Lake Forest City Council
July 7, 2026

Environmental Impact Report and at which the Planning Commission considered the application and made its decision on June 5, 2026.

NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, FIND AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS. The Lake Forest Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the Recitals above are true and correct and incorporated herein.

SECTION 2. FINDINGS. The Lake Forest Planning Commission hereby finds, based on consideration of the whole record before it, as follows:

1. CEQA: The approval of the permit application is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

The requirements of CEQA have been satisfied in that the IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC (Project) Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2024030755) has been prepared for the Project and the Planning Commission has adopted environmental findings, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, certified the Final EIR, and adopted the MMRP concurrent with this Resolution.

2. General Plan Consistency: The use or project proposed is consistent with the General Plan.

The project site is designated Light Industrial (“LI”) on the General Plan Land Use Element Map. The LI designation “provides for a variety of light industrial uses that are non-polluting and which can co-exist with surrounding land uses and which do not create smoke, gas, dust, noise, vibration, soot, or glare which might be obnoxious or offensive to persons residing or conducting business in the City.” The proposed industrial use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the LI designation, as it is not expected to generate obnoxious or offensive conditions, as documented in detail in the various technical studies prepared for the project and included in the project’s EIR. Furthermore, the maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the LI designation is 0.6:1.0 and the proposed facility meets this requirement with a FAR of 0.43:1.0. Lastly, as detailed in the “General Plan Policy Compliance Table” (attached as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference), the project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan and all applicable goals and policies.

Item: 9
823
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

3. Zoning Code: The use, activity, or improvement(s) proposed by the application is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code.

The project site is located in the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district in the Pacific Commercentre Planned Community, which requires a Site Development Permit for the development of the new industrial building.

The LI zoning district is intended to provide for a broad range of industrial uses as specified in the Lake Forest Zoning Code Section 9.72.090 (NonResidential Land Use Matrix), column “I.” Pursuant to this Code section, the proposed office, manufacturing and warehouse uses are “Permitted Uses” in this zoning district.

With the approval of this Site Development Permit, the proposed project is in compliance with all development standards of the zoning district, including but not limited to the required minimum setbacks, maximum building height, and minimum boundary landscaping depths. Additionally, the proposed circulation and parking layout was designed in compliance with all applicable requirements in Chapter 9.168 of the Zoning Code, including but not limited to the parking stall size requirements and the drive aisle minimum width requirements. Furthermore, the 262 off-street parking stalls proposed at the site exceed the City’s parking requirement for the proposed uses (261 parking stalls). Furthermore, as conditioned, the project will comply with the water efficient landscape requirements, in Zoning Code section 9.146.110.

Based on employment generation factors in Zoning Code Section

9.160.030(D), the proposed building is subject to Zoning Code Chapter

9.160 (Facility Design Requirements), which includes regulations related to carpool and vanpool parking stalls, bicycle parking, shower and locker facilities, a commuter information area, rideshare vehicle loading areas, and transit/bus stop shelters. The proposed site plan shows the location for the required carpool parking stalls, vanpool parking stalls, bicycle parking spaces, and rideshare loading parking stalls, in compliance with Zoning Code Chapter 9.160 requirements. Additionally, the proposed floor plan provides for the required shower facilities, locker facilities, and commuter information area also required by Zoning Code Chapter 9.160. This resolution includes conditions of approval that ensure compliance with standards in Zoning Code Chapter 9.160, as noted on the plans. In accordance with Zoning Code Section 9.160.040, this resolution also includes a condition of approval requiring the applicant to design and construct a bus shelter at the existing bus stop on the northwest corner of the intersection of Dimension Drive and Commercentre Drive/Enterprise Item: 9
824
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

Way. As such, the project as conditioned, is in compliance with Chapter

9.160.

Accordingly, the project, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of the City’s Zoning Code.

4. Compatibility: The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed use will not create significant noise, traffic, or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable, detrimental or incompatible with other permitted uses in the vicinity.

The project site is bordered to the north, south, and west by existing oneand two-story industrial buildings that include a mix of permitted uses, including office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses. The recently constructed Meadows residential development which consists of singlefamily residences, a senior apartment complex, and local parks, is located to the northeast/east of the project site.

This project’s EIR includes a noise and vibration study, which considered the site topography and the shielding provided by the proposed building, and the proposed 16 ft. high, 60 ft. long wall at the eastern end of the loading docks. The noise study concluded that, with compliance of the regulatory compliance measures identified in the EIR, the project’s construction and operation would not have any significant noise or vibration impacts on the surrounding uses, including the Meadows residential development.

The project’s EIR also included a traffic impact analysis (TIA), which evaluated level of service (LOS) on the intersections surrounding the project site under various scenarios, including before and after implementation of the project and other anticipated projects in the vicinity.

Based on the results of this TIA, implementation of the proposed project, including the proposed off-site improvements at the five intersections, would not result in any significant impacts to the surrounding roadway system. The evaluation of the study area intersection LOS showed that the addition of project traffic would not cause an intersection operation to deteriorate below the City’s performance threshold. Additionally, as designed, all inbound and outbound truck turning movements at the study area intersections are considered feasible.

The project site is not connected to the adjacent Meadows residential development by any streets or walkways. The proposed building would be setback approximately 150-160 feet from the side/rear yard property lines Item: 9
825
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

of the adjacent single-family residential properties along Burwood Street.

There are no proposed modifications to the block wall and landscape buffers that separate the Meadows residential development and the industrial area. However, the proposed project includes the installation of additional landscaping, including additional trees, along the northeastern corner of the project site, adjacent to the Meadows residential development. This new landscaping will further reduce the visibility of the project site as viewed from the Meadows residential development.

Furthermore, the project is designed so that the truck dock and loading area of the proposed building are oriented to the southeast (i.e., not facing the residential properties), are located over 200 feet away from the nearest residential property line, and would not be readily visible from the residences.

All lighting associated with the proposed project would be hooded or shielded to focus the light downward and prevent light spillage onto adjacent properties. The Applicant has provided a photometric plan that shows low-level illumination at the property lines adjacent to the light industrial areas and no illumination at the property line adjacent to the residential property. The proposed building materials are typical of those found in the surrounding areas, are non-reflective, and would not create unusual or isolated glare effects that would affect daytime visibility or views in the project vicinity.

Overall, the proposed building is compatible with the architecture of the existing industrial buildings in the Pacific Commercentre Planned Community. The proposed building would be constructed of architecturally enhanced tilt-up concrete panels and would be painted varying shades of gray with a blue accent. The building architecture utilizes scoring, color transitions, and windows to provide articulation to the facades of the building. The truck doors, which would be painted to match the building, would be located on the south elevation of the building, and would not be visible from the surrounding streets or residential properties.

Compatibility with surrounding uses is further achieved by additional conditions of approval that impose, among other things, a “Quiet Zone” on the internal driveway adjacent to the Meadows that provides additional operational restrictions between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., limiting the number of truck trips to the numbers analyzed in the EIR, restricting trucks’ use of the drive aisle on the north corner of the property that leads to Bake Parkway, and adding additional sign requirements.

These conditions further ensure the peace and tranquility of the surrounding uses, particularly the adjacent residential neighborhood.

Item: 9
826
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

As such, based on the City’s analysis of the project, including the information in the project’s EIR, the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed use will not create significant noise, traffic, or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable, detrimental or incompatible with other permitted uses in the vicinity.

5. General Welfare: The application will not result in conditions or circumstances contrary to the public health and safety and the general welfare.

The project, as conditioned, will be in compliance with all applicable State, County, and City design, building, and other safety related laws, codes, and regulations, including, but not limited to, the California Building Code and California Fire Code. The project was reviewed by Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) for compliance with OCFA’s codes and guidelines. This resolution includes numerous conditions of approval recommended by OCFA to ensure Code compliance and fire safety.

Additionally, the Project’s EIR included a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) (Appendix “C” of the EIR). The HRA concluded that the health risk levels to nearby sensitive receptors from project-related emissions (with the inclusion of Mitigation Measure AQ-1) of toxic air contaminants would be well below the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) HRA thresholds. As compared to the project-level thresholds of significance promulgated by SCAQMD, the cumulative emissions associated with the proposed project with implementation of MM AQ-1, combined with the mitigated emissions of the other potential future construction projects in the vicinity, would not result in a significant impact on sensitive receptors during construction. In addition, cumulative operational emissions would be below the SCAQMD's HRA thresholds. As such the HRA concludes that there will be no significant air quality impacts that would significantly affect public health.

Conditions of approval were imposed on the project to protect the public safety, health, and general welfare. Those additional conditions include a “Quiet Zone” on the internal driveway adjacent to the Meadows that provides additional operational restrictions between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., limiting the number of truck trips to the numbers analyzed in the EIR, restricting trucks’ use of the drive aisle on the north corner of the property that leads to Bake Parkway, and adding additional sign requirements. These additional conditions of approval will lessen noise impacts and will reduce truck traffic near residential uses.

Item: 9
827
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

Lastly, the project includes best management practices as required by the project’s Water Quality Management Plan, to ensure the project does not negatively impact water quality. Therefore, the application will not result in conditions or circumstances contrary to the public health and safety and the general welfare.

6. Development Fees for Provision of Public Facilities.

Pursuant to the LFMC, the development will be subject to payment of all applicable development fees at the time of building permit issuance.

7. City Design Guidelines: The project has been reviewed in accordance with Citywide Design Guidelines and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Guidelines.

