treatment systems; and the potential threat to public health. The results of the evaluation may be used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

PUBLIC HEALTH/TOXICOLOGY
Client: Brayton Purcell, Novato, California
Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of residents exposed to methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) adjacent to the subject property. The symptomology of residents and guests of the subject property were evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to MTBE. The study found that residents had been exposed to MTBE in their drinking water; that concentrations of MTBE detected at the site were above regulatory guidelines; and, that the symptoms and outcomes expressed by residents and guests were consistent with symptoms and outcomes documented in published literature.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Identified and analyzed fifty years of epidemiological literature on workplace exposures to heavy metals. This research resulted in a summary of the types of cancer and non-cancer diseases associated with occupational exposure to chromium as well as the mortality and morbidity rates.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized major public health research in United States. Identified major public health research efforts within United States over last twenty years. Results were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.
493
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Quantified the potential multi-pathway dose received by humans from a pesticide applied indoors. Part of team that developed exposure model and evaluated exposure concentrations in a comprehensive report on the plausible range of doses received by a specific person. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation.

Client: Covanta Energy, Westwood, California
Evaluated health risk from metals in biosolids applied as soil amendment on agricultural lands. The biosolids were created at a forest waste cogeneration facility using 96% whole tree wood chips and 4 percent green waste. Mass loading calculations were used to estimate Cr(VI) concentrations in agricultural soils based on a maximum loading rate of 40 tons of biomass per acre of agricultural soil. The results of the study were used by the Regulatory agency to determine that the application of biosolids did not constitute a health risk to workers applying the biosolids or to residences near the agricultural lands.

Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency
Oversaw a comprehensive toxicological evaluation of methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MtBE) for the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MtBE. The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals.

Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) in municipal drinking water system. TBA is the primary breakdown product of MtBE, and is suspected to be the primary cause of MtBE toxicity. This evaluation will include available information on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport in the environment, absorption, distribution, routes of detoxification, metabolites, carcinogenic potential, and remediation of TBA. The results of the evaluation were used as a briefing tool for nonpublic health professionals.

Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in municipal drinking water system. MTBE is a chemical added to gasoline to increase the octane 494
rating and to meet Federally mandated emission criteria. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MTBE. The results of the evaluation have been were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

Client – Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, British Columbia Dr. Clark assisted in the development of water quality guidelines for methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) to protect water uses in British Columbia (BC). The water uses to be considered includes freshwater and marine life, wildlife, industrial, and agricultural (e.g., irrigation and livestock watering) water uses. Guidelines from other jurisdictions for the protection of drinking water, recreation and aesthetics were to be identified.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) assessment of lead risk of receptors at middle school built over former industrial facility. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client: Kaiser Venture Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared PBPK assessment of lead risk of receptors at a 1,100-acre former steel mill.

This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.

RISK ASSESSMENTS/REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS
Client: Confidential, Atlanta, Georgia
Researched potential exposure and health risks to community members potentially exposed to creosote, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pentachlorophenol, and dioxin compounds used at a former wood treatment facility. Prepared a comprehensive toxicological summary of the chemicals of concern, including the chemical characteristics, absorption, distribution, and carcinogenic potential. Prepared risk characterization of the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic chemicals based on the exposure assessment to quantify the potential risk to members of the surrounding community. This evaluation was used to help settle class-action tort. 495
Client: Confidential, Escondido, California
Prepared comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of dense nonaqueous liquid phase hydrocarbon (chlorinated solvents) contamination at a former printed circuit board manufacturing facility. This evaluation was used for litigation support and may be used as the basis for reaching closure of the site with the lead regulatory agency.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized epidemiological evidence for connective tissue and autoimmune diseases for product liability litigation. Identified epidemiological research efforts on the health effects of medical prostheses. This research was used in a meta-analysis of the health effects and as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

Client: Confidential, Bogotá, Columbia
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of a 13.7 hectares plastic manufacturing facility in Bogotá, Colombia The risk assessment was used as the basis for the remedial goals and closure of the site.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally cadmium) and VOCs from soil and soil vapor at 12-acre former crude oilfield and municipal landfill. The site is currently used as a middle school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and was used as the basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed remedial investigation (RI) of heavy metals and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) for a 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The RI investigation of the site included over 800 different sampling locations and the collection of soil, soil gas, and groundwater samples. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The Remedial Investigation was performed in a manner 496
that did not interrupt school activities and met the time restrictions placed on the project by the overseeing regulatory agency. The RI Report identified the off-site source of metals that impacted groundwater beneath the site and the sources of VOCs in soil gas and groundwater. The RI included a numerical model of vapor intrusion into the buildings at the site from the vadose zone to determine exposure concentrations and an air dispersion model of VOCs from the proposed soil vapor treatment system. The Feasibility Study for the Site is currently being drafted and may be used as the basis for granting closure of the site by DTSC.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally lead), VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs from soil, soil vapor, and groundwater at 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of VOC vapor intrusion into classrooms of middle school that was former 15-acre industrial facility. Using the Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, the evaluation determined acceptable soil gas concentrations at the site that did not pose health threat to students, staff, and residents. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client –Dominguez Energy, Carson, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of 6-acre portion of a 500-acre oil and natural gas production facility in Carson, California. The risk assessment was used as the basis for closure of the site.

Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for a fiftyyear old wastewater treatment facility used at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.
497
ANR Freight - Los Angeles, California
Prepared a comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of petroleum hydrocarbon and metal contamination of a former freight depot. This evaluation was as the basis for reaching closure of the site with lead regulatory agency.

Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared comprehensive health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for 23-acre parcel of a 1,100-acre former steel mill. The health risk assessment was used to determine clean up goals and as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. Air dispersion modeling using ISCST3 was performed to determine downwind exposure point concentrations at sensitive receptors within a 1 kilometer radius of the site. The results of the health risk assessment were presented at a public meeting sponsored by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in the community potentially affected by the site.

The assessment used a probabilistic approach to estimate risks to the community and was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Coordinator of regional monitoring program to determine background concentrations of metals in air. Acted as liaison with SCAQMD and CARB to perform co-location sampling and comparison of accepted regulatory method with ASTM methodology. 498
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Analyzed historical air monitoring data for South Coast Air Basin in Southern California and potential health risks related to ambient concentrations of carcinogenic metals and volatile organic compounds. Identified and reviewed the available literature and calculated risks from toxins in South Coast Air Basin.

IT Corporation, North Carolina
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of potential exposure of workers to air-borne VOCs at hazardous waste storage facility under SUPERFUND cleanup decree. Assessment used in developing health based clean-up levels.

Professional Associations
American Public Health Association (APHA)
Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) American Chemical Society (ACS)
California Redevelopment Association (CRA)
International Society of Environmental Forensics (ISEF) Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Publications and Presentations:

Books and Book Chapters
Sullivan, P., J.J. J. Clark, F.J. Agardy, and P.E. Rosenfeld. (2007). Synthetic Toxins In The Food, Water and Air of American Cities. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P. and J.J. J. Clark. 2006. Choosing Safer Foods, A Guide To Minimizing Synthetic Chemicals In Your Diet. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P., Agardy, F.J., and J.J.J. Clark. 2005. The Environmental Science of Drinking Water. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P.J., Agardy, F.J., Clark, J.J.J. 2002. America’s Threatened Drinking Water:

Hazards and Solutions. Trafford Publishing, Victoria B.C.

Clark, J.J.J. 2000. “Toxicology of Perchlorate” in Perchlorate in the Environment.

Edward Urbansky, Ed. Kluwer/Plenum: New York.

Clark, J.J.J. 1995. Probabilistic Forecasting of Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations At The Soil Surface From Contaminated Groundwater. UMI. 499
Baker, J.; Clark, J.J.J.; Stanford, J.T. 1994. Ex Situ Remediation of Diesel Contaminated Railroad Sand by Soil Washing. Principles and Practices for Diesel Contaminated Soils, Volume III. P.T. Kostecki, E.J. Calabrese, and C.P.L. Barkan, eds. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, MA. pp 89-96.

Journal and Proceeding Articles
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equialency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 002254.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 000527 Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2007). “Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” Environmental Research. 105:194-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J., Hensley, A.R., and Suffet, I.H. 2007. “The Use Of An Odor Wheel Classification For The Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria For Compost Facilities” Water Science & Technology. 55(5): 345-357.

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

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2005. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Compost Facility Evaluations” The U.S. Composting Council’s 13th Annual Conference January 23 - 26, 2005, Crowne Plaza Riverwalk, San Antonio, TX.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2004. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Urban Odor” WEFTEC 2004. 77th Annual Technical Exhibition & Conference October 2 - 6, 2004, Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Clark, J.J.J. 2003. “Manufacturing, Use, Regulation, and Occurrence of a Known Endocrine Disrupting Chemical (EDC), 2,4-Dichlorophnoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in California Drinking Water Supplies.” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Minneapolis, MN.

March 20, 2003.
500
Rosenfeld, P. and J.J.J. Clark. 2003. “Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity, and Regulatory Guidance” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Phoenix, AZ. February 21, 2003.

Clark, J.J.J., Brown A. 1999. Perchlorate Contamination: Fate in the Environment and Treatment Options. In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation, Fifth International Symposium. San Diego, CA, April, 1999.

Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Health Effects of Perchlorate and the New Reference Dose (RfD).

Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.

Browne, T., Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Treatment Options For Perchlorate In Drinking Water.

Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.

Clark, J.J.J., Brown, A., Rodriguez, R. 1998. The Public Health Implications of MtBE and Perchlorate in Water: Risk Management Decisions for Water Purveyors.

Proceedings of the National Ground Water Association, Anaheim, CA, June 3-4, 1998.

Clark J.J.J., Brown, A., Ulrey, A. 1997. Impacts of Perchlorate On Drinking Water In The Western United States. U.S. EPA Symposium on Biological and Chemical Reduction of Chlorate and Perchlorate, Cincinnati, OH, December 5, 1997.

Clark, J.J.J.; Corbett, G.E.; Kerger, B.D.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996.

Dermal Uptake of Hexavalent Chromium In Human Volunteers: Measures of Systemic Uptake From Immersion in Water At 22 PPM. Toxicologist. 30(1):14.

Dodge, D.G.; Clark, J.J.J.; Kerger, B.D.; Richter, R.O.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996. Assessment of Airborne Hexavalent Chromium In The Home Following Use of Contaminated Tapwater. Toxicologist. 30(1):117-118.

Paulo, M.T.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clark, J.J.J. (1992). Effects of Pretreatment with Ipratroprium Bromide in COPD Patients Exposed to Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A96.

Harber, P.H.; Gong, H., Jr.; Lachenbruch, A.; Clark, J.; Hsu, P. (1992). Respiratory Pattern Effect of Acute Sulfur Dioxide Exposure in Asthmatics. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A88.

McManus, M.S.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clements, P.; Clark, J.J.J. (1991). Respiratory Response of Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease To Inhaled Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 143(4):A91.

Gong, H., Jr.; Simmons, M.S.; McManus, M.S.; Tashkin, D.P.; Clark, V.A.; Detels, R.; Clark, J.J. (1990). Relationship Between Responses to Chronic Oxidant and Acute 501
Ozone Exposures in Residents of Los Angeles County. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 141(4):A70.

Tierney, D.F. and J.J.J. Clark. (1990). Lung Polyamine Content Can Be Increased By Spermidine Infusions Into Hyperoxic Rats. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 139(4):A41.
502

EXHIBIT B
503
Letter EMY
WI #24-001.10
March 14th, 2024
Richard M. Franco
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
SUBJECT: Updated Comments on Cypress and Slover Noise Analysis Dear Mr. Franco,
Per your request, we have reviewed the subject matter document for the Cypress and Slover Warehouse Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in Fontana, California in San Bernardino County, based on the Appendix M, entitled Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads. The proposed project involves the construction, use and maintenance of a 625,460 square foot warehouse located at the northwest corner of the Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue intersection. The project is surrounded by sensitive uses, including single-family residences directly to the west across Oleander Ave.

Document’s Construction Noise Source Levels Don’t Match Given Citations.

Table 10-1 shows the noise levels used as a source for the construction noise model, taken from the 2004 document Update of Noise Database for Prediction of Noise on Construction and Open Sites by the United Kingdom’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). On page 46 of Appendix M, the analysis states “DEFRA construction reference noise level measurements [are] expressed in hourly average dBA Leq using the estimated FHWA [Federal Highway Administration] Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) usage factors.” These levels can be recreated using the source document and the equations used by RCNM to translate instantaneous source levels to an hourly Leq. A step-by-step breakdown of the results is shown in Table 1
Table 10-1 in the Noise Appendix presents the reference noise levels used, translated to 50 feet from the source for consistency. Using grading as a worst-case scenario to analyze, the source levels for graders, excavators, and compactors were extracted. Multiple source measurements are provided for some of the activities, which is why some of the pieces of equipment have multiple entries in Table

1. These source levels are all measured at 10 meters (33 feet). They can be translated to 50 feet, as done in Appendix M, using the following equation.

𝐿𝑣𝑙(𝑅2
) = 𝐿𝑣𝑙(𝑅1) − 20 ∗ log𝑅2
𝑅1
⁄
504

WILSON IHRIG
Cypress and Slover Warehouse
Updated Comments on the Noise Analysis

Page 2 ends

Where:

Lvl(𝑅1) = Known sound pressure level at the first location.

Lvl(𝑅2) = Unknown sound pressure level at the second location.

𝑅1 = Distance from the noise source to the location of known sound pressure level.

𝑅2 = Distance from the noise source to the second location.

After this, instantaneous noise levels at 50 feet can be translated to an Leq with a usage factor. Usage Factors are defined by RCNM as the typical amount of time that a piece of construction equipment is being actively used over an hour.

𝐿𝑒𝑞1ℎ𝑟 = 𝐿𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 10 ∗ log(𝑈𝐹)
Where:

𝐿𝑒𝑞1ℎ𝑟 = Hourly Leq at a given location from single piece of equipment, dBA.

𝐿𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 = Reference equipment noise emission level at 50 feet, dBA.

UF = Acoustical “usage factor” that characterizes the amount of time each piece of construction equipment typically operates at its loudest condition over the total time period.

Table 1: Comparison of Noise Sources between Project Analysis and Values Calculated for this Letter Emission Source1
Emission
Level at
33 feet
(dBA) 1
Emission
Level at
50 feet
(dBA)
Usage
Factor
(%)2
Hourly
Leq
(dBA)
Table
10-1
Value
(dBA) 3
RCNM
Source2
(50ft) Leq
w/ UF
Grader 86 82 40 78 79 81
Vibratory Compactor 82 78 20 71 67 73
Wheeled Excavator (low) 66 62 40 58 64 81
Wheeled Excavator (high) 83 79 40 75 64 81
Tracked Excavator (low) 68 64 40 60 64 81
Tracked Excavator (high) 89 85 40 81 64 81
1Update of Noise Database for Prediction of Noise on Construction and Open Sites (DEFRA) 2 Roadway Construction Noise Model, (FHWA)
3 Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads) Leaving aside the issue of the analysis using noise measurements from another continent, which would have sources with different governing regulations, maintenance routines, manufacturers, and cultural expectations, Table 1 shows that the source level calculations from the EIR are not able to be replicated. The excavator, in particular, seems highly underestimated. The loudest noise levels reach as high as 81 dBA, 17 dBA above the value of 64 dBA used in the document. Compactors are underestimated by 4 dBA. A proper analysis would use the worst-case assumptions unless it is explicitly stated what kind of excavator is used, at which point using the source with similar power levels and tonnage would be a more accurate representation. However, as it stands, the analysis underestimates noise impacts by having overly optimistic assumptions regarding source levels.

If grading reaches ten feet from the eastern edge of Oleander Ave, 87 feet from the single-family residence at 10424 Oleander Ave, the noise level from all three pieces of grading equipment taken from RCNM source levels can be combined to produce a modeled level of 80 dBA. This exceeds the 505

WILSON IHRIG
Cypress and Slover Warehouse
Updated Comments on the Noise Analysis

Page 3 ends

significance threshold and would be considered an impact that would require mitigation, such as a sound barrier.

Document has Optimistic Assumptions Regarding HVAC Source Levels Section 9.2.3 details source levels and assumptions for the rooftop air conditioning units, while exhibit 9-A shows the location of the units within the operational noise model. Only 2 HVAC units are shown. In our experience, this is an overly optimistic assumption, and more rooftop mechanical units would be required for a warehouse of this size. This is especially concerning, combined with the assumption of section 9.2.3 which states that HVAC units are “estimated to operate for an average 39 minutes per hour during the daytime hours, and 28 minutes per hour during the nighttime hours.” While this does make sense during typical conditions, for two units to cool an entire building they may operate more frequently than this. This is especially a concern during summers in Fontana, where the average maximum daily temperature reaches the low to mid 90 degrees in the summer.

As a result, we believe that the amount of HVAC units needed to achieve the necessary cooling, and therefore operational noise source levels, has been underrepresented.

Conclusions
There are several omissions in the EIR noise analysis that underestimate noise source levels.

Correcting these would potentially identify several significant impacts which require mitigation.

Please feel free to contact us with any questions regarding this information.

Very truly yours,

WILSON IHRIG
Jack Meighan
Associate
Comments on Cypress and Slover Noise Analysis.docx
506

JACK MEIGHAN
Associate
Jack joined Wilson Ihrig in 2021 and is an experienced acoustics engineer with expertise in projects involving rail transit systems, highways, CEQA analysis, environmental noise reduction, mechanical drawing reviews, and construction noise and vibration mitigation. He has hands-on experience with project management, including client coordination and presentations, as well as in designing, developing, and testing MATLAB code used in acoustics applications. Additionally, his expertise includes taking field measurements, developing test plans and specifying, purchasing, setting up and repairing acoustic measurement equipment. He has experience in using Traffic Noise Model (TNM), CadnaA, EASE, Visual Basic, LabView, and CAD software.

Education
 B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Project Experience
Metro Regional Connector, Los Angeles CA
Planned, took, and processed measurements as part of a team to determine the effectiveness of floating slab trackwork for a new subway in downtown Los Angeles that travels below the Walt Disney Concert Hall and the Colburn School of Music.

Rodeo Credit Enterprise CEQA Analysis for New Construction, Palmdale, CA Wrote an accepted proposal and executed it for a noise study project to determine noise mitigation requirements on a new housing development. Led all aspects of the project and managed the budget during all phases of project completion. Completed 5 separate projects of this type for this developer.

Blackhall Studios, Santa Clarita, CA
Led the vibration measurement effort for a new soundstage directly adjacent to an existing freight and commuter rail line. Tested equipment, processed data, and analyzed results to determine the vibration propagation through the soil to the proposed soundstage locations, and was part of the team that developed mitigation techniques for the office spaces directly next to the rail line.

Octavia Residential Condos CEQA Study, San Francisco, CA Calculated the STC ratings for the proposed windows to meet Title 24 requirements, modeled the acoustic performance of floor and ceiling structures, researched noise codes, helped with a mechanical design review, and wrote a report summarizing the results for a new Condominium project being developed in San Francisco.

San Diego International Airport Terminal I Replacement, CA Conducted interior noise and vibration measurements, analyzed measurement data to help determine project criteria, modeled the existing and future terminals in CadnaA, and was part of a team that did a complete HVAC analysis of the entire terminal, as part of a CEQA analysis where a new terminal for the airport is being designed.
507

WILSON IHRIG
Jack Meighan – Page 2
*Work done prior to working for Wilson Ihrig
Five Points Apartments Noise Study, Whittier, CA
Took measurements, researched sound data and solutions, and recommended mitigation for a new apartment complex that was located next to an existing car wash, as part of a CEQA review.

