16498.40162\42162395.1
Date: March 27, 2024
Prepared by: Renee Escario, [email protected]
To: Rina Leung, [email protected]
Project: Hemlock Warehouse Development Project
Subject: Responses to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA) Letter Dated March 25, 2024
This memo contains responses to CEQA related comments raised in the letter that the City of Fontana received on March 26, 2024 that appeals the City’s Planning Commission approval of the Hemlock Warehouse Development Project, which occurred on March 19, 2024. The content of these comments and the concerns that are expressed have been previously submitted by the commenting organization in a comment letter to the Draft Subsequent EIR and a comment letter to the Planning Commission. These comments have been previously responded to in the Final Subsequent EIR, as detailed below.
As further detailed in the individual responses to comments below, none of the comments indicate that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that would not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the Project, and the Subsequent EIR is not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: The previously sent comment letter from GSEJA on December 11, 2024 (p.4-153)
16498.40162\42162395.1
Response to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance Appeal Letter, dated March 25, 2024 Comment 1: This comment states that the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance is appealing the Fontana City Planning Commission approval of the Hemlock Warehouse Development Project (“Project”), which occurred on March 19, 2024. The commenter states that the app eal seeks to reverse the approval decision and that multiple arguments discussing flaws were presented in an EIR comment letter dated December 11, 2023 and a Planning Commission comment letter dated March 18, 2024. The comment states that the Planning Commission failed to adequately address the environmental, social, and economic justice burden placed on the City of Fontana residents. The comment states that the Planning Commission should have requested a new EIR be prepared due to deficiencies in the EIR and continued air quality and traffic impacts as identified in the December 11, 2023 letter.
Response 1: The previously submitted comment letter dated December 11, 2023 that was sent on behalf of GSEJA and responses to the environmental comments raised within it, was provided as Letter O1 within the Final Subsequent EIR (pages 2 -15 through 2 -187). As detailed within the responses to these previous comments, the Subsequent EIR is not flawed and does not need to be recirculated for public review.
Appellant provides no legal authority in support of its proposition that the Planning Commission failed to perform a duty to address the environmental, social, and economic justice issues in connection with certification of the Subsequent EIR and approval of the Project.
Similarly, Appellant provides no legal authority in support of its position that a new EIR should be prepared for the Project due to air quality and traffic impacts of the Project. The air quality and transportation impacts were evaluated in Section 5.1, Air Quality and Section 5.4, Transportation of the Draft Subsequent EIR. The Subsequent EIR found that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable operational impacts relating to air quality. Pursuant to Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission adopted CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations to add ress those significant and unavoidable impacts. The Subsequent EIR also determined that mitigation measures and standard conditions were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for transportation.
Comment 2: This comment states that the Planning Commission erred in approving the Project by determining that the Project would not impact a pollution burdened traffic congested area, that the City did not adequately investigate or mitigate the Project, and that under CEQA, the City must “take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise.” Response 2: This comment does not provide specific detailed comments related to the Subsequent EIR analysis or provide substantial evidence of impacts related to the Project and the environmental issues raised.
As set forth in Resolution PC 2024-020, adopted by the Planning Commission, the Subsequent EIR determined that mitigation measures and generally applicable standard conditions of approval were required to mitigate impacts from the Project to a less than significant level for the following resource areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Reso urces, and Wildfire . The Subsequent EIR further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mi tigation measures, the Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable operational impacts relating to Air Quality . Pursuant to Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission adopted CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations with regard to those significant and unavoidable impacts.
16498.40162\42162395.1
Impacts related to water quality were identified to be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations (Appendix A pages 79 through 85 of the Draft Subsequent EIR). The Project site and surrounding areas do not consist of aesthetic natural scenic, or historic areas. The Project site is developed with an industrial use and located in an urban and industrially developed area within the SWIP SCD that provides for light industrial and warehousing uses. The site is in proximity to the I -10 and surrounded by trucking related industrial uses that are not natural, scenic, or historic. The Project site is adjacent to industrial uses to the north and south, and roadways followed by indust rial uses to the east and west. As detailed in Section
5.3, Noise, of the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to noise.