The Citywide Design Guidelines provide general guidelines for new development in the City. These guidelines address the site’s layout, architecture/building design, and landscaping. The project site is located in the Pacific Commercentre/Baker Ranch Business Park Area. As stated in the Guidelines: “The Design Guidelines should be viewed as qualitative rather than mandatory development standards and may be interpreted with some flexibility.” Accordingly, a project does not need to comply with every design guideline if the project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Design Guidelines. The project complies with the applicable design guidelines, as summarized below:
• Transitions in Land Use section of the Design Guidelines - The building would be located over 150 feet from the closest property line to a single-family residence, and an approximately 60-foot-wide (minimum) on-site landscaped slope would buffer the industrial project from the shared property line of the adjacent single-family residential community.
• Architecture and Building Design section of the Design Guidelines - The building architecture would utilize scoring, color transitions, and windows to provide articulation to long facades of the building to create visual interest.
• Architecture and Building Design section of the Design Guidelines - The building architecture features low, medium, and high elevation elements .
• Architecture and Building Design section of the Design Guidelines - The main building entrance, which faces Enterprise Way, would be Item: 9
828
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

emphasized with vertical and horizontal bands, windows, and decorative light sconces. Building articulation would be provided at the entrance by changes in the façade planes and height variation in roof line. These architectural features make the main entrance easily identifiable and the architectural focal point of the building . • Architecture and Building Design section of the Design Guidelines - The building has been designed with a built-in rooftop well to screen the rooftop mechanical equipment.
• Vehicular Access/Circulation/Parking section of the Design Guidelines - The vehicular entrances to the site would be flanked by landscaping that includes trees, hedges and landscaped berms.
• Parking Lot Landscaping section of the Design Guidelines - The project would maintain and/or enhance the existing perimeter landscaping around the entire site, which screens the parking areas.

Accordingly, the project has been reviewed in accordance with the Citywide Design Guidelines and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Guidelines.

SECTION 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS. The Planning Commission hereby takes the following actions:

1. Approve Site Development Permit 06-21-5437 for the demolition of an existing industrial building and the construction of a new industrial building located at 26200 Enterprise Way subject to the following conditions:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

SDP 06-21-5437
The following Conditions of Approval shall apply to the applicant for the permit or owner of the project, whichever is appropriate for the condition.

INDEMNIFICATION

1. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures), judgments, orders, Item: 9
829
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

and decisions (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act, Community Redevelopment Law, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state, or local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a court of competent jurisdiction.

It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action.

2. Expiration: Site Development Permit No. 06-21-5437 shall expire 24 months from the date of this approval if either building permits for the project have not been issued or if the use has not been established, and an extension of time has not been approved by the Director of Community Development. (PLNG)

3. The Planning Division processes discretionary applications on a deposit basis. Deposit funds are provided by applicants/developers to cover the actual costs associated with staff time and resources utilized in processing an application. If, at any time, the cost to process the application exceeds the deposit on file, additional funds shall be deposited by the applicant/developer. A final accounting for this project will be prepared following the Planning Commission’s decision on the project and if needed, a request for additional funds will be provided to the applicant. Should additional funds be required, the applicant shall submit a check or money order, payable to the City of Lake Forest, for the additional funds. (PLNG) The applicant shall obtain a grading permit issued by the Public Works Department. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the following shall be completed:

4. The applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department for review and approval a site-specific final drainage study, including supporting hydraulic and hydrological data to the Public Works Department for approval. The Item: 9
830
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

Study shall include all off-site and on-site storm water runoff impacts. In addition, the Study shall identify the project’s contribution to storm water runoff and shall provide locations and sizes of catch basins and system connections points and all downstream drainage mitigation measures. The Drainage Plan shall make provisions to ensure that the on-site drainage shall be in compliance with the NPDES guidelines. (PW)

5. The applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department for review and approval a final grading plan showing building footprints, new and revised pads and elevations of finished grades, drainage routes, retaining walls, erosion control, slope easements and other pertinent information. The plans must include all applicable plan sheets listed below. The final plan shall be 24” x 36”, ink on mylar, with elevations to nearest 0.01-foot, scale 1” = 20’ and provided electronically. A plan check deposit shall be posted prior to checking and total checking fees, based on City’s consultant’s charges and City’s administrative costs shall be paid prior to its approval. The Grading Plan shall make provisions to ensure that the on-site drainage shall be in compliance with the NPDES guidelines.
a. Title Sheet
b. General and other applicable notes.
c. Grading plan.
d. Demolition plan.
e. Erosion control plan.
f. Drainage plans and details.
g. Existing drainage facilities.
h. Typical sections at adjoining properties showing all details of drainage.
i. Landscape and Irrigation (PW)

6. The applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department for review and approval a geotechnical report that addresses all applicable project parameters (i.e., site drainage, structural drainage, structural setbacks, infiltration capabilities). (PW)

7. The applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department for review and approval Street Improvement Plans showing all proposed street grading and drainage improvements within the public right-of-way. The Plan shall show all proposed improvements fronting the project and shall clearly depict the limits of construction. (PW)

8. The applicant shall demonstrate to the Public Works Department that coverage has been obtained under California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Industrial Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board Item: 9
831
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number or provide documentation that the WDID threshold requirement does not require a NOI thus not requiring a WDID. (PW)

9. If the project meets or exceeds the WDID threshold, the applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under California’s General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Control Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number to the Lake Forest Development Services Department. The applicant shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and shall be available for review on request. (PW)

10. The applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department for review and approval a Water Quality Management Plan that:
a. Adheres to the City’s water quality requirements for land development which are documented on the City’s website.
(https://www.lakeforestca.gov/departments/public_works/environmental_ compliance/water_quality_requirements_for_land_development.php) b. Addresses Site Design BMPs such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or “zero discharge” areas, and conserving natural areas.
c. Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Local Implementation Plan (LIP).
d. Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the LIP. e. Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs.
f. Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs.
g. Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. (PW)

11. The applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department for review and approval a precise landscape and irrigation construction plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the project consistent with the landscape plans approved by the Planning Commission. The plans shall also include Item: 9
832
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

new landscaping in any existing landscape areas where the landscaping has not been maintained. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be in compliance with the requirements of the City’s Water Efficient Landscape regulations (LFMC section 9.146.110) and the City’s Guidelines for Implementation of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. (PW)

12. The construction contractor shall prepare and submit a haul route plan for construction traffic for review and approval by the Public Works Department. (PW)

13. Prior to submittal of any fire master plans or architectural plans to the OCFA, the applicant or responsible party shall attend a pre-submittal meeting with an OCFA plan reviewer. Call OCFA Planning & Development Services at 714-573-6108 at least two weeks in advance to arrange for scheduling and payment for the pre-submittal meeting. (OCFA)

14. The applicant or responsible party shall submit the plan(s) listed below to the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) for review and approval. a) Fire master plan (service code PR145). Fire master plan shall include the proposed gates. (OCFA)

15. Irrevocable reciprocal access easements for emergency access purposes to the benefit of the City of Lake Forest shall be recorded concurrently with the final map or, where no final map is required, prior to approval of the fire master plan. (OCFA)

16. The applicant or responsible party shall arrange with the appropriate city, county, or state public works department or agency for installation of traffic pre-emption devices on each traffic signal installed, relocated, or similarly modified as part of this project. (OCFA)

17. The project Applicant/Developer shall provide a letter to the Director of Community Development Department, or designee, stating that they have retained a qualified paleontologist (defined as a practicing paleontologist who is recognized in the paleontological community and proficient in vertebrate paleontology) who is listed on the County of Orange list of certified paleontologists.

The qualified paleontologist shall submit to the City, a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for this project. The PRIMP shall include the methods that will be used to protect paleontological resources that may exist within the project site, as well as procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification, curation into a repository, Item: 9
833
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

and preparation of a report at the conclusion of grading. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.

The City shall not issue a grading permit for the project until the letter and PRIMP, both referenced above, have been received. (MM GEO-3)

18. The Construction Contractor shall obtain coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002) (Construction General Permit).

This shall include submission of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs), including a Notice of Intent for coverage under the permit to the SWRCB via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTs). The Construction Contractor shall provide the Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) to the Lake Forest Public Works Director, or designee, to demonstrate proof of coverage under the Construction General Permit. Project construction shall not be initiated until a WDID is received from the SWRCB and is provided to the City, or designee.

A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer in accordance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and submitted via SMARTs. These include:

Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control, site management/housekeeping/waste management, management of nonstorm water discharges, run-on and runoff controls, and BMP inspection/maintenance/repair activities. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association’s Stormwater Best Management Handbook: Construction.

The SWPPP shall include a construction site monitoring program that identifies requirements for dry weather visual observations of pollutants at all discharge locations, and as appropriate (depending on the Risk Level), sampling of the site effluent and receiving waters. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner shall be responsible for implementing the BMPs at the site and performing all required monitoring and inspection/maintenance/repair activities.

Upon completion of construction and stabilization of the site, a Notice of Termination shall be submitted via SMARTs. (RCM WQ-1)

19. The Project Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of an Erosion Control Plan in compliance with Article XIII of Chapter 8.30 of the City of Lake Forest Municipal Code from the Lake Forest Public Works Director, or designee. The Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted to the City of Lake Item: 9
834
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

Forest Building Official for approval by September 15 each year for projects under a grading permit. All grading shall be undertaken in accordance with the BMPs for pollution prevention adopted by the City, the City’s NPDES Permit regulating discharges into and from its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), and any other conditions, requirements and water quality management plans adopted by the City. Additionally, the project Applicant shall adhere to the erosion and sediment control and water quality system maintenance requirements listed in Section 8.30.154 of the Lake Forest Municipal Code. (RCM WQ-2)

20. The project Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the Lake Forest Public Works Director, or designee. The project shall implement project design features identified in the Final WQMP. The Final WQMP shall demonstrate that any proposed on-site development plan includes BMPs for source control, pollution prevention, site design, low impact development (LID) implementation, and structural treatment control. BMPs shall be designed and implemented to address 303(d) listed pollutants and retain the project site’s minimum design capture volume and hydromodification volume to ensure that post-development storm water runoff volume or time of concentration does not exceed pre-development storm water runoff by more than 10 percent of the 2-year peak flow in accordance with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order Number R8-2009-0030, NPDES Permit No. CAS618030, as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062, also known as the North Orange County MS4 permit. The proposed LID BMPs specified in the Final WQMP shall be incorporated into the grading and development plans submitted to the City of Lake Forest for review and approval. Periodic maintenance of any required BMPs and landscaped areas during project occupancy and operation shall be in accordance with the schedule outlined in the Final WQMP. (RCM WQ-3)

21. The project Applicant shall submit and obtain approval of the Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses to the Lake Forest Director of Public Works, or designee, and the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD). The Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses shall be prepared consistent with the requirements of the Orange County Hydrology Manual (Orange County Environment Agency 1986) and Orange County Hydrology Manual Addendum No. 1 (Orange County Environment Agency 1996), or subsequent guidance manuals. The Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses shall confirm that the on-site storm drains, on-site detention basins, and any other drainage structures are appropriately sized to accommodate stormwater runoff from the design storm so that the peak Item: 9
835
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

flow of stormwater discharge from the project site is less than existing conditions. The Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses shall also demonstrate that the detention facilities meet the hydromodification requirements of the Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County (North Orange County MS4 Permit), Order R8-2009-0030, NPDES No. CAS618030 (as amended by Order No. R8- 2010-0062). In compliance with the hydromodification requirements, the post-project runoff discharge volume for the 2-year storm shall not exceed that of the predevelopment condition by more than 5 percent, and the time of concentration of post-development runoff for the 2 year storm event shall not be greater than 5 percent less than that of the predevelopment condition. The Director of the City of Lake Forest Public Works Department, or designee, shall ensure that the drainage facilities specified in the Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses are incorporated into the final project design. (RCM WQ-4)

22. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation.