USC Ellison Vibration Survey, Los Angeles, CA
Conducted vibration measurements as part of a survey to determine the effectiveness of vibration isolation platforms that are used to insulate cell growth in a cancer research facility. Determined the effectiveness and presented this information to the client. Researched and recommended a permanent monitoring system so the client could view data in real time.

TEN50 Condos ‘Popping’ Noise Investigation, Los Angeles, CA Was part of a team that investigated the noise source of an unwanted popping noise in luxury condos in Downtown Los Angeles. Helped isolate the noise source location with accelerometers to determine where vibrations were occurring first and used an acoustic camera to determine where in the condo the noise was coming from.
2000 University Project, Berkely, CA
Wrote a construction noise monitoring plan based on environmental noise calculations, wrote a report summarizing the results, and attending a meeting with the client to discuss options.

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) On‐Track, CA, San Francisco Bay Area, CA* Day to day project manager, responsible for meetings, presentations, and coordination with the client for an ongoing noise study on the BART system. Developed MATLAB code to process measurements and determine areas where high corrugation was present, contributing to excessively high in-car noise levels. Performed noise measurements inside both the right of way and the vehicle cabin, in addition to rail corrugation measurements.

California I‐605/SR‐60 Interchange Improvement, Los Angeles, CA* Developed a noise model of the area that predicted sound levels for abatement design, in addition to conducting noise measurements and analysis. Led the Team in use of the FHWA Traffic Noise Model Software for the project, involving three major highways and two busy interchanges extending over 17 miles in southern California.

Sound Transit On‐Track, Seattle, WA*
Took measurements, fixed equipment, and developed software in MATLAB to process Corrugation Analysis Trolley measurements as part of an ongoing noise study on the Sound Transit Link system.

Tested vibration data to determine the best measurement and processing techniques to store the data in an online database for in-car measurements.

LA Metro CRRC Railcar Testing, Los Angeles, CA*
Led the effort to plan the measurements, determine measurement locations and finalize the test plan. Formulated a method to capture speed data directly from legacy train vehicles. Executed noise and vibration specification measurements for new rail cars delivered by CRRC.

City of Los Angeles, Pershing Square Station Rehabilitation Noise Monitoring, CA* Built noise models, wrote a construction noise plan, and assisted in on-site construction noise issues as they arose for a renovation of the Pershing Square metro station in downtown Los 508

WILSON IHRIG
Jack Meighan – Page 3
*Work done prior to working for Wilson Ihrig
Angeles. Trained construction personnel in techniques for noise reduction and how to conduct noise monitoring measurements to meet project specifications.

City of Orange Metrolink Parking Garage Construction Monitoring, CA* Wrote an adaptive management vibration monitoring plan, set up equipment to monitor live vibration levels, and generated weekly reports as part of an effort to build a new parking garage.

Designed, planned, and completed measurements to predict and mitigate pile driving construction impacts at three historic building locations adjacent to the construction site. Coordinated with the client whenever an on-site problem arose.

LA Metro Westside Subway Construction, Los Angeles, CA* Planned, organized, and processed noise measurements for the Purple Line extension construction.

Implemented both long term microphones to measure noise levels and accelerometers to measure vibration levels in existing subway tunnels. Oversaw noise monitoring at sensitive construction sites for the project and worked with the contractor to find ways to reduce construction noise levels by approximately 10dB.

Montreal Réseau Express Métropolitain, Canada*
Conducted vibration propagation measurements used to create models to predict operational vibration levels for an under-construction transit line. Managed equipment, solved problems in the field, and wrote parts of the report summarizing the findings of the acoustic study.

NHCRP Barrier*
Took on-highway measurements and wrote, designed, developed, and tested MATLAB code to identify specific spectrograms to use for analyses for a project evaluating barrier reflected highway traffic noise differences in the presence of a single absorptive or reflective noise barrier.

Siemens Railcar Testing for Sound Transit, Seattle, WA* Measured in-car noise and vibration for new rail cars delivered by Siemens. Developed new internal techniques for measurements based on the written specifications. Contributed to the team that helped identify issues that new cars had in meeting the Sound Transit specifications for noise and vibration. Participated in developing the test plan and specified then acquired new equipment for the measurement.

Toronto/Ontario Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail, Final Design, Canada* Assisted in vibration propagation measurements, analysis, and recommendations for mitigation for a 12-mile light-rail line both on and under Eglinton Avenue. Set up and ran equipment for at-grade measurements with an impact hammer for underground measurements with an impact load cell that was used during pre-construction borehole drilling. 509

EXHIBIT B
510
6689-005cp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

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

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

VIA EMAIL AND OVERNIGHT MAIL
Patty Nevins, Director of Planning
Planning Department
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Email: [email protected]

VIA EMAIL ONLY
Jon Dille, Associate Planner
Email: [email protected]
Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report – Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2021120059, MCN No. 21-038, DRP No. 21-013, TPM No. 20456, and TPM No. 21-007)
Dear Ms. Nevins and Mr. Dille:

We are writing on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”) to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) prepared by the City of Fontana (“City”) for the Cypress and Slover Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2021120059, MCN No. 21-038, DRP No. 21-013, TPM No. 20456, and TPM No. 21-007) (“Project”), proposed by Duke Realty Limited Partnership (“Applicant”).

The Project proposes the construction and operation of a 623,460 square-foot industrial commerce center building and associated facilities including but not limited to a loading/unloading area with loading dock doors and trailer parking spaces, passenger vehicle parking, landscaping, and connections to existing utility infrastructure. The Project Site consists of approximately 29.8 acres within the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The Project Site is located approximately 0.1-mile south of Interstate 10 (“I-10”), and abuts Cypress Avenue to the east, Slover Avenue to the south, and Oleander Avenue to the west. The Project Site includes Assessor Parcel Numbers (“APNs”): 0251-163-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -06, 511
June 28, 2023

Page 2 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
-07, -08, -09, -10, and -13 and 0251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, -14, -15, -16, -20, -23, and -25.

Based on our review of the DEIR and supporting documentation, we conclude that the DEIR fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)1. The DEIR fails to adequately analyze many of the Project’s significant environmental impacts and fails to propose feasible and enforceable mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level, as required by CEQA.

As explained in these comments, the DEIR lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions with regard to the Projects’ impacts relating to air quality, health risks, greenhouse gases and noise. The City may not approve the Project until the City revises the Project’s DEIR to adequately analyze the Project’s significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, and incorporates all feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize these impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

We reviewed the DEIR and its technical appendices with the assistance of air quality, GHG, and hazardous materials expert James Clark Ph.D.,2 and noise expert Jack Meighan.3 We reserve the right to supplement these comments at a later date, and at any later proceedings related to this Project.4 I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CARE CA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards, and the environmental impacts of the Project. The coalition includes Fontana residents Juan Chavez, Jose Chavez, Jeffry Davis, and Calos Diaz, and the District Council of Ironworkers and Southern California Pipe Trades DC 16, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in Fontana and in San Bernardino County.

CARE CA advocates for protecting the environment and the health of their communities’ workforces. CARE CA seeks to ensure a sustainable construction 1 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs (“CEQA Guidelines”) §§ 15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”).
2 Dr. Clark’s technical comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3 Mr. Meighan’s technical comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit B. 4 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
512
June 28, 2023

Page 3 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
industry over the long-term by supporting projects that offer genuine economic and employment benefits, and which minimize adverse environmental and other impacts on local communities. CARE CA members live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Fontana and surrounding communities. Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.

II. LEGAL BACKGROUND
CEQA requires public agencies to analyze the potential environmental impacts of their proposed actions in an EIR.5 “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.”6
CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decisionmakers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project.7 “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’”8 The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have 5 PRC § 21100.
6 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal (“Laurel Heights I”) (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 (internal quotations omitted).
7 Pub. Resources Code § 21061; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(a)(1); 15003(b)-(e); Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 517 (“[T]he basic purpose of an EIR is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect [that] a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.”). 8 Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at p. 564 (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 392). 513
June 28, 2023

Page 4 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
reached ecological points of no return.”9 As the CEQA Guidelines explain, “[t]he EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected.”10
Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring consideration of environmentally superior alternatives and adoption of all feasible mitigation measures.11 The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.”12 If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment” to the greatest extent feasible and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.”13 While courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.”14 As the courts have explained, a prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.”15 “The ultimate inquiry, as case 9 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810; see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v.

Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”) (purpose of EIR is to inform the public and officials of environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made). 10 CEQA Guidelines § 15003(b). 11 CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2), (3); see also Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at p. 564. 12 CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2). 13 PRC § 21081(a)(3), (b); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15090(a), 15091(a), 15092(b)(2)(A), (B); Covington v.

Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 883. 14 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409, fn. 12).
15 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355; see also San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v.

County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722 (error is prejudicial if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process); Galante Vineyards, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1117 (decision to approve a project is a nullity if based upon an EIR that does not provide decision-makers and the public with information about the project as required by CEQA); County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 946 (prejudicial abuse of discretion results where agency fails to comply with information disclosure provisions of CEQA). 514
June 28, 2023

Page 5 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
law and the CEQA guidelines make clear, is whether the EIR includes enough detail ‘to enable who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’”16 III. THE DEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE PROJECT
The DEIR does not meet CEQA’s requirements because it fails to include an accurate, complete and stable description of key Project components, rendering the DEIR’s impact analysis inadequate. California courts have repeatedly held that “an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.”17 CEQA requires that a project be described with enough particularity that its impacts can be assessed.18 Without a complete, stable and accurate project description, the environmental analysis under CEQA is impermissibly limited, thus minimizing the project’s impacts and undermining meaningful public review.19
Here, many of the DEIR’s impact analyses are based on unenforceable assumptions regarding future uses of the warehouse. The DEIR’s project description states that the Project is proposed as a speculative development, that the users of the building are not known at this time, and that the Project is expected to be used by a warehouse distribution/warehouse operator for the storage of consumer goods.20 The DEIR states, “[f]or analysis purposes, this EIR assumes that up to 25 percent of the building could be utilized for cold (refrigerated) storage.”21 This “assumption” is applied throughout the DEIR, including in the analysis of air quality, energy, and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts.22 While the DEIR assumes for purposes of the CEQA analysis that the warehouse will be limited to 25% cold storage, there is no condition of approval, mitigation measure, or other Project provision restricting cold storage to 25%, and therefore nothing in the record to ensure that cold storage will be so limited if the Project is constructed. Because no specific end user has been identified for this warehouse space and because there are no conditions or other mechanisms to ensure that the warehouse will be limited to 25% cold storage in 16 Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at p. 516 (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 405). 17 Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1, 17; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (“CBE v. City of Richmond”) (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 85–89; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (3d Dist. 1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193. 18 CEQA Guidelines § 15124; see, Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 192–193.
19 Id.
20 DEIR, pg. 3-17. 21 Id. 22 DEIR, Appendix B (Air Quality Impact Analysis), pg. 5; Appendix F (Energy Analysis), pg. 3; Appendix I (Greenhouse Gas Analysis), pg. 12.
515
June 28, 2023

Page 6 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
practice, it is reasonable to expect that actual cold storage uses may exceed 25%.

Depending on the actual percentage of cold storage uses, the Project’s air quality, greenhouse gas, and energy impacts could be significantly higher than estimated in the DEIR, as explained below.

The DEIR’s air quality, greenhouse gas and energy analyses use CalEEMod, a statewide land use emissions model, to estimate Project construction and operational impacts.23 The modeling output is based on a number of assumptions about the Project, including that only 25% of the warehouse space will be used for cold storage and 75% for dry storage.24 Changing these assumptions directly affects the Project’s impact analysis. For example, the DEIR estimates that the Project’s operation will generate a daily maximum of 54.89 lbs/day of NOx during winter months, assuming 25% cold storage.25 These estimated NOx emissions are just barely below the significance threshold of 55 lbs/day. The DEIR expressly recognizes that reducing the Project’s assumed percentage of cold storage usage would decrease the Project’s emission of air pollutants and greenhouse gases.26 Increasing the Project’s cold storage uses beyond the DEIR’s 25% assumption will likewise increase emissions, and even a small increase in cold storage would increase the Project’s NOx emissions above the significance threshold, resulting in a significant NOx impact.

Finally, the amount of the Project’s cold storage usage will have a significant impact on the Project’s energy usage. While the cold storage portion of the warehouse is assumed to occupy 25% of the floorspace, it will be responsible for approximately 85% of the building’s electricity consumption and 90% of the natural gas consumption.27 Due to the incrementally greater effect that refrigerated storage has on overall energy consumption, any increase in cold storage use over the assumed 25% will cause a significant increase in energy consumption. This is not considered in the DEIR and may require mitigation. Without some enforceable mechanism to limit the Project to 25% cold storage, the DEIR’s energy use analysis is unreliable and may significantly underestimate the Project’s actual energy use.

Ultimately, the DEIR’s estimated emissions and energy usage are dependent on the assumption that 25% of the Project’s warehouse space will be used for cold storage. Without any mechanism to enforce that assumption, the DEIR cannot accurately assess the Project’s air quality, GHG and energy impacts, and the DEIR’s conclusions regarding the significance of the Project’s operational emissions 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Id., Table 4.1-8 at pg. 4.1-27. 26 Id., pgs. 6-11—6-12. 27 Id., Appendix F, Table 4-10 at pg. 32.
516
June 28, 2023

Page 7 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
and energy use are not supported by substantial evidence. The City must prepare a revised EIR that clearly defines the Project’s uses with respect to cold storage and analyzes the Project’s impacts accordingly.

IV. THE DEIR FAILS TO DISCLOSE, ANALYZE AND MITIGATE

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
An EIR must fully disclose all potentially significant impacts of a Project and implement all feasible mitigation to reduce those impacts to less than significant levels. The lead agency’s significance determination with regard to each impact must be supported by accurate scientific and factual data.28 An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.29 Moreover, the failure to provide information required by CEQA is a failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA.30 Challenges to an agency’s failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA, such as the failure to address a subject required to be covered in an EIR or to disclose information about a project’s environmental effects or alternatives, are subject to a less deferential standard than challenges to an agency’s factual conclusions.31 In reviewing challenges to an agency’s approval of an EIR based on a lack of substantial evidence, the court will “determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures, scrupulously enforcing all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements.”32 Additionally, CEQA requires agencies to commit to all feasible mitigation measures to reduce significant environmental impacts.33 In particular, the lead agency may not make required CEQA findings, including finding that a project impact is significant and unavoidable, unless the administrative record demonstrates that it has adopted all feasible mitigation to reduce significant environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible.34 Yet, as explained below, the DEIR falls far short of this mandate by failing to even consider feasible mitigation strategies to address the Project’s significant GHG emissions impacts. 28 CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b).
29 Kings Cty. Farm Bur. v. Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 732. 30 Sierra Club v. State Bd. Of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236. 31 Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.
32 Id., Madera Oversight Coal., Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 48, 102. 33 CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2). 34 PRC § 21081(a)(3), (b); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15090, 15091; Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 883. 517
June 28, 2023

Page 8 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
Even when the substantial evidence standard is applicable to agency decisions to certify an EIR and approve a project, reviewing courts will not ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’”35
A. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Cumulative Impacts
An EIR must evaluate a cumulative impact if the project’s incremental effect combined with the effects of other projects is “cumulatively considerable.”36 This determination is based on an assessment of the project’s incremental impacts “viewed in connection with the effects of past project, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”37 Proper cumulative impact analysis is vital because “the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.”38
The CEQA Guidelines set forth two methods for satisfying the cumulative impacts analysis requirement: the list of projects approach and the summary of projections approach.39 Under the former, an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts requires “a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts…”40 Relevant factors when compiling a list of related projects include the environmental resource being examined and the location and type of the project.41 The Guidelines expressly recognize that project type may be important “when the impact is specialized, such as a particular air pollutant or mode of traffic.”42
Here, the DEIR purports to use the “summary of projections” approach, except for the evaluation of cumulative transportation effects and vehicular-related 35 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355.
36 CEQA Guidelines § 15130(a).
37 Id., §§ 15065(a)(3), 15355(b).
38 Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114.
39 CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(b)(1) and (2).
40 Id., § 15130(b)(1)(A). 41 Id., § 15130(b)(2). 42 Id. 518
June 28, 2023

Page 9 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise impacts, for which the analysis combines the summary of projections approach with the manual addition of past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects.43 “The list of projects used to supplement the summary of projections approach includes known approved and pending development projects in proximity to the Project Site, which includes the fifteen (15) other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects described in Table 4.0-1, Cumulative Development Land Use Summary, and illustrated on Figure 4.0-1, Cumulative Development Location Map.”44

1. The List of Projects in the DEIR’s Cumulative Impacts Analyses is Incomplete
The list of projects used in the DEIR’s cumulative impacts analysis is incomplete, as it excludes at least 3 other warehouse projects directly adjacent to this proposed Project. Indeed, these 3 other warehouses appear on a map of the Project site area in the DEIR’s project description, but are omitted from the list and map used for the cumulative impacts analysis. DEIR Figure 2-1, showing surrounding land uses, is reproduced below, with a red “x” indicating the warehouse projects missing from the list of cumulative projects:
43 DEIR, pg. 4-2. 44 Id.
519
June 28, 2023

Page 10 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
Compare the figure above with the DEIR’s map purporting to identify the locations of the projects listed in the cumulative impacts analysis, a relevant portion of which is reproduced below and annotated with a red dot to indicate the locations of the missing warehouses.
520
June 28, 2023

Page 11 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
Specifically, the identified warehouses adjacent to the Project site that were omitted from the cumulative impacts analysis are as follows:
• 16296 Boyle Avenue, Fontana- This warehouse is at the corner of Boyle Ave and Oleander Ave, directly across Oleander Ave from the proposed Project. Notably, the only access to the Boyle Ave warehouse appears to be Oleander Ave,45 which will also be used for vehicles including diesel trucks accessing the subject Project as three of the four access driveways for the Project are located on Oleander Avenue.46 Vehicle traffic from both warehouses will travel directly past existing 45 See Google Maps, accessed June 26, 2023:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/16296+Boyle+Ave,+Fontana,+CA+92337/@34.0631556,- 117.4514537,1074m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x80c34caf261faf19:0x497da9f42305071f!8m2!3d34. 0653207!4d-117.4490086!16s%2Fg%2F11k5pk8fjb?entry=ttu
46 DEIR, pg. 3-5.
521
June 28, 2023

Page 12 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
residences on Oleander Avenue, one of which is identified as the most impacted receptor in the DEIR’s analysis of health risks from Project’s operational diesel truck emissions impacts.47
• 16355 Slover Avenue, Fontana- this warehouse is one of two warehouses directly across Slover Avenue from the Project site.48 The other (16477 Slover Avenue49) appears as project #7 on the DEIR’s Cumulative Development Location Map (Figure 4.0-1).
• 16255 Slover Avenue- this warehouse is located at the southwest corner of Oleander Avenue and Slover Avenue.50 The omission of this warehouse from the DEIR’s list of cumulative projects is especially egregious, given that it was the subject of a CEQA lawsuit filed by the California Attorney General against the City. The settlement of that lawsuit reportedly51 required the City to adopt its Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Ordinance.52 Note that while the DEIR’s list of cumulative projects identifies project #7 as the “SWC Oleander Av. and Slover Av.,”53 project #7 on the accompanying map (Figure 4.0-1) is clearly not at that intersection.