The Project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of General Industrial (I -G) and within the SWIP SCD that provides for light and heavy manufacturing activities at a maximum FAR of 0.80. The Project results in a FAR of 0.543; and therefore, within the anticipated buildout of the Project site and SWIP area (Appendix A page 38 of the Draft Subsequent EIR). As described in Response O1.17 (pages 2-175 and 2- 176) of the Final Subsequent EIR, Draft Subsequent EIR Table 5.4-2 (page 5.4-10) provides a comparison of the Project’s trip generation and the trip generation identified for the site from the SWIP SP EIR traffic analysis, which shows that the Project would generate 1,368 fewer ADT, with 216 fewer AM peak hour trips and 217 fewer PM peak hour trips than previously anticipated from buildout of the site. Thus, the Project would reduce the previously anticipated trips from the area. However, consistent with the findings of the SWIP Final EIR, impacts related to operational regional air quality (NOx emissions from vehicle and truck trips) were determined to be significant and unavoidable . Air quality impact related comments have been previously responded to in the Final Subsequent EIR in Response O1.15 (pages 2 -174 and 2 -175), as included below:
16498.40162\42162395.1
Finally, Appellant provides no evidence to support its claim that the City has failed to comply with the State’s policy requiring it to “take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualit ies, and freedom from excessive noise.”
Comment 3: This comment states that the appeal addresses the Planning Commission’s understanding of the purpose of CEQA and that the importance of a healthy environment for all is reflected in the purpose of CEQA. The comment includes text from Public Resources Code Section 21000 related to maintenance of a quality environment as a matter of statewide concern, identification of thresholds related to health and safety, prevention of environmental damage , and the same public resource code text listed previously in Comment 2. The comment also includes a definition of environmental justice from Section 65040.12(e) of the Government Code related to fair treatment of all people with respect to environmental laws, regulations, and policies; and not burdening sensitive populations and communities.
Response 3: This comment does not provide specific detailed comments related to the CEQA analysis within the Subsequent EIR, nor does it claim that the Planning Commission and the Subsequent EIR have failed to comply with CEQA or any other laws. The SWIP and Project specific mitigation measures that are included in the Final Subsequent EIR are intended to maintain the quality of the environment and prevent environmental damage. The Draft Subsequent EIR includes thresholds related to the health and safety of people , some of which are described previously in Response 2. Response related to the comment text from Public Resources Code Section 21000, subsection (b) is provided previously in Response 2.
Also, the Final Subsequent EIR in Response O1.15 (pages 2 -174 and 2 -175), as included previously in Response 2, details that CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes
16498.40162\42162395.1
to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential environmental justice effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). However, localized impacts, such as air quality, to the surrounding community were evaluated pursuant to CEQA, which determined that SCAQMD lo calized thresholds would not be exceeded (as also detailed previously in Response 2).
Comment 4: This comment states that the previous comments dated March 18, 2024 include CalEnviro Screening Information depicting the severity of the air pollution that should provide enough data to reconsider the Project approval and request a new EIR.
Response 4: This comment does not provide specific detailed comments related to the CEQA analysis within the Subsequent EIR. Appellant provides no legal authority to support the proposition that the Cal Enviro Screening information created any obligation for the City to reconsider approval of the Project or to prepare a new EIR. The response memo to the March 18, 2024 GSEJA Planning Commission Comment Letter was provided as part of the Planning Commission staff report/agenda packet and describes that CalEnviroscreen is a general policy tool that is generally inappropriate for CEQA review . The response also provided information included in Final Subsequent EIR Response O.15 (above) related to the existing pollution burden of the Project vicinity and the detailed evaluation of the potential air quality related impacts of the Project upon the surrounding community pursuant to SCAQMD methodology. See previously included Final Subsequent EIR Response O.15. Also see Final Subsequent EIR Response O1.32 on pages 2-181 through 2- 182 that responds to this previously submitted CalEnviro Screening Information.
Comment 5: This comment states that due to the reasons listed in the letter and those listed in the previous comment letters, the GSEJA believes the Subsequent EIR is flawed and that a new EIR should be prepared and circulated . The comment requests that the City of Fontana reverse the decision of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project and require a new EIR.
Response 5: Appellant provides no legal authority to support the proposition that a new EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project. Similarly, Appellant provides no legal authority to support the proposition that City Council should reverse the Planning Commissio n’s decision to approve the Project. This comment does not provide specific detailed comments related to the CEQA analysis within the Subsequent EIR but refers to previous comments . Responses to all previously provided comments from the comment er have been provided in either the Final Subsequent EIR or the Response Memo dated March 19, 2024 that was included in the Planning Commission Staff Report for the Project. This comment does not identify any of the conditions that would require recirculation of the Draft Subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the Project, and the Subsequent EIR is not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature.
Attachment A (p. 4 -153): The comment letter has attached the previously sent comment letter from December 11, 2023.
Response to Attachment A: Responses to the comment letter from December 11, 2023 are provided in the Final Subsequent EIR on pages 2-165 through 2-187.