The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “grounddisturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a grounddisturbing activity.

The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, culturalrelated materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe. (MM TCR-1)
Item: 9
836
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

Prior to the final inspection for the grading permit, the following shall be completed:

23. The project Applicant shall provide final project plans to applicable City of Lake Forest (City) staff for review and approval showing that the project, including site preparation and construction of proposed buildings, has been designed and will be constructed in conformance with applicable provisions of the most current California Building Code at the time of City review, the City’s Building Code, and the specifications cited in the Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical, dated November 2021. (MM GEO-1)

24. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall submit a Final Testing and Observation Geotechnical Report for Rough Grading to the City of Lake Forest Director of Public Works/City Engineer, or designee. (MM GEO-1) The applicant shall obtain a building permit issued by the Building Division. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the construction of the building, the following shall be completed:

25. The final Site Development Permit conditions of approval shall be printed on each plan set submitted for building permits. (PLNG)

26. The applicant or responsible party shall submit the plan(s) listed below, if applicable, to the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) for review and approval.
a. architectural (service codes PR200-PR285), when required by the OCFA “Plan Submittal Criteria Form”
b. architectural (service codes PR264-PR272)
c. architectural (service codes PR212-PR220, abbreviated review) d. alternative methods and materials (AM&M) request (service code PR910), if any portion of the structure will be occupied prior to completion of the entire structure. Phased occupancy AM&M requests shall accompany the architectural submittal;
e. tanks storing hazardous materials (service codes PR300-PR305); f. hazardous materials compliance and chemical classification (service codes PR315-PR328);
g. hazardous equipment, processes, or operations (service codes PR345- PR360);
h. high-piled storage (service code PR330);
Item: 9
837
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

i. refrigeration and vapor detection/alarm system (service codes PR340 and PR500-PR520), if required by the Refrigeration Disclosure worksheet in OCFA guideline G-02 or the California Fire or Mechanical Codes; j. battery (service code PR375), for any system containing an aggregate quantity of electrolyte in excess of 50 gallons;
k. smoke control rational analysis, report, and other required documentation (service codes PR380-PR382).
l. emergency responder radio system design (service code PR928); this submittal may be deferred when acceptable to the Building Department, but the required conduit must be installed prior to concealing interior construction;
m. underground piping for private hydrants and fire sprinkler systems (service code PR470-PR475);
n. underground piping (service code PR470-PR475), if private hydrants are installed/modified or a fire sprinkler system is required by code or installed voluntarily;
o. fire sprinkler system (service codes PR400-PR465);
p. alternate methods and materials (AM&M) request (PR910). (OCFA)

27. The applicant or responsible party shall enter into a secured fire protection agreement with OCFA Strategic Services (714-573-6199) to mitigate additional fire service impacts resulting from the project. (OCFA)

28. The applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Public Works encroachment permit for street improvements and traffic signal modification plans, collectively known as construction plans, for the following five intersections as summarized below and shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission.
a. Bake Parkway/Commercentre Drive (Exhibit 1-1 of the approved plans). Modifications shall be made to the traffic signal to accommodate protected eastbound and westbound left-turn phasing (from split phasing). Lane geometrics shall be modified for the westbound approach to accommodate dual left-turn lanes and a shared through/right-turn lane. Additionally, modifications shall be made to the traffic signal equipment.
b. Dimension Drive/Bake Parkway (Exhibit 5-1 of the approved plans).

Modifications shall be made to the median to accommodate a 430-foot westbound left-turn lane. Additionally, modifications shall be made to the traffic signal equipment.

Item: 9
838
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

c. Dimension Drive/Commercentre Drive – Enterprise Way (Exhibit 3-2 of the approved plans). Modifications shall be made to the traffic signal to accommodate protected eastbound and westbound left-turn phasing (from permissive phase). The curb radius of the southeast corner at this intersection shall be modified to accommodate wheelbase-67 (WB-67) truck turns (northbound right turn).

Additionally, modifications shall be made to the traffic signal equipment.
d. Lake Forest Drive/Dimension Drive (Exhibit 6-1 of the approved plans). Modifications shall be made to accommodate a 250-foot northbound left-turn lane and a 205-foot eastbound left-turn lane.

Additionally, modifications shall be made to the traffic signal equipment.
e. Lake Forest Drive/Rancho Parkway (Exhibit 4-2 of the approved plans). Modifications shall be made to accommodate a new 225-foot northbound right-turn lane, a 470-foot northbound left-turn lane, and a 440-foot southbound left-turn lane. Additionally, modifications shall be made to the traffic signal equipment.

Said construction plans shall be signed and stamped by a California Licensed Civil Engineer and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Director or designee.

In the event that multiple development projects are conditioned to complete the same off-site improvements, the responsibility to design the improvements shall rest with the developer that proceeds with development first, as determined by issuance of a building permit.

Nothing in this condition shall preclude the respective developers from entering into private cost-sharing agreement; but the City shall not be a party to or responsible for enforcement of such agreements. (TENG)

29. All applicable development impact fees shall be paid to the appropriate agencies. (BLDG)

30. A “Landscape Documentation Package” and “Landscape Submittal sheet”, which shall include the required Water Efficient Landscape worksheets as described in the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, and a signed/stamped Certificate of Landscape Design certifying that the proposed landscaping will be in compliance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, shall be included with the landscape and irrigation plan set and submitted for review and approval. (LFMC Sec. 9.146.110) (PLNG)
Item: 9
839
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

31. Phased occupancy of this structure shall be permitted only with prior approval from OCFA and the Building Official. Requests for phased occupancy shall be submitted for evaluation by OCFA as an alternate materials and methods proposal (PR910) accompanying the architectural submittal. Such requests shall be made prior to start of construction only. (OCFA)

32. The project applicant shall provide written evidence that the construction drawings include all required building improvements to accommodate the certification through the LEED Volume Program. (PLNG)

33. The project Applicant shall submit construction plans to the City of Lake Forest verifying that all construction equipment used during construction of the project shall be equipped with Tier 4 Interim engines or the most effective Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) available for the engine type (Tier 4 engines automatically meet this requirement as certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). During construction activities, the equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned in accordance with manufacturer specifications. (MM-AQ-1)

34. The Project Applicant shall submit construction plans to the City of Lake Forest that state that the project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low volatile organic compounds (VOC) paints for nonresidential interior and exterior surfaces and low VOC paint for parking lot surfaces. Super-Compliant low VOC paints have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits put forth by SCAQMD Rule 1113. Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10 grams per liter (g/L) of VOC. (MM-AQ-2)

35. The project Applicant shall consult with the City on the status of Western Realco Projects 1 and 2. If in this consultation, the City identifies that the construction schedule of Western Realco Projects 1 and 2, and the IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC Project (proposed project) will be under construction at the same time, the proposed project shall equip all construction equipment during the overlapping period with Tier 4 Final engines or the most effective Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) available for the engine type (Tier 4 engines automatically meet this requirement) as certified by the California Air Resources Board. The equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned in accordance with manufacturer specifications. The project Applicant shall submit construction plans to the City of Lake Forest denoting the projected equipment Tier rating that will be used during the construction period. (MM-AQ-3) Item: 9
840
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

36. Regulatory compliance measures RCM CUL-1 and RCM CUL-2, documented in the EIR shall be documented on the grading plans. (RCM CUL-1/RCM CUL-2)

37. The project Applicant/Developer shall retain the services of a licensed corrosion engineer to conduct additional site testing and final design evaluation regarding the possible on-site presence of significant volumes of corrosive soils. At a minimum, the corrosion engineer shall (1) verify the soluble sulfate concentrations of the soils that are present at pad grade within the building areas at the completion of rough grading; (2) provide detailed corrosion protection measures for cast iron and/or ductile iron pipes, as necessary; (3) confirm that soluble sulfates and chloride levels in the on-site soils do not warrant specialized concrete mix design; and (4) confirm that nitrates present in the on-site soil do not warrant protection for copper materials.

The Director of the City of Lake Forest Public Works Department, or designee, shall verify that the project plans incorporate the corrosion protection measures of the corrosion engineer. (MM GEO-2)

38. A report of findings shall be prepared to document the results of the monitoring program prepared by the Applicant-hired qualified paleontologist. The report shall be provided to the Director of Community Development, or designee. (MM GEO-3)

39. The construction plan set shall:
a) Provide for installation of all necessary infrastructure, including conduit, wiring, and sufficient electrical capacity, to support the future installation of on-site electric truck charging stations;
b) Designate sufficient space to accommodate a minimum of four electric trucks charging simultaneously. (MM GHG-1)

40. After a specific project equipment list has been determined and prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following actions shall be implemented 1) A qualified structural engineer, as approved by the Director of Community Development, or designee shall identify all structures that are located within the distances established in Table 2 of Section 11.16.090 of the City’s Municipal Code and that have the potential to be affected by ground-borne vibration originating from the construction; and 2) A qualified acoustical engineer shall compile a list of proposed construction equipment and compare to the City's accepted vibration criteria. If it is determined that the proposed equipment would generate Item: 9
841
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

vibration levels below the City's standard of 0.3 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV), no further vibration assessment is necessary.