As discussed above, the DEIR purports to use the “list of projects” approach to analyze the Project’s cumulative transportation impacts, as well vehicularrelated air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise impacts. Indeed, these are the impact areas most likely to result in cumulative impacts to nearby receptors given that warehouses like the Project inherently attract diesel truck traffic, with their accompanying emissions, noise and street traffic impacts. The DEIR’s omission of other high-cube warehouse projects in the immediate vicinity of the Project is therefore a glaring error that invalidates the DEIR’s conclusions regarding the Project’s cumulative impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation and noise. For example, the DEIR’s transportation analysis 47 Id., 4.1-30.
48 This warehouse is identified as Slover Industrial Warehouse on the City of Fontana’s Planning Department website database, which indicates that the project was approved in October 2021:
https://etrakit.fontana.org/etrakit/Search/project.aspx?activityNo=MCN21-000044 49 This warehouse is identified as Slover Commerce Center on the City of Fontana’s Planning Department website database: https://etrakit.fontana.org/etrakit/Search/project.aspx 50 https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/16255-Slover-Ave-Fontana-CA/24764838/ 51 https://www.fontanaheraldnews.com/news/attorney-general-bonta-announces-settlement-with-cityof-fontana-in-regard-to-controversial-warehouse-project/article_bcd912f8-bf42-11ec-bf2cbf63246385ba.html 52 Fontana Municipal Code, Ch. 9 Art. V (hereinafter, the “Warehouse Ordinance”). 53 DEIR, Table 4.0-1 at pg. 4-4.
522
June 28, 2023

Page 13 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
expressly incorporates and relies on the incomplete list of cumulative projects discussed above.54 The analysis omits any consideration of hundreds of additional trucks serving the adjacent warehouses that will use the very roadways (Slover Avenue and Oleander Avenue) that will serve the Project.

As a result of these omissions, none of the analyses using the DEIR’s list of cumulative projects is supported by substantial evidence. The City must revise and recirculate a DEIR that includes an adequate cumulative impacts analysis.

2. The DEIR’s Health Risk Analysis Fails to Consider the Health Impacts of Cumulative Emissions from Nearby Warehouses
As detailed above, the DEIR lacks a proper cumulative impacts analysis as it fails to include a number of nearby warehouse projects in its list of past, present and future projects producing similar air quality, greenhouse gas, transportation and noise impacts. Dr. Clark explains how this failure also undermines the DEIR’s health risk analysis.55
In addition to the warehouses adjacent to the Project that were omitted from the DEIR’s cumulative impacts analysis, Dr. Clark identified several additional warehouses within one mile of the Project that were similarly omitted.56 He calculates that these omissions lead to the City’s failure to account for roughly 15% of the Project’s cumulative air quality impacts by ignoring an additional 5,764,024 sf of warehousing from the analysis.57 He further calculates that these additional warehouses plus the Project will generate an additional 8,070 to 37,120 daily vehicle trips not accounted for in the DEIR.58 These vehicle trips will expose nearby sensitive receptors not only to toxic diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), but also to significant quantities of other air toxins from tailpipe emissions.59 The DEIR must be revised and recirculated after the City prepares a proper cumulative impacts analysis that considers the health impacts of all nearby warehouse projects.
54 See DEIR, Appendix N (Traffic Study), pgs. 42-46.
55 Clark Comments, pgs. 9-15.
56 Id., pg. 12.
57 Id., pg. 13.
58 Id.
59 Id., pg. 14.
523
June 28, 2023

Page 14 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper

3. The DEIR’s Cumulative Air Emissions Analysis Does Not Comply with CEQA or Attorney General Warehouse Guidance The DEIR states that, with respect to cumulative vehicular-related air quality impacts, it uses an approach that combines the summary of projections approach with the manual addition of past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects.60 It recognizes that a cumulative analysis of the Project’s vehicular-related air quality impacts (and transportation, greenhouse gas and noise effects) requires “a greater level of detailed study.”61 However, the DEIR fails to actually analyze the Project’s cumulative air quality emissions, instead relying on the following conclusion: “Based on SCAQMD guidance, any exceedance of a regional or localized threshold for criteria pollutants also is considered to be a cumulatively-considerable effect, while air pollutant emissions that fall below applicable regional and/or localized thresholds are not considered cumulatively-considerable.”62 The DEIR fails to note that SCAQMD’s approach is outdated, as evidenced by its ongoing process to update its cumulative impacts guidance.63

The DEIR’s approach has been also rejected by the courts for failing to comply with CEQA’s requirement that a project mitigate impacts that are "cumulatively considerable.”64 The City’s failure to actually examine the Project’s cumulative air quality impacts violates CEQA’s requirement to analyze cumulative impacts.

The leading case on this issue is Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford.65 In Kings County, the city prepared an EIR for a 26.4-megawatt coal-fired cogeneration plant. Notwithstanding the fact that the EIR found that the project region was out of attainment for PM10 and ozone, the city failed to incorporate mitigation for the project’s cumulative air quality impacts from project emissions because it concluded that the Project would contribute “less than one percent of area emissions for all criteria pollutants.”66 The city reasoned that, because the project’s air emissions were small in ratio to existing air quality problems, that this necessarily rendered the project’s “incremental 60 Id., pg. 4-2.
61 Id.
62 Id., pg. 4.1-32. 63 See e.g., http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm-3_20230124.pdf?sfvrsn=6. 64 PRC § 21083(b)(2); 14 CCR § 15130; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.

App. 3d 692, 719-21. 65 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692 (“Kings County”); see also, Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 832, 841-42. 66 Id. at 719.
524
June 28, 2023

Page 15 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
contribution” minimal under CEQA. The court rejected this approach, finding it “contrary to the intent of CEQA.” The court stated:

We find the analysis used in the EIR and urged by GWF avoids analyzing the severity of the problem and allows the approval of projects which, when taken in isolation, appear insignificant, but when viewed together, appear startling. Under GWF's "ratio" theory, the greater the over-all problem, the less significance a project has in a cumulative impacts analysis. We conclude the standard for a cumulative impacts analysis is defined by the use of the term "collectively significant" in Guidelines section 15355 and the analysis must assess the collective or combined effect of energy development. The EIR improperly focused upon the individual project's relative effects and omitted facts relevant to an analysis of the collective effect this and other sources will have upon air quality.67
The City made the same error here. While the DEIR admits that the Project region is out of attainment for ozone and PM10, the City fails to analyze or mitigate the Project’s emissions’ cumulative air quality impacts. Given that there are multiple existing large warehouses immediately adjacent to the proposed Project site, as well as the proliferation of warehouse projects in the region and San Bernardino County, the DEIR is woefully inadequate in its analysis of the Project’s potentially significant cumulative air quality impacts.

The SCAQMD approach used in the DEIR also directly conflicts with the California Attorney General’s (“AG”) recent guidance document setting forth best practices for evaluating the environmental impacts of warehouse projects like this one under CEQA.68 With respect to cumulative air quality and GHG emissions analysis, the Attorney General’s guidance states that best practices include “[w]hen analyzing cumulative impacts, thoroughly considering the project’s incremental impact in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, even if the project’s individual impacts alone do not exceed the applicable significance threshold [emphasis added].”69
67 Id. at 721.
68 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Updated September 2022), available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf . 69 Id., pg. 7. 525
June 28, 2023

Page 16 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
The DEIR’s cumulative impacts analysis with respect to transportation, noise, air quality and GHG emissions does not comply with CEQA. The City must prepare a revised EIR that properly evaluates and mitigates such impacts.

B. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze and Mitigate Air Quality Impacts and Related Health Impacts
The DEIR suffers from a number of flaws that require the City to revise and recirculate the DEIR, including that (1) the DEIR fails to properly analyze the Project’s construction emissions by improperly applying mitigation measures to unmitigated emissions prior to making its significance determination; and (2) the DEIR’s air quality analysis omits sources of operational emissions which leads to an underestimation of the Project’s impacts.

1. The DEIR’s Air Quality Impact Analysis Improperly Relies on Mitigated Emissions to Conclude that Construction Emissions Are Less Than Significant
The DEIR underestimates the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts by using mitigated emissions for its initial significance determination. By applying emissions controls that would be applied as mitigation to the Project’s unmitigated emissions, the DEIR “compress[es] the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue,”70 in violation of CEQA. This approach is prohibited by CEQA because it fails to inform the public of the true severity of an impact.

The DEIR relies on analysis using CalEEMod to estimate the Project’s construction emissions, and concludes that “Project construction impacts related to emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would all be less than significant, even without mitigation.”71 This conclusion, which relies on the DEIR’s technical air quality analysis,72 is unsupported and incorrectly dismisses the significance of the Project’s actual, unmitigated emissions. The AQ Analysis modeling construction emissions assumes that all off-road construction equipment will utilize CARB Tier 3 technology.73 The DEIR however does not include any mitigation measure or other enforceable requirement or condition of approval that limits Project construction equipment to Tier 3.
70 Ibid.
71 DEIR, pg. 4.1-26.
72 DEIR, Appendix B, Air Quality Impact Analysis (“AQ Analysis”) 73 Clark Comments, pg. 7.
526
June 28, 2023

Page 17 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
Both the DEIR and AQ Analysis reference the City of Fontana’s Warehouse Ordinance,74 which includes the following requirements with respect to project construction:

The applicant shall use reasonable best efforts to deploy the highest rated GARB [sic] Tier technology that is available at the time of construction. Prior to permit issuance, the construction contractor shall submit an equipment list confirming equipment used is compliant with the highest GARB Tier at the time of construction.

Equipment proposed for use that does not meet the highest GARB Tier in effect at the time of construction, shall only be approved for use at the discretion of the planning director and shall require proof from the construction contractor that, despite reasonable best efforts to obtain the highest GARB Tier equipment, such equipment was unavailable.75
Even assuming that the Project is bound by the terms of the Ordinance, it is entirely foreseeable that the Project could use construction equipment that is less than Tier 3. Without any mitigation measure or other enforceable mechanism requiring a minimum of Tier 3 construction equipment, the DEIR’s construction equipment estimates are unreliable and may underestimate actual Project emissions.

Critically, neither the DEIR nor the AQ Analysis it relies on calculate or disclose the Project’s unmitigated construction emissions (i.e., construction emissions before applying Tier 3 controls.) While the AQ Analysis claims to disclose the Project’s “unmitigated” emissions, the CalEEMod outputs makes clear that its modeled emissions for the Project only include estimated emissions with Tier 3 applied.76 This “downward adjustment” of the Project’s construction emissions artificially reduces their significance. The DEIR concludes that the Project’s construction emissions (assuming only Tier 3 equipment is used) are less than significant, without application of any binding mitigation measures.77 This approach violates CEQA. CEQA requires that an EIR disclose the significance of an impact prior to mitigation.78 The purpose of this analysis is both to require public disclosure of a project’s impacts, and to require the lead agency to “identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed 74 Fontana Municipal Code, Ch. 9 Art. V.
75 Fontana Municipal Code, § 9-74(e)(1).
76 Clark Comments, pg. 7.
77 DEIR, 4.1-26. 78 14 CCR § 15126.2.
527
June 28, 2023

Page 18 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
project.”79 In evaluating the significance of an impact, an EIR must discuss the physical changes in the environment that the project will cause, including:
relevant specifics of the area, the resources involved, physical changes, alterations to ecological systems, and changes induced in population distribution, population concentration, the human use of the land (including commercial and residential development), health and safety problems caused by the physical changes, and other aspects of the resource base such as water, historical resources, scenic quality, and public services.80 Only after this discussion occurs may the agency identify and apply mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels.81 The discussion is rendered meaningless (or, as here, omitted entirely) if the EIR falsely concludes that a project’s impact is less than significant based on premature application of mitigation measures. In this case, the DEIR failed to undertake the requisite analysis required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 for the Project’s construction emissions because the DEIR did not disclose the Project’s air quality impacts prior to incorporating Tier 3 controls.

Moreover, Tier 3 (or more stringent) controls are not incorporated into the DEIR as a binding mitigation measure, in further violation of CEQA. CEQA defines mitigation as including any measures designed to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for a significant impact.82 Application of Tier 3 controls as in the AQ Analysis is actually a mitigation measure because it is clearly designed to reduce the Project’s construction emissions that would result from using equipment with less efficient emissions controls. This makes it a mitigation measure within the meaning of CEQA.

CEQA requires that mitigation measures be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments.83 Because the City has not characterized any construction equipment Tier controls as a mitigation measure, it is not binding on the Applicant, and will not be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”).84 There is nothing to ensure that the Project will use Tier 3 or higher equipment, and the DEIR therefore 79 14 CCR § 15126.2(a).
80 14 CCR § 15126.2(a).
81 14 CCR § 15126.4. 82 14 CCR § 15370.
83 14 CCR §15126.4(a)(2). 84 DEIR, Table ES-1 at pgs. ES-6—ES-26. 528
June 28, 2023

Page 19 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
fails to provide the binding mechanism required by CEQA to compel the Applicant’s compliance with mitigation following Project approval.

The Court of Appeal has reiterated that mitigation must be incorporated directly into a project’s MMRP to be considered enforceable. In Lotus v.

Department of Transportation,85 an EIR approved by Caltrans contained several measures “[t]o help minimize potential stress on the redwood trees” during construction of a highway. Although those measures were clearly separate mitigation, the project proponents considered them “part of the project.” The EIR concluded that due to the planned implementation of those measures, the project would not result in significant impacts. The Court disagreed, finding that the EIR had “disregard[ed] the requirements of CEQA” by “compressing the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue.” The Court continued, stating “[a]bsent a determination regarding the significance of the impacts … it is impossible to determine whether mitigation measures are required or to evaluate whether other more effective measures than those proposed should be considered.”86 Similar to the inadequate analysis contained in the Lotus EIR, the DEIR assumes that the use of Tier 3 construction equipment would reduce the Project’s air quality emissions to less than significant levels prior to mitigation. This approach improperly “compress[es] the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue.” Even if the DEIR’s conclusions were accurate, which is unclear, construction emissions controls must be incorporated into the Project’s MMRP as formal mitigation measures in order to be factored into the City’s ultimate significance findings. “Simply stating that there will be no significant impacts because the project incorporates ‘special construction techniques’ is not adequate or permissible.”87
The City has a duty to disclose unmitigated emissions and compare them to the applicable significance thresholds before applying mitigation measures. As a result of its improper reliance unenforceable assumptions to achieve emissions reductions, the DEIR underestimates the amount of emissions that will be generated by the Project and their effects on nearby sensitive receptors. The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to include an accurate analysis of the Project’s air quality impacts, and to require that any and all mitigation measures that are intended to reduce emissions are incorporated as binding mitigation in the Project’s MMRP.
85 Lotus v. Dep't of Transp. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 651-52. 86 Id. 87 Id.
529
June 28, 2023

Page 20 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper

2. The DEIR’s Air Quality Analysis is Incomplete as it Fails to Include All of the Project’s Operational Emissions Sources Dr. Clark points out that the DEIR’s AQ Analysis is incomplete as it fails to consider emissions from certain equipment that will be part of the Project’s operations. First, the Project will be required to install a fire pump system in order to comply with the California Fire Code and local regulations. Second, the cold storage portions of the Project will require refrigeration units and back-up generators necessary to ensure continuous operation of the refrigeration units. Dr.

Clark reviewed the CalEEMod modeling outputs for the DEIR’s operational emissions estimates, and finds that the analysis omits emissions from a fire pump system, refrigeration units and back-up generators. The DEIR therefore underestimates the Project’s operational emissions, and must be revised and recirculated to disclose the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions associated with that equipment.

C. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze and Mitigate Noise Impacts
The DEIR’s analysis of the Project’s noise impacts is based on Appendix M, the technical noise analysis performed by the City’s consultant Urban Crossroads, Inc.88 The Noise Analysis is fundamentally flawed and must be completely redone in a revised DEIR, as it does not analyze the Project as described in the DEIR. The DEIR’s analysis and conclusions regarding the Project’s noise impacts are based on demonstrably incorrect assumptions, and are therefore unsupported by substantial evidence.

The Noise Analysis includes a Project description and several maps which purport to show the Project’s footprint, locations of nearby sensitive receptors, and Project operational noise sources including warehouse dock doors and driveways where heavy duty trucks will access the Project site.89 The Project description and each of these maps, which provide the foundation for the Noise Analysis, conflict with the DEIR’s project description and conceptual site plan.90 First, the Noise Analysis describes the Project as a “single building with 140,183 square feet of warehousing use and 46,728 square feet of high-cube cold storage warehousing use (25% of the overall 186,910 square foot building) as shown 88 DEIR, pg. 4.9-1, citing Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis (“Noise Analysis”), DEIR Appendix M.
89 Noise Analysis, DEIR Appendix M Exhibits 1-B, 5-A, 6-A, 7-A, 8-A and 8-B. 90 See DEIR Figure 3-4 at pg. 3-6.
530
June 28, 2023

Page 21 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
on Exhibit 1-B.”91 As the DEIR’s project description makes clear however, the Project actually proposes a 623,460 sf warehouse,92 more than three times larger than the project analyzed in the Noise Analysis.

Second, the Noise Analysis does not correctly depict the Project’s footprint.

Each of the figures in the Noise Analysis show the Project’s northern boundary as Boyle Avenue, and the western boundary roughly midway between Oleander Avenue and Cypress Avenue.93 In reality, the Project abuts Oleander Avenue to the west, and the northern boundary is an existing rail line and Interstate 10 several hundred feet north of Boyle Avenue.94 Under currently existing conditions, Boyle Avenue bisects the Project site, and it “will be demolished between Oleander Avenue and Cypress Avenue and the public right-of-way would be abandoned.”95 Third, the Noise Analysis purports to identify sensitive receptors near the Project site to assess “potential off-site Project noise levels.”96 “To assess the potential for long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts, the following sensitive receiver locations, as shown on Exhibit 6-A, were identified as representative locations for analysis.”97 However, because the Noise Analysis incorrectly mapped the Project’s footprint, two of the chosen receptor locations depicted in Exhibit 6-A (Receptors R-1 and R-4) are, in fact, not off-site but rather within the footprint of the Project.98 Actual off-site receptors at adjacent residences on Oleander Avenue were not considered.99
Finally, the Noise Analysis purports to analyze the Project’s operational noise based on noise source locations identified in Exhibit 7-A.100 The on-site Projectrelated noise sources are expected to include loading dock activity and entry gate and truck movement. Noise Analysis Exhibit 7-A depicts a 186,910 sf warehouse with 23 dock doors located on the western side of the building. In contrast, as detailed in the DEIR’s project description the Project is planned to be a 623,460 sf warehouse with 45 dock doors on the building’s north side and 38 dock doors on the south side.101 In addition, the Noise Analysis depicts four driveways accessing the Project, two on Boyle Avenue and two on Slover Avenue, and analyzes noise impacts 91 Noise Analysis, DEIR Appendix M, pg. 3 and Exhibit 1-B. 92 DEIR, pg. 3-5 and Figure 3-4.
93 Noise Analysis, DEIR Appendix M Exhibits 1-B, 5-A, 6-A, 7-A, 8-A and 8-B. 94 DEIR, pg. 2-2 and Figure 3-4.
95 DEIR, pg. 3-11.
96 Noise Analysis, DEIR Appendix M. pg. 25. 97 Id.
98 Meighan Comments, pg. 1.
99 Id.
100 Noise Analysis, DEIR Appendix M. pg. 27 and Exhibit 7-A. 101 DEIR, pg. 3-5 and Figure 3-4.
531
June 28, 2023

Page 22 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
from one of the driveways on each street.102 The DEIR, however, clearly states that “[a]ccess to the Project would be provided from one driveway connecting to Slover Avenue and three driveways connecting to Oleander Avenue.”103 Not only does the Project as proposed not include driveways on Boyle Avenue, Boyle Avenue will not even exist if the Project is built. And the Noise Analysis fails to consider noise impacts to residents on Oleander Avenue on which three of the Project’s four access driveways will be located.

These errors completely undermine the Noise Analysis and invalidate the DEIR’s conclusions regarding the Project’s noise impacts. Even if the Noise Analysis had used a proper site layout and project description, it includes additional errors explained in the accompanying expert comments.104 Ultimately, the Noise Analysis and DEIR fail as CEQA documents as they analyze a “project” that bears little resemblance to the actual Project described in the DEIR. The DEIR must be revised and recirculated after the City has performed a valid analysis of the Project’s noise impacts.

