FULL
ARTO
CALIFORNIA APPEAL APPLICATION
I. OWNER/APPLICANT
Applicant Blair Dahl
Full name of Person, Firm, or Corporation
On file ( ) On file
Mailing Address Area Code Phone No.
Legal Owner Name: Goodman Logistics Center, Fullerton
Legal Owner Address: On file
Phone No.: ( ) On file ). _Fax: ( ) On file
APPELLANT
Appellant Jane Reifer
Full name of Person, Firm, or Corporation
149 W. Whiting Ave., Fullerton, CA 92832 (714) 525-3678 Area Code Phone No.
Legal Owner Name: n/a
Legal Owner Address: n/a
Phone No.: ( ) n/a ) n/a Fax: ( ) n/a
II. PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Industrial M-G ES ocus Area K: Southeast Industri Existing Land Use of Property and/or Building ning District General Plan Designatic Location 1201-1223 South State College Kimberly to north. Orangethorpe to south Street Address Name of Nearest Intersecting Street
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
IlI. REASON FOR REQUEST
In the following provided space, please clearly specify and explain the errors) of decision or requirement upon which you are basing this appeal. (If additional space is needed, please attach additional comments to the back of this appiication.)
I am appealing the Planning Commission's approval of ZON-2021-0102 of 5-11-2022 I am pleased that the project was reconsidered as a Major Site Plan instead of as a Minor Site Plan as it was originally approved, but there are remaining issues that need to be fixed.
In my public comments on 5-11-22 I spoke quite a bit about the original GLC Project. That is not the subject of this application, but it's related in that the EIR from that project is being used for this one. There already to be violations of the MMRP from the original Approved Project, a document that is being relied on to mitigate impacts in this Proposed Project. I was also pointing out that the Planning Commission should be aware that this major logistics facility with over 3400 proposed daily vehicle trips was able to claim that it was not contributing to a single pound of air quality impacts or a single mile of VMT impacts, any Effects on Transportation, and had no oversight from DTSC or OCHCA despite known toxics. My point was that, given the lack of oversight on the original Project, the Planning Commission should very carefully assess this Project for its new impacts and condition the new Project appropriately. In general, new impacts were shown in isolation and not in addition to the impacts in the Approved Project. The Addendum needs to show combined and cumulative impacts that do not misstate the true levels of impact and significance.
I appreciate the Planning Commission's small improvements but the otherwise commendable truck idling mitigation is not enforceable, and others mitigations need to be addressed.
There may be additional issues, but I would like to note:
1. I am concerned that the overflow lot is intended to become a driveway
2. Staff documents indicate that construction is happening during bird nesting season in the Approved Project, and there is no mitigation for this MBTA violation for the same condition in the Proposed Project.
3. Clear language needs to explain projects' determination of Site Plan Reviews and Major Site Plan determinations.
4. The EIR Addendum needs many corrections in order to protect the Fullerton community from impacts from the Proposed Project. For example, the Paleontology section Indicated there was sediment with high paleontological sensitivity, yet this was never indicated in the checklist of potential impacts.
5. Incorrect Description of Impacts and MMRP
The checklist never indicated a single potential impact needing mitigation, in opposition to the text which several times mentioned potential impacts.
Many of the project impacts depend on implementation of the MMRP in order to prevent significant impacts. The Addendum was incorrect to say there are no environmental impacts (among others, see Paleontology above). There may be no environmental impacts with the implementation of the mitigations in the MMRP, but that is a different concept, and makes the MMRP even more important.
The MMRP needs additional mitigations in order to properly address impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigations in the original MMRP for the Approved Project were not followed, indicating violation of the MMRP, and inferring that using the existing MMRP again may not be sufficient.
The demolition prior to approval of the Major Site Plan poses some unique issues regarding MMRP and mitigations implementation, particularly for:
Solid Waste from the construction site
Paleontology
SWPPP
Other Pre-operational impacts
MBTA
6. New Truck Trips
The 34 new truck spaces are active truck parking and were obviously not contemplated or analyzed in the original EIR. This is not a small amount as they represent an impact because of the correlated new truck trips. Which could be substantially over 100 per day or more. CEQA requires full public disclosure of a project's anticipated truck trips and no offsite trips were analyzed.
7. 2 Parking Lot Issues:
The new parking is not just "Truck parking". It's not a surface parking area to store truck trailers. It's active staging and parking overflow, but it's actually not even overflow, it's additional parking not contemplated in the initial Project. The 2 issues are that this is a more active use and requires a CUF in this zoning, and that these spaces weren't contemplated in the Approved Project and indicate more on-site and off-site trip generation. It says it does not increase trip generation but it's adding a trip- inducing use. One of the appendices even uses SIC code 7521 - for automobile parking.
8. Construction Trips Air Quality and GHG:
There is no documentation in the Addendum or appendices for construction emissions for the proposed project. What is shown is for the Approved project and only for paving, NOT for demolition, grading, worker travel trips. There is a surmise that these will not exceed the Approved Projects trips, when they, in fact, ADD to it.
9. Operations Trips Air Quality and GHG:
The analysis is completely inadequate, and does not analyze cumulative impacts.
10. Sensitive Receptors:
There needs to be a discussion of cumulative impacts to sensitive receptors along the Truck Route - there is an elementary school clearly within ¼ mile of the truck route and it is closer to the site than some noted residential uses. There was no actual HRA in this Addendum, just a small narrative.
11. Parcels, Annexation
of the solids study in Appendix C says this Project will annexed and made part of the Fullerton GLC project.
12. Noticing:
The CEQA EIR Addendum appendices were not made available to the public or to the Planning Commission through the document link. They are on the City's Approved Project website but appear to be part of the Approved Project. There is nothing identifying them as pertaining to a new Addendum. There was no public notice on the City's Public Notices web page. There is no copy of the Agreement for Public Improvements
13. Remove What Look like Pre-Approvals
The reso has many references to building. It says there may be issuance of a Construction Activity General Construction Permit.
The Addendum's Summary of Requested Actions says, This Addendum covers all federal, State, local government and quasi-government approvals which may be needed to construct or implement the proposed Project, whether or not they are explicitly listed in Table 3-1, or elsewhere in this Addendum" and a dangling word that just says "Approval" followed by blank spaces which is open to any interpretation.
14. In addition to addressing the above, I'd like to see these COAs and /or mitigations:
Remove all the standard COAs that cover building possibilities A COA based on only using building 4 and denial of the driveway to building 3 A COA prohibiting any use of the facility from off-site warehouses A COA or mitigation requiring electrical hook up for TRUs instead of idling. The current mitigation does not address TRUS which can't turn off their refrigeration.
Provide nearby properties with air monitors and filtration devices I will be submitting further comments before the hearing and appreciate the opportunity to work with the City to improve this Project.
5/26/22
Applicant's Signature:_ fare ref Date:
APPEAL APPLICATION NO.