However, if vibration levels would potentially exceed the City's standard of

0.3 in/sec PPV, the Project Applicant shall develop a Vibration Monitoring and Construction Contingency Plan for approval by the Director of Community Development, or designee, to ensure that vibration levels would not exceed the City's accepted vibration damage criteria of 0.3 in/sec PPV. If a Vibration Monitoring and Construction Contingency Plan is deemed necessary, monitoring of vibration during initial construction activities shall be required. Monitoring results may indicate the need for more or less intensive measurements. The Vibration Monitoring and Construction Contingency Plan, at the discretion of the Director of Community Development or designee, shall include the following items as necessary:

Identification of structures where monitoring would be conducted; • A vibration monitoring schedule;
• Defined structure-specific vibration limits;
• Photographic, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions; and
• Identification of construction contingencies for when vibration levels approach the limits.

When vibration levels approach the limits specified in Section 11.16.090 of the City’s Municipal Code, construction shall be suspended and contingencies identified in the approved Vibration Monitoring and Construction Contingency Plan shall be implemented as necessary to lower vibration levels, which could include shielding or protecting the affected building from potential vibration impacts as a possible alternative to changing construction methods. (RCM NOI-2)

41. The site plan and/or floor plans in the construction drawings shall clearly show the location of the required carpool parking stalls, vanpool parking stalls, ride share vehicle loading area, bicycle parking, shower facilities, locker facilities, and commuter information area, in accordance with the regulations in Zoning Code Section 9.160.040. (RCM TRA-1)

42. The applicant shall retain a licensed Civil Engineer by the State of California to prepare Civil Street Improvement Plans for the installation of a bus shelter with solar-powered lights, a bus bench, and a trash receptacle for the existing bus stop located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Dimension Drive at Commercentre Drive/Enterprise Way, in accordance Item: 9
842
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

with the regulations in Zoning Code Section 9.16.040 and Orange County Transportation Authority Guidelines.

The bus stop improvements shall be designed in accordance to the standards provided in the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Transit-Supportive Design Guidelines (June 30, 2021 or latest edition). As appropriate, the existing sidewalk shall be widened within the existing rightof-way (ROW) to a minimum eight feet wide to accommodate wheelchair bus boardings. If that is not feasible due to ROW constraints, then the sidewalk shall be widened to greatest extent practical.

The project Applicant shall submit these Civil Street Improvement Plans to the City’s Engineering Division and obtain a Public Works Encroachment Permit to construct the improvements to the existing bus stop. (RCM TRA1)

43. To reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and improve first-/last-mile access to transit, the applicant/developer shall install pedestrian-scale lighting along the on-site pedestrian pathway between the primary building entrance and the public right-of-way, leading to the existing bus stops.

Lighting shall provide adequate nighttime visibility for pedestrians (generally achieving a maintained average of 1.0 foot-candle), avoid glare, and limit spillover to adjacent properties in accordance with Lake Forest Municipal Code section 9.72.085(3). Fixtures shall include automatic duskto-dawn controls. A lighting plan depicting fixture types, locations, heights, and illumination levels shall be submitted by the Applicant to the City for review and approval. (MM TRA-2)

44. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the later of the following: (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) prior to approval of final building permit, a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs. (MM TCR-1)
Within 3 days of the start of any construction, vegetation clearing, or grading activities (including disking and demolition), the following shall be completed:
a. If construction/ground disturbing activities, including demolition, occurs between February 1 and August 31, a Qualified Biologist shall conduct a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds within 3 days of the Item: 9
843
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

start of any construction, vegetation clearing, or grading activities (including disking and demolition) to ensure that no nesting birds are disturbed during construction. The Qualified Biologist shall be retained by the Construction Contractor. The Qualified Biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests would occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer. In general, the no-disturbance buffer shall be a minimum of 50 feet for passerines and 250 feet for raptors. However, a species’ sensitivity to disturbance can vary among species, the level of noise or construction disturbance, and the line of sight between the nest and the disturbance.

Limits of construction to avoid an active nest shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor, with experience in monitoring active nests, shall be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor daily all active nests to observe the efficacy of the no-disturbance buffers and to document any new nesting occurrences to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Adversely affected nesting behavior, as determined by the biological monitor, includes, but is not limited to, disrupting reproductive behavior, nest abandonment, and/or prolonged absences of parents while incubating eggs. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction, vegetation clearing, or grading activities (including disking and demolition) within the buffer area can occur. Field memorandums shall be prepared by the biological monitor within 24 hours of each day of monitoring and shall be submitted to the City of Lake Forest to document compliance with the applicable resource protection measures. (RCM BIO-1)
During grading and construction of the project, the following shall be completed:

45. Before commencement of construction, the applicant or responsible party shall attend a pre-construction meeting with an OCFA inspector. Call OCFA Inspection Scheduling at 714-573-6150 at least five days in advance to schedule and pay for the pre-construction meeting. (OCFA)

46. After installation of required fire access roadways and hydrants, the applicant shall receive clearance from the OCFA prior to bringing combustible building materials on-site. Call OCFA Inspection Scheduling at 714-573-6150 with the Service Request number of the approved fire master Item: 9
844
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

plan at least five days in advance to schedule the lumber drop inspection. (OCFA)

47. Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays. No construction shall be permitted outside of these hours or on legal City of Lake Forest holidays, without a specific exemption issued by the City of Lake Forest. (RCM NOI1)

48. Project construction activities shall be required to comply with the standard SCAQMD rules and requirements for fugitive dust control, which includes, but is not limited to:
a. All active construction areas shall be watered a minimum of two (2) times daily;
b. Speed on unpaved roads shall be less than 15 mph;
c. Any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway shall be swept or washed at the site access points within 30 minutes;
d. Any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material shall be covered or watered twice daily;
e. All operations on any unpaved surface shall be suspended if winds exceed 15 mph;
f. Access points shall be washed or swept daily;
g. Construction sites shall be sandbagged for erosion control; h. Nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers shall be applied according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more); i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered, and maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard space in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) section 23114; j. Unpaved and gravel construction access roads shall be paved or have gravel at least 100 feet onto the site from the main road and use gravel aprons at truck exits;
k. The ground cover of disturbed areas shall be replaced as quickly possible;
l. A fugitive dust control plan shall be prepared and submitted to SCAQMD prior to the start of construction. (PW)
Item: 9
845
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

49. Prior to concealing interior construction, the applicant or responsible party shall submit and obtain approval of the plan(s) listed below to the OCFA for review and approval:
a. sprinkler monitoring system (service code PR500)
b. fire alarm system (service code PR500-PR520)
c. fire sprinkler system (service codes PR430-PR455).
d. hood and duct extinguishing system (service code PR335) (OCFA)

50. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during excavation, grading, or construction activities, work shall cease within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist from the Orange County List of Qualified Archaeologists has evaluated the find in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines to determine whether the find constitutes a “unique archaeological resource,” as defined in Section 21083.2(g) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC). Personnel of the proposed project shall not collect or move any archaeological materials and associated materials. Construction activity may continue unimpeded beyond 100 feet from the find on other portions of the project site. The found deposits shall be treated in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines, including those set forth in PRC Section 21083.2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Director of Community Development, or designee, shall ensure that this regulatory compliance measure is documented on the grading plans. (RCM CUL-1)

51. If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to State PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which would determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials, preservation of Native American human remains and associated grave goods in place, relinquishment of Native American human remains and associated items to the descendants for treatment, or any other Item: 9
846
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

culturally appropriate treatment. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Director of Community Development, or designee, shall ensure that this regulatory compliance measure is documented on the grading plans. (RCM CUL-2)

52. During grading, an on-site inspection shall be conducted by the Applicanthired Project Geotechnical Consultant and the City of Lake Forest Director of Public Works/ City Engineer, or designee, to ensure compliance with geotechnical specifications as incorporated into project plans. (MM GEO-1)

53. During grading, on-site inspection shall be conducted by the Project Geotechnical Consultant and City of Lake Forest Director of Public Works/City Engineer, or designee, to ensure compliance with the corrosion protection measures of the corrosion engineer, as incorporated into the project plans. (MM GEO-2)

54. During construction, excavation and grading activities in deposits with high paleontological sensitivity shall be monitored by a paleontological monitor as defined by the PRIMP. No monitoring is required for excavations in deposits with no or low paleontological sensitivity (i.e., engineered fill soils).

If paleontological resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbance, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily redirect construction away from the area of the find in order to assess its significance. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not present, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected, and a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find for significance.

Collected resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collections of a scientific institution prepared by the Applicant-hired qualified paleontologist. (MM GEO-3)

55. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. (MM TCR-2)
Item: 9
847
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

56. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed.

Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.

Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance. (MM TCR-3)
Prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for the building, the following shall be completed:

57. The street improvements and traffic signal modifications for the five intersections shall be completed in accordance with the City-approved plans and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or designee.