D. The DEIR Fails to Analyze Potentially Hazardous Soil Conditions
The DEIR’s hazards and hazardous materials impacts analysis is based in part on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”).105 The ESA reveals that the Project site was used as a commercial chicken farm for some period between the 1950’s and 1975.106 As Dr. Clark notes, neither the DEIR nor the ESA mention roxarsone, an arsenic-based additive used in chicken feed; more than 95 percent of the roxarsone fed to chickens is excreted in chicken waste.107 Arsenic from these applications can leach into surface and groundwater and convert to inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen, though the DEIR does not acknowledge the potential for arsenic impacted soils to be present on the Project site.108 The DEIR states that Project grading would cut and fill approximately 263,937 cubic yards of existing soils.109 However, the DEIR fails to consider the possibility that particulate matter from grading activities, including dust that may contain arsenic, may migrate offsite to nearby sensitive receptors. Nor does the DEIR consider potential impacts to construction workers performing grading activities on the Project site. The DEIR 102 Id.
103 Id.
104 Meighan Comments, pgs. 2-3.
105 DEIR, pg. 4.7-2 and Appendix J.
106 Id.
107 Clark Comments, pg. 6.
108 Id.
109 DEIR, pg. 3-14.
532
June 28, 2023

Page 23 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
must be revised and recirculated to evaluate and disclose impacts of potentially contaminated soil on the Project site.

E. The DEIR Lacks Feasible Mitigation Measures to Reduce the Project’s Significant GHG Impacts
The DEIR’s GHG impacts analysis reveals that the Project would result in emissions of 7,482.63 MTCO2e annually, which is more than double the City’s adopted significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year.110 While the DEIR recognizes that this is a significant impact, it concludes that the Project’s GHG impacts are significant and unavoidable. This conclusion violates CEQA, as the City fails to adopt, or even consider, feasible mitigation measures.

CEQA requires agencies to commit to all feasible mitigation measures to reduce significant environmental impacts.111 In particular, the lead agency may not make required CEQA findings, including finding that a project impact is significant and unavoidable, unless the administrative record demonstrates that it has adopted all feasible mitigation to reduce significant environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible.112 Yet, as explained below, the DEIR falls far short of this mandate by failing to even evaluate feasible and effective mitigation strategies to address the Project’s significant GHG emissions impacts.

In its GHG impacts analysis, the DEIR notes that the Project will be subject to certain state and local measures designed to maximize energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions; these include mandatory measures under the City’s Warehouse Ordinance.113 The DEIR states “[a]lthough mandatory compliance with applicable State and local regulations would reduce Project-related GHG emissions, these requirements would not substantially reduce Project mobile source GHG emissions (i.e., emissions from construction equipment, passenger cars, and heavyduty trucks), which comprise approximately 66 percent of all Project-related GHG emissions.”114 It concludes that “[n]o other mitigation measures are available that are feasible for the City to enforce that have a proportional nexus to the Project’s level of impact.”115 The DEIR violates CEQA because it fails to adopt feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG impacts to the greatest extent 110 DEIR, pg. 4.6-20. 111 CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2). 112 PRC § 21081(a)(3), (b); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15090, 15091; Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 883. 113 DEIR, pg. 4.6-22. 114 Id.
115 Id.
533
June 28, 2023

Page 24 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
feasible. Whether the measures have “a proportional nexus to the Project’s level of impact” is immaterial under CEQA.

The California AG has issued guidance setting forth best practices and mitigation measures for warehouse projects to comply with CEQA.116 The City’s Warehouse Ordinance, which applies to all new warehouse projects in Fontana including this Project, incorporates some, but by no means all, of the AG’s suggested mitigation measures to reduce the GHG impacts of warehouse projects. Examples of construction and operational mitigation measures proposed by the AG to reduce GHG impacts, but that are not included in the Warehouse Ordinance include:
• 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.
• Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts.
• 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 tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations.
• 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.
116 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf 534
June 28, 2023

Page 25 ends

6689-005acp
printed on recycled paper
• Oversizing electrical rooms by 25 percent or providing a secondary electrical room to accommodate future expansion of electric vehicle charging capability.
• Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a nondiesel fuel. • Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages single-occupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation, including carpooling, public transit, and biking.
• Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and requiring tenants who own, operate, or hire trucking carriers with more than 100 trucks to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers.
• Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.

Again, none of these measures are even considered as mitigation measures in the DEIR. Without evaluating and adopting measures to mitigate the Project’s GHG impacts to the greatest extent feasible, CEQA precludes the City from finding that such impacts are significant and unavoidable.

VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the DEIR for the Project is wholly inadequate under CEQA. It must be revised to provide legally adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, all of the Project’s potentially significant impacts. These revisions will necessarily require that the DEIR be recirculated for additional public review. Until the DEIR has been revised and recirculated, as described herein, the City may not lawfully approve the Project.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project.

Sincerely,
Richard M. Franco
Attachments
RMF:acp
535

EXHIBIT A
536
1 | Page
June 27, 2023
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Mr. Richard Franco
Subject: Comment Letter on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Cypress & Slover Warehouse Project, City of
Fontana, CA SCH NO. 2021120059.

Dear Mr. Franco:

At the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ABJC), Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed materials related to the above referenced project.

Clark’s review of the materials in no way constitutes a validation of the conclusions or materials contained within the DEIR. If we do not comment on a specific item, this does not constitute acceptance of the item.

Project Description:

Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc.

OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd
Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]
537
2 | Page
Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map
538
3 | Page
The City of Fontana Zoning District Map classifies the portion of the Project Site located south of Boyle Avenue for “Light Industrial (M-1)” land uses, and classifies the portion of the Project Site located north of Boyle Avenue for “General Industrial (M-2)” land uses.

Figure 2: Zoning Surround Project Site
The City fails to note in its description of the Zoning that there are a number of areas to the south and southwest of the Project Site that are zoned residential and public facilities. The Project would introduce a high cube warehouse right next to residences and schools. 539
4 | Page
Figure 3: Project Site Plan
The DEIR concludes that no mitigation is required to prevent impacts from the project on air quality in the area. This conclusion is in conflict with the facts provided within the DEIR.

Specific Comments:

1. The City’s DEIR Cites The Wrong Project In Its Introduction of The Executive Summary.

In the Executive Summary, Section S.1 Introduction (page S-1) the City states “This Environmental Impact Report (EIR), having California State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2021120059, 540
5 | Page
was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Article 9, Sections 15120-15132 to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with planning, constructing, and operating the proposed Nevada & Palmetto Commerce Center project (emphasis added) (hereinafter, the “Project” or “proposed Project”).” The Nevada & Palmetto Commerce Center is described in the CEQANET.OPR.CA.GOV website as an approximately 380,579 square foot building (inclusive of ground floor and mezzanine office space), a truck court with loading docks, passenger vehicle parking areas, and necessary site improvements (i.e., landscaping, walls/fences, lighting, signage, and utility infrastructure improvements/connections) on a 17.7 acre site in San Bernardino County. The Project Site encompasses County Parcel Numbers 0292-041-08, -38, and -44. The proposed building would be approximately 50 feet tall and would be constructed of concrete tilt-up panels, with decorative building elements provided at office areas (e.g., colored glass, metal canopies, wood siding). The SCH Number for the Nevada & Palmetto Commerce Center is 2022040038.

Under the Section S.2 Project Overview (pg S-2) City describes the Project Site as an area of “29.8 acres within the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California…. The Project Site is located approximately 0.1-mile south of Interstate 10 (I-10), and abuts Cypress Avenue to the east, Slover Avenue to the south, and Oleander Avenue. The Project Site includes Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0251163-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -06, -07, -08, -09, -10, and -13 and 0251-164-03, -04, -10, - 11, -12, -14, -15, -16, 20, -23, and -25. The Project Site is located within Section 19, Township 1 South, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian.” The City has clearly failed to describe the correct project in its Introduction to the DEIR and must correct this error in a revised EIR.

2. In Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Waste Noted The Presence of Commercial Chicken Houses on The Project Site But Does Not Evaluate The Hazards From Arsenic In The Review.

According to Historical Review provided in Section 4.7 of the DEIR, “The portion of the Project Site located south of existing Boyle Avenue was used for agriculture (orchards) and residential uses beginning sometime between the early 1900s and the 1930s, except for the southeast corner of the Site which was vacant. These uses continued until the 1950s, when several residences and commercial chicken houses were constructed on the portions of the Project Site abutting the existing 541
6 | Page
alignment of Slover Avenue. The chicken houses were removed from the southwestern portion of the Project Site by 1975 and were removed from the southeastern portion of the Project Site by the early 2000s. Following the removal of the chicken houses on the southern portion of the Project Site, these areas were used for industrial purposes (a trucking business, trailer parking, and a recycling business).”1
According the Air Quality (AQ) Analysis2 of the DEIR, the grading proposed by the Project would cut/remove approximately 263,937 cubic yards (CY) of existing fill soils. Roxarsone, an arsenic based antibiotic fed to chickens was not assessed or mentioned in the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) or in the DEIR. More than 95 percent of the roxarsone fed to chickens is excreted in chicken waste which is regularly applied as fertilizer. The arsenic from these applications can leach into surface and ground water supplies and be transformed into inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen. The analysis performed by the City in the DEIR does not acknowledge the potential for arsenic impacted soils to be present on site and does not attempt to calculate the concentration of particulate matter that will migrate offsite to the sensitive receptors (residents nearby). Residual arsenic in soils will harm nearby residents when the soils are disturbed and migrates offsite. The City must reassess the hazardous waste potential onsite in a revised DEIR.

3. Air Quality Analysis Fails To Require The Use Of Tier 4 Final Technology For OffRoad Sources Of Diesel Exhaust On-Site.

The AQ Analysis states that under the City of Fontana’s Sustainability Ordinance, the highest rated California Air Resources Board (CARB) tier of construction equipment shall be utilized.3

According to the CalEEMOD outputs provided in the AQ Analysis, only Tier 3 equipment will be utilized in the project construction.
1 City of Fontana. 2023. DEIR. Pg 4.7.2
2 Urban Crossroads. 2022. Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Air Quality Impact Analysis. Dated March 8, 2022. Pg 39
3 Urban Crossroads. 2022. Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Air Quality Impact Analysis. Dated March 8, 2022. Pg 3
542
7 | Page
Figure 4: CalEEMOD Analysis Of Construction Emissions
Allowing the construction phase to use a lower tiered engine will produce more PM10 and PM2.5 emissions than is generally acceptable for Projects being developed in the South Coast Air Basin.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and by agreement, CARB, have slowly adopted more stringent standards to lower the emissions from off-road construction equipment since 1994. Since 1994, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4 Interim, and Tier 4 Final construction equipment have been phased in over time. Tier 4 Final represents the cleanest burning equipment and therefore has the lowest emissions compared to other tiers, including Tier 4 Interim equipment.4 4 “San Francisco Clean Construction Ordinance Implementation Guide for San Francisco Public Projects.” August 2015, available at:
https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/EHSdocs/AirQuality/San_Francisco_Clean_Construction_Ordinance_2015.pdf, p. 6. 543
8 | Page
When Tier 3 equipment is compared to Tier 4 Interim and Tier 4 Final equipment it is clear that the use of Tier 3 equipment would put out substantially more particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).5

Tier 3 equipment puts out 80% to 89% more PM10 than Tier 4 Interim equipment and 85% to 91% more PM10 than Tier 4 Final equipment. Tier 3 equipment puts out 81% to 89% more PM2.5 than Tier 4 Interim equipment and 85% to 92% more PM2.5 than Tier 4 Final equipment.

The City must revise the DEIR to first disclose the Project’s unmitigated emissions based on the standard method (currently available equipment without Tier 4 technology) and then address the efficacy of mitigation using Tier 3, Tier 4 interim, and Tier 4 final certified equipment and disclose the impacts that will have on the adjacent communities. 5 “San Francisco Clean Construction Ordinance Implementation Guide for San Francisco Public Projects.” August 2015, available at:
https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/EHSdocs/AirQuality/San_Francisco_Clean_Construction_Ordinance_2015.pdf, p. 6. 544
9 | Page

4. The DEIR’s Health Risk Analysis Fails To Include All Cumulative Impacts From Surrounding Projects.

In the DEIR’s description of existing air quality, the City notes that as “part of their MATESV study, SCAQMD estimates the Project area is located within the 80th percentile for cancer risk within the SCAB (which is an improvement from the MATES-IV study six years prior that found the Project area to be in the 94th percentile for cancer risk) (SCAQMD, 2022). Additionally, based on an analysis performed by Ramboll, air toxics cancer risks have decreased by 76 percent in Fontana between 1998 and 2018 and are expected to decrease by an additional 20 percent by 2023 (Ramboll, 2021). Thus, although air pollutant levels in the Project area remain elevated, the observed trend is of improving air conditions within the City, generally, and the Project area, specifically.” 6 This analysis of air quality issues ignores the existing evidence that the area which the Project is sited is already heavily impacted with industrial warehousing, manufacturing, and high-cube warehousing. According to Table 4.0-1 (Cumulative Development Land Use Summary) of the DEIR, 15 major projects are located within 1-mile of the Project Site. The projects include warehouses, offices, office parks, commercial centers, light industrial, light manufacturing, research & development, high-cube warehousing, high-cube warehousing with cold storage, and high-cube fulfillment centers.
6 City of Fontana. 2023. DEIR. Pg 4.1-32
545
10 | Page
Figure 5: Cumulative Development Map From DEIR
Table 4.0-1 from the DEIR is recreated below.

TAZ Project Land Use Square
Feet
1 Freeway Industrial Commercial (Central) Warehousing 761,067 Office 147,786
Office Park 152,213
Commercial Retail 456,640
Freeway Industrial Commercial (East) Warehousing 886,410 Office 172,125
Office Park 177,282
Commercial Retail 531,846
Freeway Industrial Commercial (North) Warehousing 335,885 Office 65,223
Office Park 67,177
Commercial Retail 201,531
Freeway Industrial Commercial (West) Warehousing 747,959 Office 145,241
Office Park 448,776
Commercial Retail 531,846
546
11 | Page
TAZ Project Land Use Square
Feet
Jurupa North Research & Development
(West)
Light Industrial 1,344,901
Office 478,407
Office Park 847,485
Research & Development 677,988
Jurupa North Research & Development
(Central)
Light Industrial 964,045
Office 342,930
Office Park 607,490
Research & Development 485,992
Jurupa North Research & Development
(East)
Light Industrial 917,459
Office 326,358
Office Park 578,134
Research & Development 462,506
Jurupa South Industrial Light Industrial 70,985
Warehousing 1,799,899
Slover Central Manufacturing/Industrial Manufacturing 1,113,002 Warehousing 2,597,004
Slover East Industrial Light Industrial 719,464
Warehousing 1,006,149
Office Park 503,074
Slover West Industrial Light Industrial 1,384,886
Warehousing 3,518,167
Speedway Industrial Light Industrial 930,121
Warehousing 762,191
Office Park 13,264
2 Citrus Center Office 47,000
Retail 44,500
Fast Food With Drive Thru 8,658
3 ASP 15-018 Retails with Gas Station 18,800
4 Southwest Fontana Logistics Center
Project
City Park 17.45 acre
5 Walmart Shopping Center Free-Standing Discount Superstore 200,000 Specialty Retail Center 9,490
Fast Food w/out Drive Thru 9,490
6 First Redwood Logistics High Cube Warehouse 360,000
General Light Industrial 41,436
7 SWC Oleander Av. & Slover Ave High Cube Warehouse (cold storage) 52,580 Warehousing 157,740
8 St. Mary's Catholic Church Church 19,508
9 GLC Fontana III Warehousing 362,416
High Cube Warehouse 90,604
10 Fontana Foothills High Cube Warehouse 754,408
11 14801 Slover Avenue Warehouse High Cube Warehouse (cold storage) 77,053 Warehousing 231,158
12 Slover Industrial Center High Cube Warehouse (cold storage) 20,421 547
12 | Page
TAZ Project Land Use Square
Feet
Warehousing 115,719
13 SEC of Citrus Ave. & Slover Ave. Warehousing 194,212 14 10131 Redwood Ave High Cube Warehouse 250,160
15 Sierra Business Center High Cube Fulfillment Center (Sort) 705,735 A review of aerial photographs of the area shows that the City has failed to include a number of projects within a 1-mile radius of the Project Site. The facilities not included are indicated in red in the figure below. These projects include multiple high-cube and warehouse projects, totaling 5,764,024 square feet which was not included in the City’s cumulative impacts analysis.

Figure 5: Existing And Future Warehouse Projects Within 1-Mile Of Project Site (Red Blocks Indicate Projects Not Included In The City’s Cumulative Analysis TAZ Missing Projects Land Use Square
Feet
16 CJ Logistics High Cube Warehouse 748,094
17 UNIS High Cube Warehouse 1,122,420
18 Tireco Warehousing 1,125,237
19 Carlstar Group Manufacturing 321,898
20 TP-Link North America Warehouse Warehousing 165,528
21 Hagen Warehousing 112,867
22 Complete Logistics Warehousing 378,508
23 16296 Boyle Ave Warehousing 93,480
24 16355 Slover Ave Warehousing 94,087
1 14
11 6
1 1
1 5
1 4 9
10 3 15
12 7
13 Site
548
13 | Page
TAZ Missing Projects Land Use Square
Feet
25 16255 Slover Ave Warehousing 185,370
26 eFulfill High Cube Fulfillment Center 500,337
27 Amazon LAX9 High-Cube Warehousing 614,636
Figure 6: Projects Not Listed In City's Cumulative Analysis Figure 6 shows the locations of projects not included in the City’s cumulative impact analysis. Of particular concern are projects located immediately adjacent to the Project Site (16296 Boyle Avenue (Site 23), 16355 Slover Avenue (Site 24), and 16255 Slover Avenue (Site 25)).

Using the data above I have calculated the total number of square feet for each use described in the DEIR, including the 7 projects not listed in the DEIR.

Project Type Sum of Square Feet
Church 19,508.00
City Park -
Commercial Retail 1,721,863.00
Fast Food w/out Drive Thru 9,490.00
Fast Food With Drive Thru 8,658.00
Free-Standing Discount Superstore 200,000.00
General Light Industrial 41,436.00
High Cube Fulfillment Center (Sort) 1,206,072.00
High Cube Warehouse 3,940,322.00
23 25 Site
24 27
26 20
19 18
17 16
21 22
549
14 | Page
Project Type Sum of Square Feet
High Cube Warehouse (cold storage) 150,054.00
Light Industrial 6,331,861.00
Manufacturing 1,434,900.00
Office 1,725,070.00
Office Park 3,394,895.00
Research & Development 1,626,486.00
Retail 44,500.00
Retails with Gas Station 18,800.00
Specialty Retail Center 9,490.00
Warehousing 15,631,053.00
Grand Total 37,514,458.00
The total of all the projects listed is 37,514,458 square feet of projects. Approximately ½ (56%) of the project square footage listed above is dedicated to warehousing or high-cube warehousing.

Using the results of the City’s cumulative impacts analysis it is clear that they have failed account for roughly 15% of the total air quality impacts by omitting the additional 5,764,024 square feet of warehousing. Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual traffic estimates for high cube warehouses, which range from a low of 1.4 trips per 1,000 square feet for transload and short-term storage warehouses to a high of 6.44 trips per 1000 square feet for fulfillment center warehouses7 to estimate the current impacts from the existing projects. An averaged value of all the warehouse HCW types reported in the ITE manual would be 3.28 trips per 1,000 square feet.

Using the ITE manual rates above, the additional proposed 3,652,654 square feet of warehousing Projects plus the Cypress & Slover Project result in an additional 8,070 to 37,120 daily trips not accounted for by the City.