1 1
2 3
2
3 cont.
4 5
3
Attachment A
4 ATTACHMENT A
5 ATTACHMENT A
6 ATTACHMENT A
7 ATTACHMENT A
8 ATTACHMENT A
9 ATTACHMENT A
10 ATTACHMENT A
11 ATTACHMENT A
12 ATTACHMENT A
13 ATTACHMENT A
14 ATTACHMENT A
15 ATTACHMENT A
16 ATTACHMENT A
17 ATTACHMENT A
18 ATTACHMENT A
19 ATTACHMENT A
20 ATTACHMENT A
21 ATTACHMENT A
22 ATTACHMENT A
23 ATTACHMENT A
24 ATTACHMENT A
25 ATTACHMENT A
26 ATTACHMENT A
27 ATTACHMENT A
28 ATTACHMENT A
29 ATTACHMENT A
30 ATTACHMENT A
31 ATTACHMENT A
32 ATTACHMENT A
33 ATTACHMENT A
34 ATTACHMENT A
35 ATTACHMENT A
36 ATTACHMENT A
37 ATTACHMENT A
38 ATTACHMENT A
39 ATTACHMENT A
40 ATTACHMENT A
41 ATTACHMENT A
42 ATTACHMENT A
43 ATTACHMENT A
44 ATTACHMENT A
45 ATTACHMENT A
46 ATTACHMENT A
47 ATTACHMENT A
48 ATTACHMENT A
49 ATTACHMENT A
50 ATTACHMENT A
51 ATTACHMENT A
52 ATTACHMENT A
53 ATTACHMENT A
54 ATTACHMENT A
55 ATTACHMENT A
56 ATTACHMENT A
57 ATTACHMENT A
58 ATTACHMENT A
59 ATTACHMENT A
60 ATTACHMENT A
61 ATTACHMENT A
62 ATTACHMENT A
63 ATTACHMENT A
64 ATTACHMENT A
65 ATTACHMENT A
66 ATTACHMENT A
67 ATTACHMENT A
68 ATTACHMENT A
69 ATTACHMENT A
70 ATTACHMENT A
71 ATTACHMENT A
72 ATTACHMENT A
73 ATTACHMENT A
74 ATTACHMENT A
75 ATTACHMENT A
76 ATTACHMENT A
77 ATTACHMENT A
78 ATTACHMENT A
79 ATTACHMENT A
80 ATTACHMENT A
81 ATTACHMENT A
82 ATTACHMENT A
83 ATTACHMENT A
84 ATTACHMENT A
85 ATTACHMENT A
86 ATTACHMENT A
87 ATTACHMENT A
88 ATTACHMENT A
89 ATTACHMENT A
90 ATTACHMENT A
91 ATTACHMENT A
92 ATTACHMENT A
93 ATTACHMENT A
94 ATTACHMENT A
95 ATTACHMENT A
96 ATTACHMENT A
97 ATTACHMENT A
98 ATTACHMENT A
99 ATTACHMENT A
100
ATTACHMENT A
101
ATTACHMENT A
102
ATTACHMENT A
103
ATTACHMENT A
104
ATTACHMENT A
105
ATTACHMENT A
106
ATTACHMENT A
107
ATTACHMENT A
108
ATTACHMENT A
109
ATTACHMENT A
110
ATTACHMENT A
111
ATTACHMENT A
112
ATTACHMENT A
113
ATTACHMENT A
114
ATTACHMENT A
115
ATTACHMENT A
116
ATTACHMENT A
117
ATTACHMENT A
118
ATTACHMENT A
119
ATTACHMENT A
120
ATTACHMENT A
121
ATTACHMENT A
122
ATTACHMENT A
123
ATTACHMENT A
124
ATTACHMENT A
125
ATTACHMENT A
126
ATTACHMENT A
127
ATTACHMENT A
128
ATTACHMENT A
129
ATTACHMENT A
130
ATTACHMENT A
131
ATTACHMENT A
132
ATTACHMENT A
133
ATTACHMENT A
134
ATTACHMENT A
135
ATTACHMENT A
136
ATTACHMENT A
137
ATTACHMENT A
138
ATTACHMENT A
139
ATTACHMENT A
140
ATTACHMENT A
141
ATTACHMENT A
142
ATTACHMENT A
143
ATTACHMENT A
144
ATTACHMENT A
145
ATTACHMENT A
146
ATTACHMENT A
147
ATTACHMENT A
148
ATTACHMENT A
149
ATTACHMENT A
150
ATTACHMENT A
151
ATTACHMENT A
152
ATTACHMENT A
153
ATTACHMENT A