Where multiple projects are conditioned to complete the same improvements, responsibility shall rest with the developer of the project first reaching final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Developers may enter into private cost-sharing agreements, but the City shall not be a party to or responsible for such agreements. (TENG)

58. The applicant shall submit a letter from the project’s registered civil engineer certifying that the finished grading has been completed in accordance with the City-approved grading plan and that all structural Best Management Practices from approved Final Water Quality Management Plan have been constructed and installed. (ENG)

59. The applicant shall submit a letter of certification to the Director of Community Development from the project architect certifying that all improvements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Determination of consistency shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development. (PLNG)

60. The applicant shall have installed all landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved construction plans. The applicant shall Item: 9
848
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

submit a landscape installation verification letter from a licensed landscape architect certifying that the landscaping for the project was installed in accordance with the approved plans. (PLNG)

61. Any landscaping that has not been maintained or was damaged during construction, shall be replaced with the same or a similar plant species (PLNG)

62. In accordance the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines, the landscape architect shall submit a completed and signed “Landscape Installation Certificate of Completion” for all the landscaping at the site. As detailed in the certificate, the following items shall also be completed:
a. Irrigation scheduling parameters used to set the controller; b. Landscape and irrigation maintenance schedule;
c. Irrigation audit report; and
d. Soil analysis report, if not submitted with Landscape Documentation Package, and documentation verifying implementation of the soil report recommendations. (PLNG)

63. An emergency responder digital radio system shall be provided in this structure. Refer to CFC 510 and the OCC/OCFA DAS/BDA guidelines (available at ocfa.org) for requirements. Evidence of compliance with emergency responder digital radio system design and performance criteria shall be provided prior to occupancy. (OCFA)

64. The applicant or responsible party shall submit the plan(s) listed below, if applicable, to the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) for review and approval:
a. emergency responder radio system testing (service code PR928) (OCFA)

65. All OCFA inspections shall be completed to the satisfaction of the OCFA inspector and be in substantial compliance with codes and standards applicable to the project and commensurate with the type of occupancy (temporary or final) requested. Inspections shall be scheduled at least five days in advance by calling OCFA Inspection Scheduling at 714-573-6150. (OCFA)

66. All parking stalls shall be striped in accordance with the approved plans. (PLNG)
Item: 9
849
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

67. The applicant shall ensure that mechanical equipment placed on the roof such as, but not limited to, air conditioning, heating, ventilating ducts and exhaust fans shall be screened from view through the use of approved roof screens, recessed roof wells and/or the building parapets. (PLNG)

68. The project applicant shall provide evidence that the building has been constructed in accordance with the regulations for certification through the LEED Volume program (PLNG)

69. The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall provide a letter regarding contractor compliance with project plans and required geotechnical. The letter shall be submitted to the City of Lake Forest Building Division for review and approval. (MM GEO-1)

70. All provisions of Chapter 9.160 shall be implemented, as approved on the construction drawings and civil street improvement plans, including but not limited to, the required carpool parking stalls, vanpool parking stalls, ride share vehicle loading area, bicycle parking, shower facilities, locker facilities, commuter information area, and improvements to the existing bus stop located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Dimension Drive at Commercentre Drive/Enterprise Way. (RCM TRA-1)

71. The project Applicant shall retain a licensed Civil Engineer by the State of California to prepare Civil Street Improvements and Signing & Striping Plans (collectively Construction Plans) for the implementation of bike lanes in both directions on Commercentre Drive between Alton Parkway and Dimension Drive. These bike lanes on Commercentre Drive would connect the proposed project site on Enterprise Way to the existing bike lanes on Alton Parkway, which eventually connects to the Irvine Transportation Center, a multi-model transit hub including Metrolink and Amtrak commuter train services and OCTA bus services.

Based on a preliminary design assessment, the Construction Plans shall include an asphalt slurry seal of Commercentre Drive to modify the existing lane striping for the addition of standard striped bike lanes and green bike markings. The project Applicant shall use these Construction Plans to obtain a Public Works Encroachment Permit to construct said improvements for bike lanes on Commercentre Drive. The construction of said improvements shall be completed per the plans and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The project Applicant shall use these Construction Plans to obtain a Public Works Encroachment Permit to construct said improvements for bike lanes on Commercentre Drive. (MM TRA-1)
Item: 9
850
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

72. All required lighting shall be installed and operational and shall be maintained by the property owner for the life of the project. (MM TRA-2)

73. The property owner and/or business operator shall obtain Community Development approval of sign plans (sign design and locations) for signs to be posted on-site, related to conditions #84, #85, and # 86. This signage shall be installed per the approved sign plans.

Prior to issuance of building permits for any tenant improvement plans for the building, the following shall be completed:

74. The property owner and/or business operator shall obtain Planning and Code Enforcement Division approval of sign plans (sign design and locations), for signs to be posted at each driveway entrance to the property, that includes the following information:
a. Property owner, business owner, or property management company name b. A telephone number and local contact for the public to report any problems or concerns about the property.

The property owner and/or business operator shall install the approved signage. (PLNG)

75. The tenant improvement plans shall include installation of a minimum of four electric truck charging stations at the predesignated locations. The charging stations shall be installed and operational prior to tenant occupancy of the building. (MM GHG-1)
The use shall be operated and maintained in substantial conformance with the following:

76. All trucks/trailers shall only be parked in the truck loading dock area. (PLNG)

77. The building shall not be used for any cold storage uses or any user that requires refrigerated storage. (PLNG)

78. The required parking stalls in the truck loading area shall be accessible to employees during business hours. (PLNG)

79. The applicant shall maintain signage at the site, as approved by the City, with current contact information for the public to report any problems or concerns about the property. (PLNG)
Item: 9
851
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

80. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and living condition. If necessary, plants shall be replaced in a manner that is consistent with the landscaping plan. Landscaping shall be irrigated and all irrigation systems shall be maintained in good working order. (PLNG)

81. The project site shall maintain compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 11.16 of the Lake Forest Municipal Code) at all times. (PLNG)

82. Signs, including window signage, are not a part of this approval. All signage will be subject to separate approval in compliance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and/or an approved Planned Sign Program. (PLNG)

83. The project shall be developed and maintained in substantial compliance with the site plans, landscape plans, and the building elevations approved by the Planning Commission on June 4, 2026 and on file with the City of Lake Forest Community Development Department. Minor modification or changes to these plans shall be subject to the additional review, and CEQA compliance, as determined by the Director of Community Development. (PLNG)

84. The internal driveway adjacent to The Meadows shall be designated as a Quiet Zone between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM, daily. Operations of commercial vehicles using this driveway between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM shall comply with the following: (1) Audible backup alarms (beepers) are prohibited. Vehicles shall utilize approved silent or "smart" backup warning systems, such as broadband white noise alarms or camerabased detection systems, in compliance with applicable Cal/OSHA safety requirements. (2) Engine idling is prohibited while using the designated Quiet Zone driveway. (3) The property owner shall maintain clearly visible signage at each end of the designated Quiet Zone driveway notifying drivers of the nighttime noise restrictions prior to entering the zone. The property owner and/or business park management shall notify all tenants, contractors, and vendors of these requirements in writing prior to occupancy and annually thereafter. Documentation shall be maintained on-site and available to the City upon request.

85. All commercial truck traffic shall be prohibited from utilizing the shared drive aisle at the north corner of the property, that leads to Bake Parkway.

Signage reflecting this restriction shall be maintained, as approved by the Community Development Department.

Item: 9
852
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2026-09

86. The property owner and/or business operator shall maintain signage, as approved by the Community Development Department, restricting idling at the site to 5 minutes or less.

87. Commercial truck traffic on the project site shall not exceed 15 trucks per hour between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 4 trucks per hour between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution takes effect immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Resolution or its application to any person or circumstances is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity has no effect on the other provisions or applications of the Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this extent, the provisions of this Resolution are severable. The Planning Commission hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 6. CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based are located at the City of Lake Forest City Hall, 100 Civic Center Drive, Lake Forest, CA 92630. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
Item: 9
853
Item: 9
854
Item: 9
855
Item: 9
856
Item: 9
857
Item: 9
858
Item: 9
859
Item: 9
860
Item: 9
861
Item: 9
862
Item: 9
863
Item: 9
864
Item: 9
865
Item: 9
866
Attachment 8
Item: 9
867
Main Office Phone:
310 - 798-2400
Direct Dial:
310-798-2400 Ext. 7
Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
www.cbcearthlaw.com
Douglas P. Carstens
Email Address:
[email protected]
June 18, 2026
Via Email: [email protected]
Thy Merritt, City Clerk
100 Civic Center Dr.

Lake Forest, CA 92630
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Determinations for IPT Enterprise Business Center Project (SCH No. 2024030755) and Regarding Certification of Environmental Impact Report (DEIR); Site Development Permit 6-21-5437

Dear Clerk,
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 21151 subdivision (c) and Lake Forest Municipal Code section 2.04.220, We the Meadows hereby appeals the Lake Forest Planning Commission’s decision to approve Site Development Permit 6-21-5437 and the IPT Enterprise Business Center project, as well as its adoption of the final environmental impact report (EIR) for the Project.

This Project would establish a warehouse and industrial facility within 82 feet of residences. Senior housing is located roughly 200 feet away. By virtue of its location adjacent to residences, the Project would send heavy truck traffic through a residential neighborhood populated by small children and seniors, on a nearly constant basis. The harmful health effects of diesel particulate matter and other toxic air pollutants are well known, as are the impacts of industrial noise on health, mental wellbeing, language development, and sleep. The Project will cause extensive, unacceptable impacts to the existing community that cannot and should not be overridden by the City. Alternative, environmentally-superior (quieter and less polluting) uses such as an office park must be seriously considered to comply with CEQA’s mandate to review alternatives to a project designed to “avoid or substantially lessen” a Project’s significant impacts. (Pub.

Resources Code section 21002.)
Item: 9
868

City of Lake Forest
June 18, 2026

We the Meadows’ appeal is based on the inadequacy of the EIR’s disclosure, analysis, and mitigation of the Project’s adverse impacts on:
• Air quality: the EIR fails to adequately address impacts related to air quality degradation and human health, specifically
a) Failing to recognize that national and state ambient air quality standards (AAQS) represent thresholds of significance. The EIR does not evaluate potential violations of the AAQS;
b) Failing to quantify peak (1-hour) construction emissions; c) Failing to evaluate the formation of secondary pollutants from the conversion of NOx and VOC into PM2.5; and
d) Failing to recognize the Project would violate the 1-hour NOx standards during the construction phase, and thereby failing to mitigate these impacts.
• Greenhouse gas emissions: the EIR’s disclosed emissions are so close to the chosen significance threshold as to be suspect. The EIR further admits the Project would exceed City VMT thresholds, putting it in conflict with the Scoping Plan, and that traffic mitigation would be ineffective. The EIR further fails to incorporate all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions.
• Traffic and VMT: the EIR’s Traffic Impact Analysis fails to comply with the City’s adopted Transportation Analysis Guidelines. For example, the DEIR concludes that the Project’s VMT will be addressed by the installation of bike lanes, even though the Project warehouse Project will generate scant bike traffic to be mitigated by the use of bike lanes. The EIR fails to evaluate or adopt feasible traffic mitigation options for truck traffic.