Low Estimate Of Traffic From Missed Square Footage And Slover & Cypress Project Project Type Thousand Square Feet ITE Rate Total
Warehouse 2,155.077 1.4 per 1,000 square ft 3,017
High-Cube Warehouse 2,985.487 1.4 per 1,000 square ft 4,180 Cypress & Slover Project 623.460 1.4 per 1,000 square ft 873 7 Institute of Transportation Engineers (2020).
550
15 | Page
High Estimate Of Traffic From Missed Square Footage And Slover & Cypress Project Project Type Thousand Square Feet ITE Rate Total
Warehouse 2,155.077 6.44 per 1,000 square ft 13,879
High-Cube Warehouse 2,985.487 6.44 per 1,000 square ft 19,227 Cypress & Slover Project 623.460 6.44 per 1,000 square ft 4,015 Average Estimate Of Traffic From Missed Square Footage And Slover & Cypress Project Project Type Thousand Square Feet ITE Rate Total
Warehouse 2,155.077 3.28 per 1,000 square ft 7,069
High-Cube Warehouse 2,985.487 3.28 per 1,000 square ft 9,792 Cypress & Slover Project 623.460 3.28 per 1,000 square ft 2,045 In addition to the diesel particulate matter from trucks at the HCW sites, receptors at or near the Project Site will be exposed to significant quantities of air toxins from tailpipe emissions. CARB’s analysis of tailpipe emissions shows that in addition to simple alkane hydrocarbons, the emissions also contain benzene (human carcinogen), 1,3-butadiene (human carcinogen), ethylbenzene (human carcinogen), toluene (neurotoxin), acetaldehyde (respiratory irritant), and formaldehyde (human carcinogen), and other air toxins. These air toxins make up approximately 22% of the total organic gases (TOGs) emitted from vehicles.

CARB
TOG Speciation Profile
Run Exhaust8
CAS# Chemical Name Fraction
75070 Acetaldehyde 0.0028
107028 Acrolein 0.0013
71432 Benzene 0.0247
106990 1,3-Butadiene 0.0055
100414 Ethylbenzene 0.0105
50000 Formaldehyde 0.0158
110543 Hexane 0.0160
67561 Methanol 0.0012
78933 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 0.0002
91203 Naphthalene 0.0005
8 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/speciation-profiles-used-carb-modeling 551
16 | Page
CARB
TOG Speciation Profile
Run Exhaust8
CAS# Chemical Name Fraction
115071 Propylene 0.0306
100425 Styrene 0.0012
108883 Toluene 0.0576
1330207 Xylenes 0.0480
Clearly the majority of emissions of these compounds from the surrounding sites to the Project site will be associated with passenger vehicles, resulting in significant exposure to benzene (human carcinogen), 1,3-butadiene (human carcinogen), ethylbenzene (human carcinogen), toluene (neurotoxin), acetaldehyde (respiratory irritant), and formaldehyde (human carcinogen), and other air toxins.

The additional 8,070 to 37,120 daily trips not accounted for by the City, along with the other projects in the area represent a significant source of DPM and air toxins from vehicle exhaust. The City must incorporate the cumulative analysis into a revised DEIR to ensure the safety of the residents near the Project Site.

5. The Air Quality Analysis Of Operational Emissions Is Incomplete And Fails To Include Emissions From The Fire Pump System And The Back Up Generator System(s) That Will Be Installed Onsite.

According to the operations air quality analysis of Project provided in the DEIR9 operational emissions were calculated using the CalEEMOD (Version 2020.4.0) software. In the CalEEMOD outputs provided in the air quality analysis there is no fire pump system and no back-up generator system is included in the analyses. To be compliant with the California Fire Code (CFC) and local fire authorities, the Project will be required to install a fire pump system. 9 Urban Crossroads. 2022. Slover Avenue & Cypress Avenue Warehouse Air Quality Impact Analysis. Dated March 8, 2022.
552
17 | Page
Figure 7: CalEEMOD Output
The City’s analysis is therefore incomplete and must be corrected in a revised DEIR for the Project.

6. The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Analysis Is Incomplete Since It Fails To Consider The GHG Impacts Of Refrigeration Units (Cold Storage Designation of Project) The GHG emissions from the refrigeration units and the back-up generators that would be necessary to ensure continuous operation of the Project have not been quantified in the DEIR, intentionally underestimating the foreseeable GHG emissions from the operation of the Project, and may result in significant impacts on GHG emissions. The City must assess these impacts since it assumes in the DEIR that the Project will use refrigeration units onsite. 553
18 | Page
Conclusion
The facts identified and referenced in this comment letter lead me to reasonably conclude that the Project could result in significant impacts if allowed to proceed. A revised DEIR should be prepared to address these substantial concerns.

Sincerely,
554

Exhibit A:

Curriculum Vitae
555
CURRICULUM VITAE OF JAMES J. J. CLARK;
James J. J. Clark, Ph.D.

Principal Toxicologist
Toxicology/Exposure Assessment Modeling
Risk Assessment/Analysis/Dispersion Modeling
Education:

Dr. Clark is a well-recognized toxicologist, air modeler, and health scientist specializing in dose reconstruction. He has 30 years of experience in tying together environmental contaminants measurements to human health impacts. Using environmental fate and transport modeling (SCREEN3, AEROMOD, ISCST3, Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion Modeling, RESRAD, GENII); exposure assessment modeling (partitioning of contaminants in the environment as well as PBPK modeling); Dr. Clark has testified in Federal and State courts on dose reconstructions for personal injury and in mass tort claims.

LITIGATION SUPPORT

1. Ann Jordan, Bruce Howard Brown, David Gutierrez, Amber Tuffield, Geraldine Valdez, Martha Ann Ratzloff, Bradley Schaak, Cindy Fuhrmann, ,Kay Noble, Cynthia Bauman, and Susan Kaberline v. Terumo-BCT Sterilization Services, Inc. a Colorado Corporation, and Terumo BCT, Inc., a Colorado Corporation. Blake Richard Darnell v. Terumo BCT Sterilization Services, Inc. Terumo BCT, Inc., and John Does No. 1-20. District Court, Jefferson County, Colorado. Case Number 2020CV031457, Case Number 2021CV030474 (consolidated with 2020CV031457), Case Number 2020CV031481.

Client: Edelson PC & Zaner Harden Law, Denver, Colorado

2. Charles Johnson, Jr. v. BP Exploration & Production Inc., and BP America Production Company United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana.

Case No. 20-01329
Client: Downs Law Group, Coconut Grove, Florida
Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc
Office
12405 Venice Blvd.

Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Phone
310-907-6165
Fax
310-398-7626
Email
[email protected]
556
CURRICULUM VITAE OF JAMES J. J. CLARK; 2 | Page

3. Deepwater Horizon BELO Cases. (Kenneth Davenport, 5:18-cv-245); (Lester Jenkins, 5:19-cv-260); (Micheal Moulder, 5:19-cv-12); (Dwight Stiples, 5:19-cv-310). United States District Court Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division. Case 3:19cv363 Client: Downs Law Group, Coconut Grove, Florida

4. James Noel v. BP Exploration and Production Inc. et al. United States District Court Southern District of Alabama (Mobile) Civil Action No 1:19-cv-00694
Client: Downs Law Group, Coconut Grove, Florida

5. Richard Allen Dufour v. BP Exploration and Production Inc. et al. U.S District Court Southern District of Mississippi Southern Division Civil Action No. 19-cv-00591 Client: Downs Law Group, Coconut Grove, Florida

6. Client: Marc and Jill Czapla v. Republic Services, Inc., Bridgeton Landfill, LLC, vs. Cotter Corporation, N.S.L., Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri, Division 17 Client: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, P.C., Independence, Missouri

7. Don Strong, et al. vs. Republic Services, Inc., Bridgeton Landfill, LLC, vs. Cotter Corporation, N.S.L., Case No.: 17SL-CC01632-01 Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri, Division 17 Client: Humphrey, Farrington & McClain, P.C., Independence, Missouri

8. Arnold Goldstein, Hohn Covas, Gisela Janette La Bella, et al.. vs. Exxon Mobil Corporation, PBF Energy Inc., Torrance Refining Company LLC, et al., Case No.: 2:17-cv-02477DSF United States District Court for the Central District of California
Client: Sher Edling, LLP, San Francisco, California and Matern Law Group , PC., El Segundo, California

9. Mary Ann Piccolo V. Headwaters Incorporated, et al. Seventh Judicial Court In and For Carbon County, State of Utah. Case No. 130700053
Client: Law Offices of Roy L. Mason. Annapolis, Maryland

10. Case: Tracey Coleman V. Headwaters Incorporated, et al. Seventh Judicial Court In and For Carbon County, State of Utah. Case No. 140902847
Client: Law Offices of Roy L. Mason. Annapolis, Maryland

11. Case: Scott D. McClurg, et al. v. Mallinckrodt Inc. and Cotter Corporation. Lead Case No.: 4:12CV00361 AGF United States District Court Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division.

Client: Environmental Law Group, Birmingham, AL.

12. Louise Kowall, Donna Kopecek, and Evelyn Vehouc v, United States Steel Corporation. Count of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania Civil Division. Case No. 2017-3355 Client: Bonnet, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC, Phoenix, Arizona, Jacks Legal Group, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, and The Calwell Law Practice, LC, Charleston, West Virginia. 557
CURRICULUM VITAE OF JAMES J. J. CLARK; 3 | Page

SELECTED AIR MODELING RESEARCH/PROJECTS
Client(s) – Multiple
Indoor Air Evaluations, California: Performed multiple indoor air screening evaluations and risk characterizations consistent with California Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) methodologies. Characterizations included the use of DTSC’s modified Johnson & Ettinger Model and USEPA models, as well as the attenuation factor model currently advocated by Cal/EPA’s Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).

Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of criteria pollutants, air toxins, and particulate matter emissions from a carbon black production facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model were used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and were be incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.

EMERGING/PERSISTENT CONTAMINANT RESEARCH/PROJECTS
Client: City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita, California Dr. Clark managed the oversight of the characterization, remediation and development activities of a former 1,000 acre munitions manufacturing facility for the City of Santa Clarita. The site is impacted with a number of contaminants including perchlorate, unexploded ordinance, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The site is currently under a number of regulatory consent orders, including an Immanent and Substantial Endangerment Order. Dr. Clark assisted the impacted municipality with the development of remediation strategies, interaction with the responsible parties and stakeholders, as well as interfacing with the regulatory agency responsible for oversight of the site cleanup.

Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Dr. Clark is performing a comprehensive review of the potential for pharmaceuticals and their by-products to impact groundwater and surface water supplies. This evaluation will include a review if available data on the history of 558
CURRICULUM VITAE OF JAMES J. J. CLARK; 4 | Page
pharmaceutical production in the United States; the chemical characteristics of various pharmaceuticals; environmental fate and transport; uptake by xenobiotics; the potential effects of pharmaceuticals on water treatment systems; and the potential threat to public health. The results of the evaluation may be used as a briefing tool for nonpublic health professionals.

Client: Kaiser Venture Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared PBPK assessment of lead risk of receptors at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. 559
CURRICULUM VITAE OF JAMES J. J. CLARK; 5 | Page

RISK ASSESSMENTS/REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS
Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for a fifty-year old wastewater treatment facility used at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.

ANR Freight - Los Angeles, California
Prepared a comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of petroleum hydrocarbon and metal contamination of a former freight depot. This evaluation was as the basis for reaching closure of the site with lead regulatory agency.

Unocal Corporation - Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive assessment of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals for a former petroleum service station located next to sensitive population center (elementary school). The assessment used a probabilistic approach to estimate risks to the community and was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed oversight of remedial investigation most contaminated heavy metal site in California. Lead concentrations in soil excess of 68,000,000 parts per billion (ppb) have been measured at the site. This State Superfund Site was a former hard chrome plating operation that operated for approximately 40-years. 560
CURRICULUM VITAE OF JAMES J. J. CLARK; 6 | Page
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Coordinator of regional monitoring program to determine background concentrations of metals in air. Acted as liaison with SCAQMD and CARB to perform co-location sampling and comparison of accepted regulatory method with ASTM methodology.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Analyzed historical air monitoring data for South Coast Air Basin in Southern California and potential health risks related to ambient concentrations of carcinogenic metals and volatile organic compounds. Identified and reviewed the available literature and calculated risks from toxins in South Coast Air Basin.

Past Professional Associations
American Public Health Association (APHA)
Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) American Chemical Society (ACS)
International Society of Environmental Forensics (ISEF) Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Publications and Presentations:

Books and Book Chapters
Sullivan, P., J.J. J. Clark, F.J. Agardy, and P.E. Rosenfeld. (2007). Synthetic Toxins In The Food, Water and Air of American Cities. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P. and J.J. J. Clark. 2006. Choosing Safer Foods, A Guide To Minimizing Synthetic Chemicals In Your Diet. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P., Agardy, F.J., and J.J.J. Clark. 2005. The Environmental Science of Drinking Water. Elsevier, Inc.

Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P.J., Agardy, F.J., Clark, J.J.J. 2002. America’s Threatened Drinking Water: Hazards and Solutions.

Trafford Publishing, Victoria B.C.

Clark, J.J.J. 2001. “TBA: Chemical Properties, Production & Use, Fate and Transport, Toxicology, Detection in Groundwater, and Regulatory Standards” in Oxygenates in the Environment. Art Diaz, Ed.. Oxford University Press: New York.
561
CURRICULUM VITAE OF JAMES J. J. CLARK; 7 | Page
Clark, J.J.J. 2000. “Toxicology of Perchlorate” in Perchlorate in the Environment. Edward Urbansky, Ed.

Kluwer/Plenum: New York.

Clark, J.J.J. 1995. Probabilistic Forecasting of Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations At The Soil Surface From Contaminated Groundwater. UMI.

Baker, J.; Clark, J.J.J.; Stanford, J.T. 1994. Ex Situ Remediation of Diesel Contaminated Railroad Sand by Soil Washing. Principles and Practices for Diesel Contaminated Soils, Volume III. P.T. Kostecki, E.J. Calabrese, and C.P.L. Barkan, eds. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, MA. pp 89-96.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 000527
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2007). “Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” Environmental Research. 105:194-199.

Rosenfeld, P. and J.J.J. Clark. 2003. “Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity, and Regulatory Guidance” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Phoenix, AZ. February 21, 2003.
562
CURRICULUM VITAE OF JAMES J. J. CLARK; 8 | Page
Clark, J.J.J., Brown A. 1999. Perchlorate Contamination: Fate in the Environment and Treatment Options. In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation, Fifth International Symposium. San Diego, CA, April, 1999.

Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Health Effects of Perchlorate and the New Reference Dose (RfD). Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.

Browne, T., Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Treatment Options For Perchlorate In Drinking Water. Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.

Clark, J.J.J., Brown, A., Rodriguez, R. 1998. The Public Health Implications of MtBE and Perchlorate in Water:

Risk Management Decisions for Water Purveyors. Proceedings of the National Ground Water Association, Anaheim, CA, June 3-4, 1998.

Clark J.J.J., Brown, A., Ulrey, A. 1997. Impacts of Perchlorate On Drinking Water In The Western United States.

U.S. EPA Symposium on Biological and Chemical Reduction of Chlorate and Perchlorate, Cincinnati, OH, December 5, 1997.

Clark, J.J.J.; Corbett, G.E.; Kerger, B.D.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996. Dermal Uptake of Hexavalent Chromium In Human Volunteers: Measures of Systemic Uptake From Immersion in Water At 22 PPM.

Toxicologist. 30(1):14.

Paulo, M.T.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clark, J.J.J. (1992). Effects of Pretreatment with Ipratroprium Bromide in COPD Patients Exposed to Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A96.

Harber, P.H.; Gong, H., Jr.; Lachenbruch, A.; Clark, J.; Hsu, P. (1992). Respiratory Pattern Effect of Acute Sulfur Dioxide Exposure in Asthmatics. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A88.

McManus, M.S.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clements, P.; Clark, J.J.J. (1991). Respiratory Response of Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease To Inhaled Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 143(4):A91.

Gong, H., Jr.; Simmons, M.S.; McManus, M.S.; Tashkin, D.P.; Clark, V.A.; Detels, R.; Clark, J.J. (1990).

Relationship Between Responses to Chronic Oxidant and Acute Ozone Exposures in Residents of Los Angeles County. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 141(4):A70.

Tierney, D.F. and J.J.J. Clark. (1990). Lung Polyamine Content Can Be Increased By Spermidine Infusions Into Hyperoxic Rats. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 139(4):A41. 563

EXHIBIT B
564
Letter EMY
WI #23-005.18
June 27, 2023
Richard M. Franco
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
SUBJECT: Comments on Cypress and Slover Noise Analysis
Dear Mr. Franco,
Per your request, we have reviewed the subject matter document for the Cypress and Slover Warehouse Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in Fontana, California in San Bernardino County. The proposed project involves the construction, use and maintenance of 623,460 square foot warehouse on a roughly 30-acre property located at the northwest corner of the Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue intersection. The project is surrounded by sensitive uses, including single-family residential directly to the west and across Cypress Ave to the east.

The Technical Noise Supplement Analyzes the Wrong Project The DEIR states:

The analysis contained herein incorporates information contained in a technical report prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., titled “Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue Warehouse Noise Impact Analysis” (“Noise Analysis”) and dated December 4, 2022 (Urban Crossroads, 2022e). The report is included as Technical Appendix M to this EIR.” (Page 4.9-1) However, Appendix M uses an incorrect site plan that makes the entire analysis invalid. Exhibit 6-A of Appendix M shows the site plan used in the analysis. Compared to the plan shown in the DEIR, best represented by page 3-6 in the DEIR, the analysis used in the Appendix is incorrect based on incorrect geometry.

For example, two of the receivers modeled in Appendix M, R1 and R4, are being incorporated into the project and will no longer be sensitive receivers. Appendix M has the project site ending at Boyle Street, while the DEIR shows the project extending north to the San Bernadino Freeway. Appendix M shows the warehouse being 186,910 square foot in Exhibit 1-B, while the project is actually 623,460 square feet.

In addition to the site being significantly larger, these errors affect the existing analysis. There are sensitive receivers across Oleander that were not analyzed, such as 10408 and 10424 Oleander Ave.

The traffic analysis shown in Exhibit 7-A of Appendix M includes an analysis of truck traffic down Boyle Ave, which will no longer exist after this project. The loading dock locations, the source of the 565

WILSON IHRIG
Cypress and Slover Warehouse
Comments on the Noise Analysis

Page 2 ends

loudest operational noise, are located in a completely different location to the north and the south of the project, not to the west as was analyzed in Appendix M.

As such, the noise impact analysis should be re-done in a modified EIR with proper site geometry. We have included errors within the DEIR below, to show that Appendix M made errors even with if the site geometry was correct.

The Project’s Noise Impacts Are Significant
Table 7-6 in Appendix M of the DEIR shows receiver R1 has an ambient noise level of 61.3 and a operational project noise increase of 4.6 dBA. The same table cites the impact criteria as being shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 defines an operational noise increase of over 3 dBA if the ambient level is between 60-65. Since the ambient is 61.3 dBA, the noise threshold for an operational impact is 64.3 dBA. The analysis within the DEIR shows that the modeled future operational noise level is 65.9 dBA.

This is 4.6 dBA over the ambient levels, and thus is considered a significant impact by the DEIR. As such, mitigation should be recommended, such as a modified sound barrier or modified loading dock operations.

Impact Analyses are Incorrect and Unsupported.

Construction Noise May be Significant.

Section 8.2 of Appendix M states that the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used as a source of the hourly average noise levels for each phase of construction, assuming the operation of the loudest pieces of equipment simultaneously.