Item: 9
869

City of Lake Forest
June 18, 2026

• Nearby communities: Project proximity to residential neighborhoods will (1) Introduce heavy diesel truck traffic within 100 feet of family homes and schools; (2) Exacerbate cancer and respiratory health risks, particularly among vulnerable populations; (3) Increase air, noise, and light pollution in a currently surrounding quiet residential zone; and (4) Undermine the longterm livability, safety, and environmental integrity of the City of Lake Forest. To protect human health, the Attorney General and California Air Resources Board (CARB) recommend siting warehouse facilities “so that their property lines are at least 1,000 feet from the property lines of the nearest sensitive receptors.” This has not occurred, nor has the EIR designated a less damaging alternative as the preference to the Project. This violates the intent of the City’s 2040 General Plan. The City has emphasized the distance between homes and loading dock doors. However, loading dock location does not protect residents from the toxic emissions and noise of truck travel and ongoing truck movement near homes.

Moreover, even the loading docks will be located within 200 feet of homes, contrary to CARB guidance.
• Noise pollution: The EIR fails to adequately grapple with the intrusive noise associated with logistics facilities. Various sources, such as unloading activity, diesel truck movement, and rooftop air conditioning units, can contribute substantial noise pollution. These impacts are exacerbated by logistics facilities’ typical 24-hour, seven-days-per-week operation. While the EIR gives lip service to noise reduction, the incorporated mitigation measures are either not enforceable, or it is unclear who will be responsible for them. Moreover, the Final EIR references operational noise levels of approximately 55 dBA during daytime hours and 40 dBA during nighttime hours. Many residents find it difficult to reconcile those assumptions with the reality of continuous truck ingress and egress occurring less than 100 feet from residential homes. The assumptions used in the EIR’s analysis may not reflect real-world operating conditions and therefore lack the substantial evidence required to support the City’s findings and conclusions.

Item: 9
870

City of Lake Forest
June 18, 2026

• Light pollution: The EIR fails to discuss the cumulative night lighting impacts of the Project, as combined with several other warehouse facilities that will be located nearby. “[A]ny future project where the applicant has devoted significant time and financial resources to prepare for any regulatory review should be considered as probable future projects for the purposes of cumulative impact.” (Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, at 1127-28.) Other warehouse projects currently under consideration in the City must be evaluated for cumulative impacts. • Cumulative impacts: Throughout, the EIR minimizes or fails to address the cumulative impacts of the Project, along with the two proposed Western Realco warehouse projects. The Project’s approved conditions reference limits of 15 truck trips per hour between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 4 truck trips per hour between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. However, if the two proposed Western Realco warehouse projects are developed and operated at a similar scale, truck volumes could effectively double. The EIR does not disclose, analyze, or mitigate this community impact or the cumulative health impacts of heavy diesel truck traffic.

These concerns are underscored by deficiencies in the Project description that prevent independent confirmation of the EIR’s assumptions. The City has maintained that the Project has no specific tenant, and that the Project was intentionally designed to provide maximum flexibility for future users. At the same time, the EIR makes and relies on assumptions regarding truck activity and trip generation, operational intensity, operating hours, and general activities to inform the EIR’s assessment of traffic impacts, air quality impacts, safety hazards, and noise impacts. Residents continue to wonder how these assumptions were determined when the future tenant, operational model, logistics model, and intensity of use remain unknown. Without knowing the activities or business the Project will be used for, decisionmakers and members of the public cannot evaluate whether the EIR adequately discloses, analyzes, or mitigates the impacts of the Project.

The EIR’s “bona fide subject” must be “[t]he defined project and not some different project.” (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa v. 32nd Dist. Agric. Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 938.) In order to protect against under-reported potential impacts of an unknown tenant and use, community commenters requested that the EIR evaluate the worst-case scenario. This did not occur.

Item: 9
871

City of Lake Forest
June 18, 2026

The deficient analysis extends to the number of dock doors included within the Project. When a Commissioner asked why the project included 23 dock doors, the Applicant indicated that not all dock doors would necessarily be used, and that the EIR’s analysis was based on not using all doors. If that is truly the case, the number of permitted doors and loading docks should be reduced. Operations must be enforceably limited to those described in the EIR. Residents found the Applicant’s response difficult to reconcile with the Project’s design, which includes 23 dock doors because the number of dock doors appears to support a potentially high level of truck activity. Either the EIR must be revised to disclose, analyze, and fully mitigate the impacts of full use of all dock doors, or the Project’s dock door quantity must be capped so as not to exceed the level of impacts disclosed in the EIR. If the EIR does not analyze and mitigate the impacts of the Project using all 23 dock doors, it does not analyze all reasonably foreseeable uses of the Project, as required.

The community’s concerns about the adequacy of the City’s review and processing of the Project are explained further in the attached Draft EIR and Final EIR comments, previously submitted to the City, and incorporated here by reference. (See, Attachments 2, 3, 4.)
The community further seeks – and CEQA requires – EIR evaluation of alternative land uses that are economically viable and compatible with nearby residential communities—such as mixed-use developments (e.g., small business + residential condos), business office complexes, research, medical, or clean-tech non-industrial facilities. The Project objectives call for reimagining an underused site in a way that is economically beneficial, provides jobs, and is consistent with City land use plans. Many types of developments would meet these goals, including less-intensive or smaller versions of the same Project that would reduce community impacts. These alternatives would satisfy CEQA’s mandate that the EIR evaluate alternatives designed to avoid or significantly lessen the Project’s significant environmental impacts. (Pub. Resources Code section 21002.) Without such analysis, the City will not be able to support the required Statement of Overriding Considerations findings that it considered and found infeasible all alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce Project impacts on the community. (Pub. Resources Code section 21082; CEQA Guidelines sections 15043, 15093(b).) The City has also failed to support a finding that the Project’s community Item: 9
872

City of Lake Forest
June 18, 2026

benefits will outweigh its adverse impacts. (Pub. Resources Code section 21081; CEQA Guidelines sections 15093(a).) We the Meadows asks for clear, specific details regarding the Project’s anticipated employment, tax revenue, public benefits, and regarding other factors supporting the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

The City’s revised alternatives analysis should be based on recognition of the current land use composition of the area surrounding the Project site, not decades-old zoning assumptions that no longer apply. City staff has repeatedly argued that the Project site’s light industrial area existed long before the Meadows residential development.

However, the City has since authorized the Meadows residential development. There is now an established residential community and senior housing, populated by real, not hypothetical, people. The City’s planning decisions and assessments of land use compatibility must reflect this current reality.

We the Meadows asks the Council to consider feasible mitigation measures, including, but not limited to:
• Reducing the scale or intensity of warehouse operations; • Increasing buffers and physical separation between the Project and homes and senior housing,
• Landscaping buffers between the Project and homes and senior housing, in combination with sound attenuation measures such as walls; • Eliminating truck ingress and egress routes immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods;
• Relocating loading and truck activity areas to the portions of the Project site furthest from homes;
• Enforceable limits on the number of truck trips permitted in any time interval;
• Ongoing monitoring and reporting requirements for metrics measuring truck traffic, Project noise, and air quality;
• Clear compliance and enforcement mechanisms, including consequences for violations (required by CEQA for all mitigation);
• Restrictions on higher-intensity warehouse uses that could generate impacts beyond those analyzed in the EIR; and
Item: 9
873

City of Lake Forest
June 18, 2026

• Additional City review if future tenants propose materially different operations than those assumed during environmental review.

As to process, the community is concerned about the City’s adoption of conditions of approval that were first presented during the Planning Commission hearing. After a recess, Commissioners returned with approximately two pages of additional conditions that had not been previously disclosed for public review or evaluation. A few hard copies were provided to some, but not all homeowners upon request. The newly-drafted conditions were projected on a screen, but were never read aloud line by line, before the Commission voted to approve the project. The City did not reopen public comment to allow discussion about these conditions. CEQA requires that both the efficacy and consequences of a Project’s mitigation measures be evaluated before a Project is approved. (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645; CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4.) Given the timing of the development of these conditions, the EIR could not evaluate their effectiveness. Further, their late-disclosure at the Planning Commission hearing prevented any comment on these new conditions, let alone the requisite “meaningful” public comment. (See, Save Our Capitol! v. Department of General Services (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 655, 684.) In any case, these conditions do not appear to satisfy CEQA’s requirements for concrete, enforceable mitigation. The City has not explained who will monitor round-theclock compliance with these conditions, how violations will be reported and investigated, what penalties will attach for violations, and what mechanisms exist to ensure compliance by future tenants, truck operators, and third-party drivers. Signage alone is insufficient to ensure compliance with truck routing restrictions, quiet-zone requirements, truck limits, and access restrictions. Third-party drivers in a hurry have little incentive to comply with signs. Like speed limit signs, these signs will be meaningless without enforcement.

We the Meadows respectfully requests that the City Council review the Planning Commission’s decisions with respect to the Project and overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the Site Plan and environmental impact report for the Project.

The Project should be returned to Planning staff with instructions to revise the EIR to address the deficiencies outlined above and detailed in the attachments.

Item: 9
874

City of Lake Forest
June 18, 2026

Thank you for your consideration of this appeal. Please notify us when this appeal has been docketed.

Sincerely,

Douglas P. Carstens
Attachments:

1. Notice of Decision Concerning City Approval of Site Development Permit 6- 21-5437, dated June 5, 2026

2. Comments submitted on Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated September 15, 2025

3. Comments of We the Meadows on Final Environmental Impact Report, dated June 4, 2026

4. Comments of Harrison Jiang on Final Environmental Impact Report and IPT Warehouse Project, dated May 24, 2026

5. Graphic: Proximity of Project to Residences
cc: Amy Stonich
Assistant Director of Community Development
City of Lake Forest
100 Civic Center Drive
Lake Forest, CA 92630
Email: [email protected]
Item: 9
875
ATTACH MENT1
Item: 9
876
877
878
ATTACHMENT 2
Item: 9
879
Main Office Phone:
310 - 798-2400
Direct Dial:
310-798-2400 Ext. 7 Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
www.cbcearthlaw.com
Douglas P. Carstens
Email Address:
[email protected]
September 15, 2025
Amy Stonich
Assistant Director of Community Development
City of Lake Forest
100 Civic Center Drive
Lake Forest, CA 92630
Email: [email protected]
Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the IPT Enterprise Business Center Project (SCH No. 2024030755).

Dear Ms. Stonich,
On behalf of We the Meadows, we hereby submit our public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the IPT Enterprise Business Center Project (“Project”) (SCH No. 2024030755).

This Project would establish a warehouse and industrial facility within 82 feet of homes. We ask that you reject the project outright because its extensive, unacceptable impacts cannot and should not be overridden.

The current Project -- along with other warehouse conversion projects nearby -- are completely out of place within residential areas. Alternative, environmentallysuperior (quieter and less polluting) uses such as an office park should be seriously considered instead.

If the City wishes to continue processing approval of the proposed Project, it must revise the DEIR, remedy its numerous, serious deficiencies, develop adequate and enforceable mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives, and recirculate the revised DEIR for public and public agency review and comment.

Proceeding on the basis of the currently available EIR draft would violate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Item: 9
880

City of Lake Forest
September 15, 2025

As the City’s Notice of Availability states:

The proposed project involves the demolition of the existing 144,906 sq ft, twostory building. In its place, a new 35-foot tall, 165,803 sq ft, tilt-up concrete industrial building will be constructed and operated. The project includes a gated truck loading area, parking spaces, and new landscaping. At this time, the future tenant remains undetermined. Although the tenant has not been determined yet, the proposed project maximizes a mix of office, manufacturing, and warehouse space. Approximately 10,000 sq ft could serve as office space and the interior space may be demised for up to 50,803 sq ft of warehouse use plus up to 105,000 sq ft of manufacturing use. A maximum of eight usable dock high doors, a gated truck loading area, and up to 301 parking spaces for passenger vehicles would be provided.
(City Notice of Availability.)
However, the EIR fails to sufficiently identify and address the cumulative impacts of several nearby and contemporaneous warehouse projects.

The EIR contains numerous areas of concern that point to a broader pattern of:

1. Insufficient cumulative impact analysis;

2. Understated or misclassified environmental effects;

3. Failure to evaluate feasible alternatives;

4. Inadequate and unenforceable mitigation measures; and

5. Disregard for long-term impacts on nearby sensitive residential neighborhoods
The EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s potential impacts with regard to air quality and human health, greenhouse gas emissions, traffic and circulation, adjacent communities, noise, and light pollution. These EIR deficiencies are detailed below.

Item: 9
881

City of Lake Forest
September 15, 2025

I. The DEIR Fails to Disclose, Analyze, and Mitigate the Adverse Impacts of the Warehouse Project.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted to promote decision making that protects the environment through information gathering and public accountability.

The CEQA process is intended to be a careful examination, fully open to the public, of the environmental consequences of a given project, covering the entire project, from start to finish. … The EIR is intended to furnish both the road map and the environmental price tag for a project, so that the decision maker and the public both know, before the journey begins, just where the journey will lead, and how much they -- and the environment -- will have to give up in order to take that journey.
(Natural Resources Defense Council v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 268, 271.) CEQA requires a “mandatory finding of significance” if a project has the potential to “substantially degrade the quality of the environment. ...” (Guidelines §15065(a)(1).)
The DEIR already concedes that the project will result in “Significant and Unavoidable” impacts to: (1) Greenhouse Gas Emissions and (2) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) / Transportation & Traffic. Based on the information contained in the DEIR, and the review of this information by experts, it is clear that the Project’s air quality, noise, and human health risks should also be classified as “Significant and Unavoidable.” This is especially true when accounting for the combined impacts of three contemporaneous warehouse projects, during construction and operational phases. The DEIR further fails to account for unknown future tenants, truck trip volumes, and 24/7 operations—factors that directly influence environmental health and safety outcomes, and the type and intensity of mitigation needed.

A. The DEIR Insufficiently Analyzes and Mitigates Air Quality Impacts.

An EIR must correlate a project’s significant impacts to the health effects that would be caused to people. (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 520- Item: 9
882

City of Lake Forest
September 15, 2025

521 (“Sierra Club-Friant Ranch”).) In Sierra Club-Friant Ranch, the court considered whether an EIR’s discussion of air quality effects was adequate in the context of a program EIR for a planned development community. (Id. at 507.) The EIR disclosed ozone concentrations in parts per million that triggered health symptoms in people and noted them as a significant impact (id. at 517), but the EIR notably did not describe the quantity of ozone generated by the project in parts per million (id. at 520). The Supreme Court held, “Because the EIR as written makes it impossible for the public to translate the bare numbers provided into adverse health impacts… the EIR’s discussion of air quality impacts in this case was inadequate.” (Id. at 521.)
As explained by air quality expert Ray Kapahi in the attached expert report (Attachment 1), the EIR fails to calculate air pollution concentrations and instead relies on calculations of emissions rates to conclude that air pollution impacts will be insignificant.

Specifically, the EIR:
• failed to recognize that national and state ambient air quality standards (AAQS) represent thresholds of significance. The EIR must evaluate potential violations of the AAQS
• failed to quantify peak (1-hour) construction emissions • failed to evaluate the formation of secondary pollutants from the conversion of NOx and VOC into PM2.5
• did not recognize the project would violate the 1-hour NOx standards during the construction phase
The EIR’s failure to evaluate or analyze the Project’s impacts with regard to certain ambient air quality standards or phases of construction means that the EIR was unable to provide mitigation for air pollution known to harm human and environmental health. The other warehouse projects proposed nearby will likely present similar health and air quality concerns, with cumulative impacts the EIR fails to address. The EIR therefore fails as an informational document and must be revised.

Item: 9
883

City of Lake Forest
September 15, 2025

B. The DEIR Insufficiently Analyzes and Mitigates GHG Impacts.

Curiously, the EIR concludes the Project’s operational impacts would not exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds of significance because emissions would not exceed 2,884.5 MT carbon dioxide equivalent emissions.

Accordingly, the EIR finds the impact not to be significant and requires zero mitigation for the Project’s contributions to climate change. However, as this amount is barely below the reference threshold of 3,000 MT (DEIR p. 4.8-16), and because the Project would involve warehouse uses with twenty-three loading bays that could be accessed 24 hours per day, the EIR’s conclusions are suspect.

The EIR admits the Project would conflict with the scoping plan by exceeding the City’s VMT thresholds. (DEIR p. 4.8-18.) And, here, in the greenhouse gas analysis, the EIR admits its traffic mitigation is ineffective:

The proposed project would be required to implement Traffic Demand Management (TDM) measures including the installation of bike lanes along Commercentre Drive between Alton Parkway and Dimension Drive as specified in Mitigation Measure (MM) TRA-1, to promote alternative transportation within the intent of reducing VMT. According to the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (December 2021) (CAPCOA Handbook), the addition of bike lanes (T-20 Expand Bikeway Network) can provide a maximum VMT reduction of 0.5 percent. Assuming that this TDM measure could achieve the maximum 0.5 percent VMT reduction, the reduction achieved would not reduce the project’s VMT impact to below the City’s VMT threshold. Therefore, even with implementation of the TDM measure (addition of bike lanes), the project’s VMT impact would be significant and unavoidable.

This significance conclusion requires the EIR to adopt all feasible mitigation. However, as traffic engineer, Tom Brohard, determined the EIR failed to do this. The EIR must be recirculated after revision to include a robust analysis and adoption of measures to reduce vehicle miles travelled or otherwise reduce the Project’s contributions to GHG emissions.

Item: 9
884

City of Lake Forest
September 15, 2025

Instead, the EIR proposes MM GHG-1 Electric Vehicle Charging. This measure provides:

Provisions shall be made at the project site for emerging electric truck technology.

Prior to the issuance of a shell building permit, the City shall verify that the site plan identifies an on-site location for future electric truck charging stations, with space available for a minimum of four (4) trucks to simultaneously charge when charging stations are installed in the future. The conduit trenching shall be installed to that location for future conduit pull as a requirement of the shell building permit. In conjunction with the approval of tenant improvement plans and permits, the applicant shall install electric truck charging stations on the site for a minimum of four (4) electric truck to simultaneously charge There are several problems with this measure. First, there is no reason it cannot be installed with the Project. Electric vehicles, including trucks, exist now and are in wide use in Southern California and at Southern California ports and other logistics facilities.

Second, the measure merely requires that the Project identify a location for electric truck charging. There is no requirement that the Project be built with the electrical capacity to utilize the truck charging. Nor is there a requirement for when the charging must be installed outside of “in conjunction with the approval of tenant improvement plans and permits.” Are these future improvements? The measure must be tightened so it is clear that the provision of electric truck charging is required before Project operation begins.

Mitigation must be enforceable. (Pub. Res. Code 21081.6(b); Lincoln Place Tenants Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 425, 445 [“mitigation measures must be feasible and enforceable”]). Otherwise, the measure is speculative and cannot be relied on to mitigate the Project’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The EIR further fails to analyze the cumulative impacts of additional warehouses proposed nearby.

C. The DEIR Insufficiently Analyzes and Mitigates Traffic and Circulation Impacts.

The DEIR also fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s traffic and circulation impacts, as discussed further in the expert comments prepared by traffic Item: 9
885

City of Lake Forest
September 15, 2025

engineer, Tom Brohard (Attachment 3.) The Traffic Impact Analysis upon which the DEIR is based fails to comply with the City’s adopted Transportation Analysis Guidelines. For example, the DEIR concludes that the Project’s excessive vehicle miles travelled will be addressed by the installation of bike lanes. MM-TRA-1, the required mitigation measure, would address only 0.5% of Project traffic generation. The DEIR fails to evaluate or adopt the many, many, available traffic mitigation options, without any evidence that such mitigation was fully investigated or evaluated. Without demonstration of such exhaustion, the City cannot make the required findings that additional mitigation measures are infeasible. The DEIR must be revised and recirculated once a more thorough evaluation of Project traffic generation and mitigation is completed.