The reference levels in Table 8-1 align with the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) general assessment methodology presented in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual1.

However, these input levels are not consistent with the output of the noise model in Table 8-2.

Exhibit 8-A shows a distance of 24 feet was used between receiver R1 and the project boundary. A sound power level of 115, as seen in Table 8-1, at 24 feet would be 87 dBA, not 76 dBA, as seen in Table 8-2.

There are two explanations for this discrepancy. Either a sound barrier was used in the modeling, or the document misused the FTA general assessment methodology. If a noise barrier was included in the modeling for barrier R1, this is a meaningful assumption that should be detailed. Considering there is no noise barrier that currently exists on site, this would be an analysis based on flawed assumptions and should be considered invalid. Alternatively, the construction noise barrier was included as part of the project, which would be considered mitigation and should be detailed as a mitigation measure, complete with a before and after analysis showing that the temporary noise barrier reduces the noise below the project threshold.

Another explanation is that the document's approach of using the general assessment while incorporating usage factors significantly underestimates the potential impact of construction noise.

Usage factors are defined as the percentage of time a piece of construction equipment is used during an hour. After breaks, adjustments, coordination, many pieces of loud construction equipment are only used 20-40% of the time. The FTA methodology, during a general assessment, advises to assume a usage factor of 1 (100%). The usage factors are only utilized in the detailed assessment using FTA 1 https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf, Page 177 566

WILSON IHRIG
Cypress and Slover Warehouse
Comments on the Noise Analysis

Page 3 ends

methodology, where worst-case distances are considered between the construction source and the property line. The general assessment is meant to be a quick check to see if more analysis is needed.

Before worrying about measuring correct distances and multiplying usage factors, it’s a simple way to check if construction noise will be a problem. But using a general assessment with usage factors greatly underestimates noise. Using usage factors with a general assessment reduces and underestimates the amount of time of sound exposure by 60-80%, severally underestimating construction noise levels.

This is particularly crucial given the large footprint of the property, where receivers are situated up to 350 feet away from the geometric property center. Consequently, a general assessment might not be appropriate in this case. Either way, it is essential to re-evaluate the analysis in the DEIR and ensure that the analysis adheres to proper interpretation of FTA noise procedures and incorporating any applicable mitigation measures as necessary.

Project Fails to Incorporate Nearby Projects
Another error is that the document excludes at least 3 new warehouses directly adjacent to this project site. Figure 4.0-1 at DEIR pg. 4-5 shows planned projects directly adjacent to this project site to the east across Cypress Ave and to the south across Slover Ave. Currently, one receiver is over the significance threshold, R1. However, other receivers are close to the threshold as set in Table 4-1 in Appendix M. Receiver R2 is modeled to be 1.6 dBA under the threshold, R3 1.2 under the threshold, and R4 0.4 dBA under the threshold. Table 1 (below) details how close under the threshold all the receivers are, and how relatively little new noise would increase levels over the threshold.

Table 1: Decibel Levels Needed to Exceed Threshold at Receivers Near Project Receiver Ambient
with Project
(dBA)
Threshold
(dBA)
Increase Needed
to Exceed
Threshold (dBA)
New Project Operational
Noise Needed to Exceed
Threshold (dBA)
R2 62.4 64.0 1.6 58.9
R3 68.2 69.4 1.2 63.2
R4 69.0 69.4 0.4 58.8
Considering impacts from this project were modeled to be as high as 62.4 dBA at 178 feet from the project (the modeled operational noise level at receiver R4), and each of these new projects are within 178 feet of the chosen receivers, it stands to reason that cumulative effects may create noise impacts. As such, a more thorough analysis should be completed to make sure that all noise sources are considered, as the current analysis may severely underestimate impacts.

Conclusions
There are several errors and omissions in the MNDnoise analysis. Correcting these would potentially identify several significant impacts which require mitigation.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions on this information. 567

WILSON IHRIG
Cypress and Slover Warehouse
Comments on the Noise Analysis

Page 4 ends

Very truly yours,

WILSON IHRIG
Jack Meighan
Associate
Comments on Cypress and Slover Noise Analysis.docx
568

JACK MEIGHAN
Associate
Jack joined Wilson Ihrig in 2021 and works out of our Los Angeles office.

He is an experienced acoustical engineer with expertise in projects involving rail transit systems, highways, CEQA analysis, environmental noise reduction, mechanical drawing reviews, and construction noise and vibration mitigation. He has hands-on experience with project management, including client coordination and presentations, as well as in designing, developing, and testing MATLAB code used in acoustics applications. His expertise includes field measurements, developing test plans and specifying, purchasing, setting up and repairing acoustic measurement equipment. He has experience in using Traffic Noise Model (TNM), CadnaA, EASE, Visual Basic, LabView, and CAD software.

Education
• B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Project Experience
LA Metro Regional Connector, Los Angeles CA
Planned, took, and processed measurements as part of a team to determine the effectiveness of floating slab trackwork for a new subway in downtown Los Angeles that travels below the Walt Disney Concert Hall and the Colburn School of Music.

Rodeo Credit Enterprise CEQA Analysis for New Construction, Palmdale, CA Wrote an accepted proposal and executed it for a noise study project to determine noise mitigation requirements on a new housing development. Led all aspects of the project and managed the budget during all phases of project completion. Completed five separate projects of this type for this company.

ARRIVE San Diego Airport Terminal 1 Replacement, CA
Conducted interior noise and vibration measurements, analyzed measurement data to help determine project criteria, modeled the existing and future terminals in CadnaA, and was part of a team that did a complete HVAC analysis of the entire terminal, as part of a CEQA analysis where a new terminal for the airport is being designed.

Five Points Apartments Noise Study, Whittier, CA
569

WILSON IHRIG
Jack Meighan – Page 2
*Work done prior to working for Wilson Ihrig
Conducted measurements, researched sound data and solutions, and recommended mitigation for a new apartment complex that was located next to an existing car wash, as part of a CEQA review.

TEN50 Condos Noise Investigation, Los Angeles, CA
Was part of a team that investigated the noise source of an unwanted popping noise in luxury condominiums in Downtown Los Angeles. Helped isolate the noise source location with accelerometers to determine where vibrations were occurring first and used an acoustic camera to determine where in the condo the noise was coming from. 2000 University Mixed-Use Building, Berkely, CA
Wrote a construction noise monitoring plan based on environmental noise calculations, as required by CEQA, wrote a report summarizing the results, and attended a client meeting to discuss options.

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) On-Track, CA, San Francisco Bay Area, CA* Day to day project manager, responsible for meetings, presentations, and coordination with the client for an ongoing noise study on the BART system. Developed MATLAB code to process measurements and determine areas where high corrugation was present, contributing to excessively high in-car noise levels. Performed noise measurements inside both the right of way and the vehicle cabin, in addition to rail corrugation measurements.

California I-605/SR-60 Interchange Improvement, Los Angeles, CA* Developed a noise model of the area that predicted sound levels for abatement design, in addition to conducting noise measurements and analysis. Led the Team in use of the FHWA Traffic Noise Model Software for the project, involving three major highways and two busy interchanges extending over 17 miles in southern California.

Sound Transit On-Track, Seattle, WA*
Took measurements, fixed equipment, and developed software in MATLAB to process Corrugation Analysis Trolley measurements as part of an ongoing noise study on the Sound Transit Link system.

Tested vibration data to determine the best measurement and processing techniques to store the data in an online database for in-car measurements.

LA Metro Westside Subway Construction, Los Angeles, CA* Planned, organized, and processed noise measurements for the Purple Line extension construction.

NCHRP Research Report 882 & 886, Multiple Locations (Dayton and Columbus, OH) Took on-highway measurements and wrote, designed, developed, and tested MATLAB code to identify specific spectrograms to use for analyses for a project evaluating barrier reflected highway traffic noise differences in the presence of a single absorptive or reflective noise barrier.

EXHIBIT C
572
ATTACHMENT NO. 6

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
TO: X County Clerk, County of FROM: City of Fontana
San Bernardino Planning Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
X Office of Planning and Research Fontana, CA 92335
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in Compliance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code.

Project Title: Master Case No. 21-038, Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456) and Design Review No. 21-013, and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – Slover/Cypress Warehouse Development Project
State Clearinghouse Number: 2009091089
Name of Person or Agency carrying out project: Jon Dille – Associate Planner. City of Fontana (Lead Agency) 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335.

Project Location: The project site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue over 22 parcels (APNs: 0251-163-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -06, -07, - 08, -09, -10, & -13, and 0251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, -14, -15, -16, -20, -23, & -25) Project Description: Master Case No. 22-038: Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456) and Design Review No. 21-013 - The consolidation of 22 lots into one (1) to develop the site with an industrial warehouse building totaling approximately 625,460 square feet on approximately 29.08 acres.

Project Proponent & Address: Duke Realty Prologis, 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite No, 1600 Irvine, CA 92618
Contact Name & Phone: Jon Dille (909 350-6681)
This is to certify that on March 19, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Fontana approved the above-described project along with the aforementioned Final EIR, and made the following determinations:

1. The project _X_ will will not have a significant effect on the environment.

2. A Subsequent EIR was prepared and fully analyzed the effects of the project. The Subsequent EIR thoroughly analyzed and discussed all potential environmental impacts.

3. Mitigation measures X were were not made a condition of the approval of the project.

4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations _X_ was was not adopted for this project.

5. Findings X were were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

6. The location and custodian of the documents which comprise the record of proceedings for the Subsequent EIR are specified as follows:

Custodian: City of Fontana, Planning Department
Location: 8353 Sierra Avenue, Fontana, CA 92335
____________________________
Salvador Quintanilla
Senior Planner
Date Received for Filing
573
JN 1046-005

MEMORANDUM
TO: Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner
City of Fontana
Planning Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
FROM: David Ornelas, Senior Associate
DATE: April 24, 2024
RE: Response to CARE CA Appeal of MCN 21-038
T&B Planning, Inc. (T&B Planning) is the environmental consulting firm that prepared the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Cypress and Slover Warehouse project (Master Case No. 21-038, hereinafter “Project”). T&B Planning has prepared this memorandum in response to the April 2, 2024, letter sent to the City of Fontana by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of their client, Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”), lodging an appeal to the Fontana Planning Commissions decision from March 19, 2024, to approve the Project (hereinafter “Appeal Letter”). The responses provided below and on the following pages are presented to correspond with the topics that were discussed in the Appeal Letter.

Cumulative Impacts
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo reiterate their prior assertion that the EIR provides an inadequate cumulative impact analysis due to a purported omission of 12 other warehouse facilities in the vicinity of the Project Site. This comment was fully addressed in the Final EIR, see Final EIR Response A-7 (Page F-66) and Response A-24 (Page F71). Of the 12 warehouse facilities cited by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, three (3) were added to the Project’s cumulative impact analysis and are fully considered by the cumulative impact analysis provided throughout the Final EIR. The remaining nine (9) warehouse facilities cited by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo were fully constructed and operational at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project’s EIR was advertised for public review on December 3, 2021 (see CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a)). These facilities include the CJ Logistics, UNIS, Tireco, Calstar Group, TP-Link North America, and Hagen facilities which have been operational since at least 2007, the Amazon LAX 9 facility which has been operational since at least 2019, and the Complete Logistics and eFulfill have been operational since at least 2020. The letter from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo even acknowledges the Court’s position that past projects only need to be considered in a cumulative impact analysis when their environmental impacts “may not yet be fully manifested, thereby disclosing potential environmental vulnerabilities that would not be revealed by cataloging current conditions.” (see Exhibit A, Page 8 of the Appeal Letter). Because the environmental impacts from the nine existing and fully operational facilities cited by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo were fully manifested in the local environment at the time the Project’s CEQA analysis began and the impacts from these facilities were captured by the qualitative observations and quantitative data (e.g., traffic counts, ambient air quality data, ambient noise measurements) that formed 574
Response to CARE CA Appeal of MCN21-038 Approval
April 24, 2024

Page 2 of 4 ends

the baseline for the Project’s environmental impact analysis, it was correct and appropriate for the to exclude these existing, operational projects from its cumulative impact analysis. Further, were the nine fully operational facilities cited by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo separately considered in the EIR’s cumulative impact analysis, the resulting analysis would be inaccurate and severely overstate cumulative conditions within the City, as the impacts from these facilities would be manually added on top of the environmental baseline data that already included the environmental impacts from these facilities (“double-counting”).

Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo also assert, incorrectly, that the EIR for the Project lacks an analysis of potential cumulative impacts to energy, land use and planning, public services, and utilities. The Final EIR includes a cumulative impact analysis of potential energy impacts in Section 4.4. Potential impacts to land use and planning, public services, and utilities are included in Section 5.0 of the Final EIR and, as shown in the Final EIR, the Project clearly has no potential to result in adverse direct environmental impacts under these topics and, therefore, also clearly would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts.

Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo reiterate their prior assertion that the EIR underreports potential diesel particulate matter emissions from the Project through the omission of two pieces of emergency equipment (a diesel-powered fire pump and diesel-powered emergency generator). This comment was fully addressed in the Final EIR, see Final EIR Response A-12 (Page F-68). As noted in the Final EIR, the City and their air quality experts concluded that the Final EIR disclosed an accurate analysis of the Project’s typical operational conditions.

Specifically, Adams Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo does not provide any evidence that use of an emergency generator and fire pump, neither of which would be used on a routine or daily basis, would substantially increase Project operational diesel particulate matter emissions that were found to be approximately 59 percent below the applicable threshold of significance for residential receptors, approximately 89 percent below the applicable threshold of significance for worker receptors, and approximately 98 percent below the applicable threshold of significance for school child receptors. Further, during emergency situations, when emergency generators and fire pumps would be needed, the Project is highly unlikely to be operating at peak output; therefore, any incremental emissions from emergency equipment would be offset by a reduction in emissions from the Project’s normal operational activities.

Potential Soil Contamination
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo reiterate their prior comment that the EIR does not adequately address potential soil contamination from historic poultry farming activities on the Project Site. Without any information regarding the poultry farming practices used on the Project Site (which were discontinued at least 30 years ago) and without having inspected the Project Site, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo assert that soils on the Project Site have the potential to be contaminated with arsenic from chicken feed. This comment was fully addressed in the Final EIR, see Response A-14 (Page F-69). As noted in the Final EIR, the Project Site was evaluated for potential environmental hazards by an expert firm (Apex Companies) that conducted a thorough site survey and historical record review, and found no evidence suggesting any potential sources of contamination from any historic land uses on the Project Site – including the historic poultry farm and the recycling center that replaced it. All the findings from the Project’s hazardous materials expert are disclosed in the Final EIR (refer to Section 4.7 and Appendix J). The comment in the Appeal Letter does not provide any evidence to disprove the data collected by the Apex Companies or contradict the conclusions in the DEIR. Accordingly, the conclusion in the Final EIR is considered technically accurate and is based on substantial evidence. 575
Response to CARE CA Appeal of MCN21-038 Approval
April 24, 2024

Page 3 of 4 ends

Construction Noise Impacts
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo assert that the reference data source used in the Project’s construction noise analysis underreports the expected noise levels from construction equipment that would be used on the Project Site. Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo assert that reference data from the Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) should have been used for the Project’s construction analysis rather than the data source used in the Project’s analysis: the Update of Noise Database for Prediction of Noise on Construction and Open Sites prepared by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

While the RCNM may be the de facto national standard for major infrastructure and/or highway construction projects, the reference noise levels used in the RCNM are now over thirty years old and do not adequately describe modern construction equipment, which has been designed to be much quieter than old equipment. Additionally, air pollution control regulations enacted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) since the publication of the RCNM data, including but not limited to limits on idling and phasing out older, dirtier (and louder) equipment for newer, cleaner equipment, has had the unintended consequence of reducing construction noise. Further, the RCNM data was collected during construction of Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project in Boston, Massachusetts.

The CA/T project featured hundreds of pieces of equipment under operation at any given time as overlapping construction activities were scheduled to avoid disrupting workday road and rail traffic. At any given time, a combination of cranes, slurry trenching machines, hydromills, hoe rams, pile drivers, jackhammers, dump trucks, concrete pumps and trucks, backhoes, loaders, excavators, vacuum trucks, concrete and chain saws, and/or gas and pneumatically powered hand tools could be in use at the CA/T project and it is difficult for the RCNM data to differentiate which noise levels are attributable to specific construction activities and equipment. The Project’s construction noise analysis relies on source data from DERFA, as this data was collected more recently than the RCNM data, thereby better reflecting more modern pieces of equipment, and was collected from construction activities that are more representative of the activities proposed by the Project than the CA/T project. Accordingly, the EIR’s reliance on reference noise source data from DERFA that better reflects the types of construction activities and equipment that would be used on the Project Site than the data from the RCNM was reasoned and supported by substantial evidence.

Notwithstanding, the reference noise levels advocated by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo are incrementally higher than the noise levels used in the Project’s analysis. As disclosed in the Final EIR, peak Project construction noise levels would range between approximately 6.5 decibels (dBA Leq) and 11.5 dBA Leq below the applicable significance threshold at all sensitive receptor locations adjacent to the Project Site (see Final EIR Page 4.9-16).

Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo do not provide any evidence, including noise calculations, that the incremental change they recommend for the construction noise analysis would alter the EIR’s conclusion that the Project would result in less than significant construction noise impacts.

Operational Noise Impacts
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo assert that the EIR underreports potential operational noise impacts from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, arguing that the two pieces of HVAC equipment assumed in the noise analysis are inadequate to cool a building the size of the Project. Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo also argue that the HVAC equipment would need to run for longer intervals than assumed by the Project’s noise analysis (thereby creating more noise). Typically, warehouse buildings only feature HVAC equipment for office spaces; warehouse space is cooled by fans and passive cooling design features (such as gravity vents and louvers). The proposed building is designed to feature no more than two office areas, at the northwest and southwest corners, totaling no more than 14,000 square feet of floor area; thus, the assumptions 576
Response to CARE CA Appeal of MCN21-038 Approval
April 24, 2024

Page 4 of 4 ends

regarding the number and usage of HVAC equipment for the Project are appropriate and the EIR accurately discloses potential operational noise levels from the Project.

Statement of Overriding Considerations
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo assert the statement of overriding considerations for the Project is invalid because the Fontana Planning Commission lacked sufficient knowledge of the Project’s cumulative greenhouse gas emissions impact. Contrary to the assertion of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, the EIR’s analysis of cumulative impact from the Project’s GHG emissions is adequate and complies with CEQA’s requirements. As disclosed in the Final EIR:
“The CEQA Guidelines emphasize that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impacts analysis (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[f]). Accordingly, the analysis provided in Subsection 4.6.5 reflects a cumulative impact analysis of the effects related to the Project’s GHG emissions, which concludes that the Project would not conflict with applicable GHG-reduction plans, policies, or regulations but would generate cumulatively-considerable GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment because the Project would exceed the City’s GHG emissions threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year.” (see Final EIR, Page 4.6-22)
Accordingly, the EIR utilized a correct basis to make its conclusion that the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to greenhouse gas emissions, and the EIR clearly disclosed this information to the public.

Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo further assert that the public record lacked sufficient evidence that the Project’s benefits would outweigh its significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions. Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo specifically cite employment opportunities for skilled workers as a community benefit that would outweigh the Project’s significant and unavoidable environmental impact and note, incorrectly, that the Project Applicant has not made any commitments to employ highly trained and skilled craft workers during Project construction. As supported by public testimony during the March 19, 2024, Fontana Planning Commission meeting, the Project Applicant would utilize skilled union workers to construct the Project. Thus, following the logic outlined in the Appeal Letter, the Project Applicant’s commitment to use skilled union workers to construct the Project would constitute a substantial community benefit and provides an adequate basis to support the Project’s statement of overriding considerations.
577
City of Fontana
Action Report
Planning Commission
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
File #: 21-2895 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
Agenda #: PH-B Category: Public Hearing
FROM:

Planning Department
TITLE:

Master Case No. 21-038: Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456) and Design Review No. 21-013 - A request to consolidate 22 parcels into one (1) parcel to facilitate the development of a new industrial commerce center building totaling 623,460 square feet with approximately 14,000 square feet of office/mezzanine space on an approximately 29.8 acres site, pursuant to the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CEQA Findings, and Statement of Overriding Consideration RECOMMENDATION:

1. Based on the information in the staff report and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PC 2024-_____, and,
a. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a Statement of Facts and Findings, and direct staff to file a Notice of Determination

2. Based on the information in the staff report and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PC No. 2024- ___; and,
a. Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456); and, b. Approve Design Review No. 21-013
APPLICANT:

Duke Realty/PROLOGIS
200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite No. 1600
Irvine, CA 92618
LOCATION:

The project site is located on the northwest corner of Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue (APNs:
0251-163-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -06, -07, -08, -09, -10, & -13, and 0251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, - 14, -15, -16, -20, -23, & -25).

REQUEST:

Tentative Parcel Map 21-007 (TPM No. 20456) - A request to consolidate 22 parcels (APNs: 0251- 163-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -06, -07, -08, -09, -10, & -13, and 0251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, -14, -15, City of Fontana Page 1 of 6 Printed on 3/13/2024
powered by Legistar™5781
File #: 21-2895 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
Agenda #: PH-B Category: Public Hearing
-16, -20, -23, & -25) into one (1) parcel of 29.8 acres.

Design Review No. 21-013 - A request for the site and architectural approval of a new industrial commerce center building of approximately 623,460 square feet including ancillary office/mezzanine space of 14,000 square feet on an approximately 29.8-acre site.

PROJECT PLANNER:

Jon Dille, Associate Planner
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Land Use Designation:

General Plan Zoning District Existing Land Use
Site: General Industrial (IG) and Light
Industrial (I-L)
General Industrial (M-2)
and Light Industrial (M-1)
Vacant parcels.

North: Right-of-Way and
Single-Family
Residential (SF-R)
Right-of-Way and SingleFamily Residential (R-1)Union Pacific Railroad, Interstate 10 Freeway, and
Single-Family Dwellings
beyond the freeway.

South: Light Industrial (I-L)/
Residential Planned
Community (R-PC)
Light Industrial (M1)/
Residential Planned
Community (R-PC)
Two Industrial Commerce
Center Buildings/ Single
Family Residential
East: General Industrial (IG) and Light
Industrial (I-L)
General Industrial (M-2)
and Light Industrial (M-1)
Industrial Commerce
Center Building
West: General Industrial (IG) and Light
Industrial (I-L)
General Industrial (M-2)
and Light Industrial (M-1)
Industrial Commerce
Center Building and SingleFamily Homes
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

A. Site Area: Approximately 29.8 gross acres
B. FAR Ratio: Maximum allowed: 1.0
Provided: 0.5 percent
C. Building Analysis:

Office/Mezzanine: Approximately 14,000 square feet
Warehouse Area: Approximately 609,460square feet
Total Area: Approximately 623,460square feet
D. Parking Analysis:

Passenger Vehicle Warehouse Required: 147 spaces
Facility Spaces Provided: 218 spaces
Loading Spaces
Warehouse Facility Required: 21 spaces
Loading Spaces Provided: 83 spaces
Trailer Parking Spaces
Trailer Parking Required: 125 spaces
Trailer Parking Provided: 180 spaces
E. Landscaping:

Minimum Required: 15 percent 95000 square feet
City of Fontana Page 2 of 6 Printed on 3/13/2024
powered by Legistar™5792
File #: 21-2895 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
Agenda #: PH-B Category: Public Hearing
D. Parking Analysis:

Minimum Required: 15 percent 95,000 square feet
Proposed: 21.6 percent 145,698 square feet
ANALYSIS:

The applicant, Duke Realty/ PROLOGIS, is requesting that the Planning Commission review and approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456) and Design Review No. 21-013 for the development of a 623,460 square feet industrial commerce center building on approximately 29.8 acres located at the northwest corner of Slover Avenue and Cypress Avenue.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456):

Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 will consolidate 22 parcels (APNs: 0251-163-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, - 06, -07, -08, -09, -10, & -13, and 0251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, -14, -15, -16, -20, -23, & -25) into one (1) totaling approximately 29.8 gross acres. The resulting parcel will meet the development standards of the Light Industrial (M-1) and General Industrial (M-2) zone and will enable the development of the site with an industrial commerce building, consistent with the General Industrial (M-2) and Light Industrial (M-1).

Design Review No. 21-013:

The development will be comprised of a new 623,460 square feet industrial commerce center building, inclusive of approximately 14,000 square feet of office/mezzanine space. The project includes 83 raised docking bays and four (4) ground level bay door doors, on site improvements which includes parking, landscaping, and lighting, and off-site improvements.

The architectural features for the building include an articulated element, mullions, pure white metal canopies as decorative elements with low-reflective, and gray glazed glass. The exterior color palette for the building is comprised of various neutral colors, including shades of white and gray with blue accent color. The variations to the building face and roof lines, and corner elements at a maximum of 48.5 foot will make the project architecturally pleasing and the project will be consistent with the surrounding area.

The project site is physically suitable in size and shape to support the development of the industrial project. Applicable building codes, zoning codes, and fire codes and standards, have been met which makes for a safe, attractive, and well-designed project. The surrounding uses are industrial in nature. The project design incorporates safety measures for automobiles and pedestrians in the area.

Site Access/Circulation/Parking:

Access to and from the project site is provided by four private driveways, three (3) along Oleander Avenue and one along of Slover Avenue. The trucks will access the site from two (2) driveway along Oleander Avenue and one (1) along Slover Avenue. Passenger vehicles will access the site from City of Fontana Page 3 of 6 Printed on 3/13/2024
powered by Legistar™5803
File #: 21-2895 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
Agenda #: PH-B Category: Public Hearing
Oleander Avenue.

The project shall be served by the City’s sanitary sewer system. There is an existing sewer main available within Slover Avenue and one to be constructed within Oleander Avenue, a lateral connection will be proposed to connect to one of them. The applicant shall connect the proposed building to sewer main. All construction shall be in accordance with the City Standards.

Grading/Walls:

The subject site slopes gradually (approximately 12-foot gradient difference) from the northeast to the southwest of the project site. The northern portions of the site will be graded approximately 4 feet on average to level out the pad to allow for the development of the project site. The Cypress Avenue overcrossing is adjacent to the east; the finish grade of the project site at the southeast corner is at the same grade as the public street, and the property slopes up approximately 11 feet to the north along the east property line. The adjacent property to the south has a gradual slope that follows the public right-of-way (Slover Avenue). The adjacent property to the west has a gradual slope that follows the public right-of-way at Oleander Avenue.

The applicant proposes a combination retaining/concrete tilt-up 14-foot of screen wall not including a maximum of six-foot of retaining, to be located on two sides, north and east sides, of the project site; the screen wall may be adjusted to accommodate the additional retaining portions. The remaining portion of the retaining wall will taper down to zero prior to termination of the perimeter wall; in addition, the 14-foot-high screen wall will terminate prior to the street setback to the west and south of the property and just past the return wall at the edges of the truck courts on the north and south of the project site.

Two (2) 14-foot-high concrete tilt-up screen walls with an 8-foot high metal gate will enclose the truck court to screen the loading bays and trailer parking spaces from view of Slover Avenue and Oleander Avenue public.

Environmental:

The Final EIR (FEIR) for the Duke Realty/ PROLOGIS Project (SCH No. 2021120059) was made available for the public review at the City’s website:
<https://www.fontanaca.gov/2137/Environmental-Documents> and reviewed by the Planning Commission at the March 19, 2024 regular meeting.

Subsequent to the distribution of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), the FEIR was prepared for the project. The environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR is based in part on specific studies and assessments undertaken for the City by qualified environmental scientists, specialists, and consultants. This analysis addresses aesthetics, air quality, biological resource, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities, and wildfire.

These technical studies are contained in the Technical Appendices document of the Draft FEIR and are made available for the public review. The Draft and Final EIR and Technical Appendices can be City of Fontana Page 4 of 6 Printed on 3/13/2024
powered by Legistar™5814
File #: 21-2895 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
Agenda #: PH-B Category: Public Hearing
viewed at the following URL: <https://www.fontanaca.gov/2137/Environmental-Documents>.

The Final EIR describes the environmental impacts of the project and the mitigation measures to help minimize the project impacts on the environment. The scope of this Final EIR includes analysis of minimize the project impacts on the environment. The scope of this Final EIR includes analysis of environmental issues identified and raised in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and during the DFEIR comment period.

The Final EIR determined that twenty (20) categories of environmental effects for the project would have impacts found not to be significant. These categories are air quality, biological resource, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. The potential impacts from the aforementioned topical areas are fully addressed in the DEIR.

The analysis in the Final EIR and supporting studies found that, even with incorporation of proposed mitigation measures, impacts to Green House Gas Emission would remain significant and unavoidable. As a result of the proposed project having an impact that is significant and unavoidable, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration (SOC) by the Planning Commission is required.

Alternatives:

As required by CEQA, a FEIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project which meets the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The proposed alternatives for this project include “No Project”, “Boyle Avenue Preservation and Reduced Building Area,” “Modified Building Operations” and “Alternative Sites.” Circulation:

The project DEIR was circulated for the 45-day public review period beginning May 12, 2023, to June 26, 2023. The document was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for notification to State agencies for their possible comment. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the DEIR on June 6, 2023, the City received comments on the DEIR from the following public agencies, organizations, and individuals:

Letter Date Received Organization/Name

1. Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo, 6/28/2023

2. Blum, Collins & Ho LLP, 6/28/2023
The City, along with the environmental consultant, has reviewed and provided responses to the letters/comments above; these are included in the Final EIR. The Final EIR along with errata has been included with the environmental documentation made available at the following link:
<https://www.fontanaca.gov/2137/Environmental-Documents>.

To approve the project, the Planning Commission must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations indicating that the project benefits override or outweigh the project identified City of Fontana Page 5 of 6 Printed on 3/13/2024
powered by Legistar™5825
File #: 21-2895 Agenda Date: 3/19/2024
Agenda #: PH-B Category: Public Hearing
unavoidable environmental impacts
MOTION:

Approve staff’s recommendation.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment No. 1 - Vicinity Map
Attachment No. 2 - Tentative Parcel Map No. 20456
Attachment No. 3 - Project Plans
Attachment No. 4 - Resolution to Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Attachment No. 5 - P.C. Resolution, Findings and Conditions of Approval Attachment No. 6 - Notice of Determination
Attachment No. 7 - Notice of Public Hearing
City of Fontana Page 6 of 6 Printed on 3/13/2024
powered by Legistar™5836
ATTACHMENT NO. 1

VICINITY MAP
DATE: March 19, 2024
CASE: Master Case No. 21-038
Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007
(TPM No. 20456)
Design Review No. 21-013

CITY OF FONTANA PLANNING

DEPARTMENT
5847
8 585
9 586
58710
58811
58912
Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc.

Huitt-Zollars, Inc. SPLA APPLICANT C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION OVERALL FLOOR PLAN DAB-A2.1 KETNOTES - FLOOR PLAN GENERAL NOTES - FLOOR PLAN FLOOR SLAB AND POUR STRIPS REQ. 13 590
Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc.

Huitt-Zollars, Inc. SPLA APPLICANT C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTIONELEVATIONS DAB-A3.1 KEYNOTES - ELEVATIONS GENERAL NOTES - ELEVATIONS COLOR SCHED. - ELEVATIONS GLAZING LEGEND 14 591
Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc.

Huitt-Zollars, Inc. SPLA APPLICANT C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION SECTION SIGHT LINE STUDY DAB-A4.1 KEY MAP 15 592
Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc.

Huitt-Zollars, Inc. SPLA APPLICANT C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION SECTION SIGHT LINE STUDY DAB-A4.2 KEY MAP 16 593
Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc.

Huitt-Zollars, Inc. SPLA APPLICANT C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION DAB-A4.5 SECTION SIGHT LINE STUDY DAB-A4.3 KEY MAP 17 594
Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc.

Huitt-Zollars, Inc. SPLA APPLICANT C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION screen wall DAB-A4.4 KEY MAP COLOR SCHEDULE - SCREENWALL 18 595
Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc.

Huitt-Zollars, Inc. SPLA APPLICANT C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION screen wall DAB-A4.5 KEY MAP COLOR SCHEDULE - SCREENWALL 19 596
S T Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100
hpa, inc.

Huitt-Zollars, Inc. SPLA APPLICANT C I V I L STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL PLUMBING ELECTRICAL LANDSCAPE SOILS ENGINEER FIRE PROTECTION screen wall DAB-A4.6 KEY MAP COLOR SCHEDULE - SCREENWALL 20 597
21 598
22 599
23 600
24 601

BUILDING TRUCK YARD SLOVER AVENUE
OLEANDER AVENUE BOYLE AVENUE EXISTING SIDEWALK SHALL REMAIN R.O.W. TRUCK YARD 1 1 P.L. P.L. P.L. R.O.W. 22 3 3 3 3441 4 5 5 7 7 6 6 TALL EVERGREEN SCREEN SHRUBS (LIGUSTRUM) SHALL SCREEN TRANSFORMER. 3:1 BERM 3:1 BERM 3:1 BERM 3:1 BERM APPLY MULCH AT CAR OVERHANG, TYP. GROUND COVER 12" MAX. HEIGHT AT CAR OVERHANG, TYP.

CYPRESS AVENUE 20'-0" O.C. TYP. EVERGREEN PINE TREES TO SCREEN TRUCK YARD MAINTENANCE EASEMENT (GROUND COVER ONLY) 20' O.C. TYP. 15 GAL. SIZE PINES 3" LAYER OF CRUSHED ROCK GRAVEL OVER WEED FILTER FABRIC SCREEN WALL PER ARCH. PLANS RAMP PER CIVIL PLANS RAMP PER CIVIL PLANS ROLLED CURB EMERGENCY VEHICULAR ACCESS, PAVING PER CIVIL PLANS GROUND COVERS & SHRUB MASSES GROUND COVER AND SHRUB MASSES SHALL BE CHOSEN FROM THE FOLLOWING: SYMBOL NAME WUCOLS CARISSA MACROCARPA 'GREEN CARPET', NATAL PLUM 1 GAL @ 24" O.C. L MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS, DEER GRASS1 GAL @ 42" O.C. L SALVIA GREGGI, AUTUMN SAGE1 GAL @ 24" O.C. L SALVIA 'BEE'S BLISS', BEE'S BLISS SAGE 5 GAL @ 42" O.C. L DIANELLA TASMANICA 'VARIEGATA', WHITE STRIPED TASMAN FLAX LILY 1 GAL @ 24" O.C. L MAINTENANCE EASEMENT AREA. NO TREES OR SHRUBS. LOW GROWING GROUND COVER ONLY. L DESIGN KEY NOTES: 1. ENHANCED VEHICULAR PAVING AT NEW DRIVEWAY ENTRIES CONSISTING OF COLORED CONCRETE WITH 4'X4' GRID PATTERN. GRID PATTERN SHALL BE SAW-CUT AT 45° ANGLE WITH 18" COLORED CONCRETE PERIMETER BAND. ALL CONCRETE SHALL RECEIVE A MEDIUM BROOM FINISH. 2. ENHANCED PAVING AT BUILDING ENTRY CONSISTING OF COLORED CONCRETE WITH 3'X3' GRID PATTERN. GRID PATTERN SHALL BE SAW-CUT AT 45° ANGLE WITH 12" COLORED CONCRETE PERIMETER BAND. ALL CONCRETE SHALL RECEIVE A MEDIUM BROOM FINISH. 3. NEW STREET TREE PER LEGEND. 4. PROPOSED FLOWERING ACCENT TREE AT FOCAL AREAS PER LEGEND. 5. VERTICAL TREE ALONG BUILDING PER LEGEND. 6. LAYERED DROUGHT TOLERANT GROUND COVER AND SHRUB MASSES PLANTING PER LEGEND. 7. FOUNDATION SHRUB ALONG BUILDING PER LEGEND. TREES SYMBOL TREE NAME QTY. WUCOLS NEW STREET TREE ALONG SLOVER AVE. TRISTANIA CONFERTA, BRISBANE BOX 24" BOX SIZE. 16 L NEW STREET TREE ALONG OLEANDER AVE. BRACHYCHITON POPULNEUS, BOTTLE TREE 24" BOX SIZE. 12 L FLOWERING ACCENT TREE LAGERSTROEMIA I. 'WATERMELON RED', CRAPE MYRTLE 24" BOX SIZE. 30 M PARKING LOT SHADE TREE ULMUS PARVIFOLIA, CHINESE ELM TREE 24" BOX SIZE. 34 L SECONDARY PARKING LOT TREE GEIJERA PARVIFLORA, AUSTRALIAN WILLOW 15 GAL. SIZE. 39 L VERTICAL TREE ALONG BUILDING PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR, FERN PINE 15 GAL. SIZE. 23 L VERTICAL TREE ALONG BUILDING ACACIA STENOPHYLLA, SHOESTRING ACACIA 15 GAL. SIZE. 14 L EVERGREEN SCREEN TREE PINUS ELDARICA, MONDELL PINE 15 GAL. SIZE & 24" BOX SIZE. 2631 L QUERCUS ILEX, HOLLY OAK 24" BOX SIZE. 13 L PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA, LONDON PLANE TREE 24" BOX SIZE. 6 M PINUS PINEA, ITALIAN STONE PINE 24" BOX SIZE. 9 M PLANTING LEGEND SHRUBS - SHRUBS SHALL BE CHOSEN FROM THE FOLLOWING: SYMBOL NAME WUCOLS DODONAEA VISCOSA 'PURPUREA', PURPLE HOPSEED BUSH 5 GAL. SIZE. L LIGUSTRUM TEXANUM, TEXAS PRIVET 5 GAL. SIZE. L WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA, COAST ROSEMARY 5 GAL. SIZE. L LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS, TEXAS RANGER 5 GAL. SIZE. L CALLISTEMON 'LITTLE JOHN', DWARF BOTTLE BRUSH 5 GAL. SIZE. L RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA, INDIAN HAWTHORN 5 GAL. SIZE. M APPLY A 3" MIN. LAYER OF MULCH TOP DRESSING WITHIN ALL PLANTING AREAS. A SAMPLE IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO APPLICATION. 15 GAL. SIZE 24" BOX SIZE SCOTT PETERSON LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, INC. 2883 VIA RANCHEROS WAY FALLBROOK, CA 92028 PH: 760-842-8993 DECEMBER 20, 2021 SLOVER AVE. AND CYPRESS AVE. FONTANA, CALIFORNIA CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 60'-0" 0 60' 120' 180' NORTH L-1 DUKE REALTY 200 SPECTRUM CENTER DR. SUITE 1600 IRVINE, CA 92618 PH: (949) 797-7060 WUCOLS PLANT FACTOR THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN 'WUCOLS' REGION '4-SOUTH INLAND VALLEY'. H = HIGH WATER NEEDS M = MODERATE WATER NEEDS L = LOW WATER NEEDS VL= VERY LOW WATER NEEDS · SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH EROSION CONTROL GROUND COVER PER LEGEND, AND MULCH MATERIAL WITH 'BINDER' MATERIAL SHALL BE APPLIED FOR EROSION CONTROL. · ROCK RIP-RAP MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED WHERE DRAIN LINES CONNECT TO INFILTRATION AREAS. · ALL UTILITY EQUIPMENT SUCH AS TRANSFORMERS, BACKFLOW UNITS, FIRE DETECTOR CHECKS AND FIRE CHECK VALVES WILL BE SCREENED WITH EVERGREEN PLANT MATERIAL ONCE FINAL LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN DETERMINED. GENERAL NOTES: THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN. IT IS BASED ON PRELIMINARY INFORMATION WHICH IS NOT FULLY VERIFIED AND MAY BE INCOMPLETE. IT IS MEANT AS A COMPARATIVE AID IN EXAMINING ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AND ANY QUANTITIES INDICATED ARE SUBJECT TO REVISION AS MORE RELIABLE INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE. IRRIGATION NOTE: THE PROJECT WILL BE EQUIPPED WITH A LOW FLOW IRRIGATION SYSTEM CONSISTING OF ET WEATHER BASED SMART CONTROLLER, LOW FLOW ROTORS, BUBBLER AND/ OR DRIP SYSTEMS USED THROUGHOUT. THE IRRIGATION WATER EFFICIENCY WILL MEET OR SURPASS THE CURRENT STATE MANDATED AB-1881 WATER ORDINANCE. CONCEPTUAL PLAN NOTE:
25 602
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

Page 1 of 134 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR

THE CITY OF FONTANA, CERTIFYING THE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH
# 2021120059) FOR THE CYPRESS AND SLOVER
WAREHOUSE PROJECT; MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL

FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; ADOPTING A

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM; AND APPROVING THE PROJECT.

WHEREAS, the Cypress and Slover project (“Project”) proposes to redevelop approximately 29.8 acres within the City of Fontana (“City”) as an industrial commerce center; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located approximately 0.1-mile south of Interstate 10, north of Slover Avenue, east of Oleander Avenue, and west of Cypress Avenue (Assessor Parcel Numbers 0251-163-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -06, -07, -08, -09, -10, and - 13 and 0251-164-03, -04, -10, -11, -12, -14, -15, -16, -20, -23, and -25); and WHEREAS, the Project requires approval of a Design Review (DRP No. 21-013) and Tentative Parcel Map No. 21-007 (TPM No. 20456); and WHEREAS, the Project proposes a 623,460 square-foot (s.f.) industrial commerce center building; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”), section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the Draft EIR on December 3, 2021, which was sent to each responsible and trustee agency and the Office of Planning and Research (OPR); and
WHEREAS, in the NOP, the City solicited comments from individuals, organizations and agencies regarding the environmental analysis, mitigation measures and alternatives to be included in the Draft EIR; and
60326
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

Page 2 of 134 ends

WHEREAS, the City held a public scoping meeting on December 16, 2021 to further solicit comments on the scope of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 2023, the City initiated a 45-day public review and comment period of the Draft EIR for the proposed Project and released the Draft EIR for public review and comment from May 13 through June 28, 2023; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others during the 45-day public review and comment period; and WHEREAS, the City received no comment letters from a local or regional agency, and two comment letters from interest groups during the 45-day public review and comment period; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Final EIR, consisting of the comments received during the 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR. For the purposes of this Resolution, the “EIR” shall refer to the Draft EIR, as revised by the Final EIR, together with the other sections of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the EIR considered three alternatives to the Project, including the Modified Building Operations Alternative (“Project Alternative”), examining the environmental impacts of each alternative as well as the ability of the alternatives to meet Project objectives; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission selects the Project Alternative for consideration in lieu of the Project because the Project Alternative involves feasible modifications to the operations of the Project that would reduce significant and unavoidable effects related to greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the Project Alternative which the City finds are of no impact or constitute a less than significant impact and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2 (Finding Regarding Less Than Significant Impacts Not Requiring Mitigation) hereof; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the Project Alternative which are identified in the EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 3 (Finding Regarding Environmental Impacts Mitigated To A Level Of Less Than Significant) hereof; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of the Project Alternative which are identified as potentially significant but which the City finds cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified 60427
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

Page 3 of 134 ends

in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 4 (Finding Regarding Environmental Impacts Not Fully Mitigated To A Level Of Less Than Significant) hereof; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project Alternative identified in the EIR and set forth herein are described in Section 5 (Finding Regarding Cumulative Environmental Impacts) hereof; and
WHEREAS, the existence of any significant and irreversible environmental changes that would result from the Project Alternative identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 6 (Finding Regarding Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes) hereof; and
WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the Project Alternative identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 7 (Finding Regarding Growth-Inducing Impacts) of the Facts and Findings hereof; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section 8 (Finding Regarding Alternatives) hereof; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the benefits of the Project Alternative outweigh its potential significant environmental impact, and the basis for that determination is set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations included in Section 9 (Adopting A Statement of Overriding Considerations) hereof; and WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program setting forth the mitigation measures that must be implemented in connection with the Project, is adopted in Section 10 (Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) of the Facts and Findings below, and is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Planning Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project and the Project Alternative; and
WHEREAS, the City has not received any comments or additional information that constituted substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is 60528
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

Page 4 of 134 ends

sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed Project Alternative have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FONTANA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS
The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference as Findings of Fact.

SECTION 2. FINDING REGARDING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS NOT

REQUIRING MITIGATION
Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21002.1 and Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 does not require specific Findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the Project Alternative would have either no impact or a less than significant impact to the following resource areas:

A. AESTHETICS

1. Scenic Vistas
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: No Impact
Explanation: The Project Site does not serve as a scenic vista or contribute to a scenic vista; the Project Site is mainly vacant with scattered vegetation and demolition debris. The Fontana General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas or scenic corridors on the Project Site or in the vicinity of the Project Site. Scenic resources visible (at least partially) from public viewpoints adjacent to the Project Site include the San Gabriel Mountains (approximately 7.3 miles to the northwest and partially visible from Slover Avenue and visible from Cypress Avenue) and the Jurupa Hills (approximately 1.4 miles to the south and visible from Slover Avenue and visible from I-10). Under existing conditions, views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the northwest are mostly obscured from Slover Avenue due to intervening development and landscaping, topography, and atmospheric haze that is common in the Inland Empire throughout the year. Under 60629
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

Page 5 of 134 ends

existing conditions, views of the Jurupa Hills are largely unobstructed from Slover Avenue and I-10. (EIR, pp. 5-4 to 5-5)
The proposed industrial commerce center building would not obscure views of the San Gabriel Mountains or Jurupa Hills substantially more than views are already obscured under existing conditions, and views of the San Bernardino Mountains and Jurupa Hills would continue to be available above the building. Therefore, the visibility of the San Gabriel Mountains and Jurupa Hills from public viewing areas along the Project Site frontage would not change substantially with implementation of the Project Alternative. Accordingly, given that the Project Site is not a scenic vista, is not located near a designated scenic resource, and unique, prominent and scenic views would not be obscured by the Project Alternative, implementation of the Project Alternative would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. (EIR, p. 5-5)

2. Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Finding: No impact.

Explanation: The Project Site does not contain any special or unique scenic attributes, like rock outcroppings, native vegetation, or a substantial number of mature trees. The Project Site is not located near any designated State scenic highway and would not be visible from the nearest State highway that is eligible for a scenic designation (which is located approximately 15.1 miles east of the Project Site). Accordingly, implementation of the Project Alternative would not adversely impact scenic resources. (EIR, p. 5-5)

3. Existing Visual Character of the Site and Surrounding Area Threshold: In non-urbanized areas, would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Finding: No Impact.

Explanation: The Project Alternative’s architecture incorporates a neutral color palette that would not be visually offensive and incorporates accent elements, such as colored glass and decorative building elements for visual interest. Additionally, the Project Alternative’s landscape plan incorporates low-water-need plant species that can maintain vibrancy during drought conditions. The proposed visual features of the Project 60730
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

Page 6 of 134 ends

Alternative would ensure a high-quality aesthetic for the site. The Project Alternative does not conflict with applicable design regulations within the Fontana Zoning and Development Code governing scenic quality and no component of the Project would be incompatible with existing, surrounding development which is industrial in nature. As such, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required (EIR, p. 5-6)

4. Light and Glare
Threshold: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: No Impact
Explanation: The Project Alternative would be required to adhere to the lighting requirements as set forth in Fontana Municipal Code Sections 30-265 and 30-266. The Municipal Code lighting standards govern the placement and design of outdoor lighting fixtures to ensure adequate lighting for public safety while also minimizing light pollution and glare and precluding public nuisances. The City would confirm compliance with applicable lighting requirements during future review of building permit applications/plans.

Mandatory compliance with Sections 30-265 and 30-266 would ensure that the Project Alternative would not introduce any permanent design features that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (EIR, p. 5-6) With respect to glare, proposed building materials would consist of tilt-up concrete panels which are low reflective. Although the building would incorporate some glass elements, the glass would result in minimal glare effects because the glass proposed for the Project Alternative would be low-reflective and proposed landscaping would provide a buffer between all proposed glass surfaces and the public right of way. (EIR, pp. 5-6 to 5-7)
B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

1. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Finding: No impact.

Explanation: According to Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) mapping information available from the California Department of Conservation (DOC), the Project Site does not contain any soils classified as “Prime Farmland,” “Unique Farmland,” or “Farmland of Statewide Importance.” As such, the Project Alternative 60831
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

Page 7 of 134 ends

would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use and no impact would occur. (EIR, p. 5-7)

2. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: No impact.

Explanation: The Project Site is not subject to a land conservation (Williamson Act) contract and, thus, would not conflict with a land conservation contract. In addition, the Project Site is zoned Light Industrial (M-1) and General Industrial (M-2), which are not zoning categories for agricultural use. Therefore, implementation of the Project Alternative has no potential to conflict with existing zoning for an agricultural use. (EIR, p. 5-7)

3. Forestland Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? Finding: No impact.

Explanation: The Project Site is not zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production, nor is it surrounded by forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production land. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any areas currently zoned as forest, timberland, or Timberland Production and would not result in the rezoning of any such lands. As such, no impact would occur. (EIR, p. 5-7)

4. Loss of Forest Land
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: No impact.

Explanation: The Project Site does not contain a forest and is not designated as forest land; thus, the Project Alternative would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. As such, no impact would occur. (EIR, p. 5-7) 60932
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

Page 8 of 134 ends

5. Farmland and Forestland Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Finding: No impact.

Explanation: The Project Site does not contain any soils mapped by the Department of Conservation as “Farmland.” Additionally, the Project Site and surrounding areas do not contain forest lands or areas designated for forest land uses.

Thus, implementation of the Project Alternative would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (EIR, p. 5-8)
C. AIR QUALITY

1. Air Quality Management Plan Consistency
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Finding: Less than Significant Impact.

Explanation: Project Alternative-related activities would not exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) localized emissions thresholds during construction or long-term operation and, thus, would not directly cause new violations of the NAAQS and/or CAAQS. In addition, operation of the Project Alternative would not result in emissions of any criteria pollutant in excess of the applicable SCAQMD regional threshold and, therefore, would not result in a long-term increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations in the South Coast Air Basin. Based on the foregoing information, the Project Alternative would not conflict with SCAQMD AQMP Consistency Criterion No. 1. (EIR, pp. 4.1-25 to 4.1-26) The prevailing planning document for the Project Site is the Fontana General Plan, which designates the Project Site for Light Industrial (I-L) and General Industrial (I-G) land uses. The Project Alternative is consistent with the General Plan land use designations for the subject property and, therefore, the Project Alternative would be consistent with the growth assumptions used in the AQMP and would not exceed the AQMP’s long-term emissions projections. Accordingly, the Project Alternative would not conflict with SCAQMD AQMP Consistency Criterion No. 2. (EIR, p. 4.1-26) In summary, the Project Alternative would not result in a substantial adverse environmental impact due to an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, the creation of new violations, the delay of timely attainment of air quality 61033
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

Page 9 of 134 ends

standards, or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP, or the exceedance of growth assumptions in the AQMP. (EIR, p. 4.1-26)

2. Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Finding: Less than Significant Impact.

Explanation: During construction of the Project Alternative, peak constructionrelated emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds. Accordingly, the Project Alternative’s construction activities would not emit substantial concentrations of these pollutants and would not contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation on a cumulatively considerable basis. Project Alternative construction impacts related to emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would all be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (EIR, p. 4.1-26)
During operation of the Project Alternative, emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5 would not exceed SCAQMD regional criteria thresholds and would be less than the volumes disclosed for the Project due to reduced operations of transport refrigeration units. Accordingly, the Project Alternative would not emit substantial concentrations of these pollutants during long‐term operation and would not contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The Project Alternative’s long‐term emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5 would be less than significant. (EIR, pp. 4.1-27 to 4.1-28)

3. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Less than significant impact.

Explanation:

As discussed herein and for the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project Alternative would not: 1) exceed applicable SCAQMD localized criteria pollution emissions thresholds during construction and operation; 2) would not expose sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants that exceed the applicable SCAQMD carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk thresholds; and 3) would not cause or contribute to the formation of a CO “hot spot.” Accordingly, the Project Alternative would not expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
61134
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

Page 10 of 134 ends

Localized Criteria Pollutant Emissions Impacts
Localized emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) from Project Alternative construction and operation would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Accordingly, Project Alternative construction and operation would not expose any sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site to substantial criteria pollutant concentrations. (EIR, pp. 4.2-29 to 4.2-31) CO Hot Spot Impacts
Based on the relatively low local traffic congestion levels, low existing ambient CO concentrations, and the lack of any unusual meteorological and/or topographical conditions in the Project Site vicinity, the Project Alternative is not expected to cause or contribute to a CO “hot spot.” Impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, p. 4.1-29) Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions Impacts
The receptor location with the greatest potential exposure to DPM emissions resulting from construction of the Project Alternative is an existing residence located at 10424 Oleander Avenue approximately 94 feet west of the Project Site. At this receiver location, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to the Project is 1.86 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million.

Also, the non-cancer risk health index would be <0.01, which would not exceed the SCAQMD non-cancer health risk index threshold of 1.0. Worker, including on-site construction worker, and school child receptors would be exposed to a lower carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk during construction than the maximum exposed receptor identified above due to shorter daily exposure periods and distance from construction activities. Project construction would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulativelyconsiderable manner to the exposure of receptors near the Project Site to substantial DPM emissions. (EIR, p. 4.1-30)
During long-term operation of the Project Alternative, the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), which is a residence located at 10480 Oleander Avenue approximately 393 feet west of the Project Site, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project Alternative-related DPM emissions would be less than the 4.11 in one million risk calculated for the Project due to the Alternative’s reduced operations of transport refrigeration units. The non-cancer health risk index at the MEIR is estimated to be <0.01 and, also, would be less than the risk calculated for the Project due to the Alternative’s reduced operations of transport refrigeration units. Neither the carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic risk factors would exceed the applicable SCAQMD risk thresholds.

All other residential locations in the general vicinity of the Project Site would be exposed to lower concentrations of Project Alternative-related DPM emissions than the MEIR due to their increased distance from Project Alternative-related truck activity and, therefore, would be exposed to lesser risk than the MEIR identified above. The Project Alternative would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulatively-considerable manner to the 61235
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

Page 11 of 134 ends

exposure of residential receptors near the Project Site to substantial DPM emissions. (EIR, p. 4.1-30)
During long-term operation of the Project Alternative, the maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW), which is the auto body repair facility located approximately three feet west of the Project Site, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to the DPM emissions from trucks traveling to/from the Project Site would be less than the

1.08 in one million risk calculated for the Project due to the Alternative’s reduced operations of transport refrigeration units. The non-cancer health risk index at the MEIW is estimated to be <0.01 and, also, would be less than the risk calculated for the Project due to the Alternative’s reduced operations of transport refrigeration units. Neither the carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic risk factors would exceed the applicable SCAQMD risk thresholds. All other places of business in the general vicinity of the Project Site would be exposed to lower concentrations of Project Alternative-related DPM emissions than the MEIW due to their increased distance from Project Alternative-related truck activity and, therefore, would be exposed to lesser risk than the MEIW identified above. The Project Alternative would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulatively-considerable manner to the exposure of worker receptors near the Project Site to substantial DPM emissions. (EIR, p. 4.1-30)
At the maximally exposed school child receptor (MEISC), Jurupa Hills High School located approximately 897 feet west of the Project Site, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to the DPM emissions from trucks traveling to/from the Project Site would be less than the 0.18 in one million risk calculated for the Project due to the Alternative’s reduced operations of transport refrigeration units. The non-cancer health risk index at the MEIW is estimated to be <0.01 and, also, would be less than the risk calculated for the Project due to the Alternative’s reduced operations of transport refrigeration units.

Neither the carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic risk factors would exceed the applicable SCAQMD risk thresholds. All other school campuses in the general vicinity of the Project Site would be exposed to lower concentrations of Project Alternative-related DPM emissions than the MEISC due to their increased distance from Project Alternative-related truck activity and, therefore, would be exposed to lesser risk than the MEISC identified above. The Project Alternative would not directly cause or contribute in a cumulativelyconsiderable manner to the exposure of school child receptors near the Project Site to substantial DPM emissions. (EIR, p. 4.1-31)

4. Objectionable Odors
Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less than significant impact.

Explanation: During construction activities on the Project Site, odors could be produced by construction equipment exhaust or from the application of asphalt and/or 61336
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

Page 12 of 134 ends

architectural coatings. However, standard construction practices would minimize the odor emissions and their associated impacts. Furthermore, any odors emitted during construction would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the completion of the respective phase of construction. In addition, construction activities on the Project Site would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance.

Accordingly, the Project Alternative’s construction would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. (EIR, p. 4.1-31) During long-term operation, the Project Alternative would operate as a warehouse distribution facility, which is not typically associated with the emission of objectionable odors. Temporary outdoor refuse storage could be a potential source of odor; however, Project Alternative-generated refuse is required to be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations, thereby precluding any significant odor impact. Furthermore, the occupant(s) of the proposed warehouse buildings would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance, during long-term operation. As such, long-term operation of the Project Alternative would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. (EIR p. 4.1-31) D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Special Status Species
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: No impact.

Explanation: No special-status plants were observed on the Project Site.

Furthermore, due to the disturbed nature of the Project Site and the lack of natural plant communities on or adjacent to the Site, the Project Site does not have potential to support special-status plant species known to occur in the general Project Site area. (EIR, p. 4.2- 7)
No special-status animal species were observed or detected on the Project Site during field surveys. Because the Project Site contains no natural habitat, substantial plant cover, or special site features that could be used by special-status wildlife species and because of the high level of human activity on the Site and adjacent areas, no specialstatus wildlife species are expected to be present on or periodically use the Project Site. (EIR, p. 4.2-7)
61437
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

Page 13 of 134 ends

2. Riparian Habitat
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantially adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: No impact.

Explanation: Based on field surveys conducted on the Project Site, no riparian habitat is present on the Project Site and, none of the vegetation communities or land cover types observed on the Project Site (i.e., non-native grassland, agriculture, disturbed, developed) are classified as a sensitive or natural community. Implementation of the Project Alternative would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS. (EIR, p. 4.2-8)

3. Wetlands
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Finding: No impact.

Explanation: The Project Site does not contain any protected wetland or aquatic resources, including, but not limited to, natural drainages or water courses, wetland habitat, marsh, vernal pools, or coastal resources. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on State- or federally-protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means, and no mitigation relating to this issue is therefore required. (EIR, p. 4.2-8)

4. Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: No impact.

Explanation: The Project would remove approximately 80 mature trees from the Project Site. Tree species observed on the Project Site include the Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle), California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera), ficus (ficus benjamina), olive (Olea europaea), pine (Pinus sp.), orange (Citrus sinensis), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and Chinese elm (Ulmus chinensis). With the exception of the approximately 20 olive trees on the Project Site, none of the trees that would be removed from the Site meet the definition for heritage, significant, and/or specimen trees, as established by the 61538
ATTACHMENT NO. 4

Page 14 of 134 ends

Fontana City CouncilMay 14, 2024

Fontana City Council
May 14, 2024