D. The EIR Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze, or Mitigate the Project’s Impacts to Nearby Communities.

The Project would construct industrial warehouses immediately adjacent to established residential neighborhoods to the north and east including The Meadows at Lake Forest and Baker Ranch. (DEIR p. 4.11-2.)
As the California Department of Justice has found:
[I]mprudent warehouse development can harm local communities and the environment. Among other pollutants, diesel trucks visiting warehouses emit nitrogen oxide (NOx)—a primary precursor to smog formation and a significant factor in the development of respiratory problems like asthma, bronchitis, and lung irritation—and diesel particulate matter (a subset of fine particular matter that is smaller than 2.5 micrometers)—a contributor to cancer, heart disease, respiratory illnesses, and premature death. Trucks and on-site loading activities can also be loud, bringing disruptive noise levels during 24/7 operation that can cause hearing damage after prolonged exposure. The hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of daily truck and passenger car trips that warehouses generate contribute to traffic jams, deterioration of road surfaces, and traffic accidents.

Item: 9
886

City of Lake Forest
September 15, 2025

(Attachment 2, p. 2, Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, California Department of Justice, September 2022.)
Project proximity to residential neighborhoods will:

1. Introduce heavy diesel truck traffic within 100 feet of family homes and schools;

2. Exacerbate cancer and respiratory health risks, particularly among vulnerable populations (children, seniors, and low-income residents);

3. Increase air, noise, and light pollution in a currently surrounding quiet residential zone; and

4. Undermine the long-term livability, safety, and environmental integrity of the City of Lake Forest.

The Attorney General has found:

The most important consideration when planning a logistics facility is its location.

Warehouses located in residential neighborhoods or near sensitive receptors expose community residents and those using or visiting sensitive receptor sites to the air pollution, noise, traffic, and other environmental impacts they generate.

Therefore, placing facilities away from sensitive receptors significantly reduces their environmental and quality of life harms on local communities. (Attachment 2, p. 5.) To protect human health, the Attorney General and California Air Resources Board recommend siting warehouse facilities “so that their property lines are at least 1,000 feet from the property lines of the nearest sensitive receptors.” (Ibid p. 6; see also Attachment 4, CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook; Attachment 5, CARB, Concept Paper for the Freight Handbook.)
The EIR both fails to acknowledge these realities and to mitigate their impacts by designating as the preferred Project a less damaging alternative. Moreover, by introducing and exacerbating risks to residents and sensitive populations, the Project Item: 9
887

City of Lake Forest
September 15, 2025

demonstrates fundamental incompatibility with surrounding land uses, thereby violating the intent of the City’s 2040 General Plan. CEQA requires an EIR to discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and all applicable general, specific, and regional plans. (CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d).) In partial recognition of this fact, the EIR adopts Threshold of Significance 4.11.2, which would require a finding of significance if the Project would “Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.”
Despite Project proximity to homes, EIR fails to disclose inconsistencies with the following Lake Forest General Plan 2024 Goals and Policies, finding instead that the master planned nature of the area and a landscape buffer would prevent impacts (DEIR p.

4.11-8 through 25):
- Policy LU-1.1 Land Use Pattern: Promote an appropriate land use plan that fosters and enhances community livability and public health; supports economic development; promotes efficient development and multiple transportation options; reduces pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and the expenditure of energy and other resources; and ensures compatibility between uses.

The Project would damage community livability and public health, increase pollution, generate greenhouse gas emissions, and harm compatibility between uses. - Policy LU-2.1 Physical Characteristic Compatibility: Ensure that new development fits within the existing community setting and is compatible with surrounding land uses and public infrastructure availability; and - Policy LU-2.4 Scale and Character: Ensure that the scale and character of new development is appropriate to the setting and intended use.

The Project is located within 100 feet of residential uses to the north and east. - Policy LU-2.7 Interface with Residential Areas: Promote compatibility of adjacent land uses along the interface of different residential density and nonItem: 9 888

City of Lake Forest
September 15, 2025

residential intensity categories by paying special attention to buffers and transitional areas.

As this industrial and warehouse Project would operate within 100 feet of homes, it cannot comply with the intent of this policy.
- Action LU-2a: As part of the City’s development review process, ensure that commercial projects are designed to be compatible with residential uses, including appropriate building massing and scale and minimization of impacts related to the operation of the use. Review of employment-generating projects should ensure that the following design concepts are addressed in projects that abut residential areas:
• Appropriate building scale and/or siting;
• Site design and noise-attenuating features to avoid exposure to excessive noise due to long hours of operation or inappropriate location of accessory structures;
• Site and structure design to avoid excessive glare or excessive impacts from light sources onto adjacent properties; and
• Site design to avoid unnecessary loss of community and environmental resources (archaeological, historical, ecological, recreational, etc.).

The Project could operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week, with twenty-three loading docks and roadways within 100 feet of residential uses, without measures designed to ensure noise attenuation, light pollution, or excessive glare. It is incompatible with this General Plan Action.

The EIR must be revised to clearly disclose these inconsistencies with General Plan policies enacted to promote neighborhood health, livability, and use compatibility.

After revision, the EIR must incorporate enforceable mitigation measures to offset these impacts and be recirculated to the public and decisionmakers, including those in the residential communities located directly north and east of the proposed Project site.

Item: 9
889

City of Lake Forest
September 15, 2025

E. The DEIR Insufficiently Analyzes and Mitigates Noise Pollution Impacts.

Warehouse noise affects neighborhood livability and human health, requiring adequate analysis and mitigation absent here. The California Attorney General has found:

The noise associated with logistics facilities can be among their most intrusive impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Various sources, such as unloading activity, diesel truck movement, and rooftop air conditioning units, can contribute substantial noise pollution. These impacts are exacerbated by logistics facilities’ typical 24-hour, seven-days-per-week operation.
(Attachment 2, p. 10.)
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, exposure to high noise levels presents a “health risk in that noise may contribute to the development and aggravation of stress related conditions such as high blood pressure, coronary disease, ulcers, colitis, and migraine headaches…Growing evidence suggests a link between noise and cardiovascular problems. There is also evidence suggesting that noise may be related to birth defects and low birth-weight babies. There are also some indications that noise exposure can increase susceptibility to viral infection and toxic substances.”1

Potentially deadly cardiovascular impacts can be triggered by long-term average exposure to noise levels as low as 55 decibels.2
Exposure to even moderately high levels
of noise during a single 8-hour period triggers the body’s stress response. In turn, the body increases cortisol production, which stimulates vasoconstriction of blood vessels that results in a five- to ten-point increase in blood pressure. Over time, this noise1 EPA Noise Effects Handbook, http://www.nonoise.org/library/handbook/handbook.htm, incorporated by reference; see also EPA Noise: A Health Problem http://www.nonoise.org/library/epahlth/epahlth.htm#heart%20disease, incorporated by reference. 2 World Health Organization Media Centre,
http://www.euro.who.int/eprise/main/WHO/MediaCentre/PR/2009/20091008_1?language [elevated blood pressure and heart attacks], incorporated by reference; http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1999/a68672.pdf [finding demonstrated cardiovascular impacts, including ischemic heart disease and hypertension after long-term exposure to 24 hour average noise values of 65-70 dBA], incorporated by reference.

Item: 9
890

City of Lake Forest
September 15, 2025

induced stress can result in hypertension and coronary artery disease, both of which increase the risk of heart attack death. 3
Studies on the use of tranquilizers, sleeping pills,
psychotropic drugs, and mental hospital admission rates suggest that high noise levels cause adverse impacts on mental health. 4

High noise levels also have dramatic developmental impacts on small children, many of which reside near the Project. Children who are exposed to higher average noise levels have heightened sympathetic arousal, expressed by increased stress hormone levels, and elevated resting blood pressure. As proposed, the Project would expose community members to levels of noise that are unsafe for cardiovascular health, mental health, societal well-being, and child development.

The DEIR recognizes that the nearest residence to the site is a mere 82 feet from the Project. (DEIR p. 4.13-5.) Even so, it concludes the Project would not have significant construction impacts (DEIR p. 4.13-17) or operational impacts. As to construction, the DEIR states that construction noise would average 71 dBA at the nearest home, which is less than the City’s threshold of 80 dBA. However, the EIR does not disclose the impact of impulsive noise (hammers, jackhammers, etc.) and inconsistent noise, which is far more disturbing and aggravating than a consistent 71 dBA.

Additionally, a daily exposure of 80 dBA is a threshold of significance established for occupational exposure – not residential. It is intended to prevent hearing loss and does nothing to prevent disturbance, the inability to work for those who work from home, interference with speech, or interference with sleep or education. At these levels, a workplace is also required to provide hearing protection. Residents are accorded no such care by the EIR.
3 World Health Organization, Guidelines for Community Noise, p. x and pp. 47-48. The report is available in its entirety online at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1999/a68672.pdf; see also, Maschke C (2003). “Stress Hormone Changes in Persons exposed to Simulated Night Noise”.

Noise Health 5 (17): 35–45. PMID 12537833,
http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-
1741;year=2002;volume=5;issue=17;spage=35;epage=45;aulast=Maschke, incorporated by reference; Franssen EA, van Wiechen CM, Nagelkerke NJ, Lebret E (2004). “Aircraft noise around a large international airport and its impact on general health and medication use”. Occup Environ Med 61 (5): 405–13. doi:10.1136/oem.2002.005488. PMID 15090660. 4 World Health Organization, p. x. and pp. 48-49.

Item: 9
891

City of Lake Forest
September 15, 2025

The Attorney General recommends reducing community noise impacts from warehouses by:
• Constructing physical, structural, or vegetative noise barriers on and/or off the project site.
• Planning and enforcing truck routes that avoid passing sensitive receptors. • Locating or parking all stationary construction equipment as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and directing emitted noise away from sensitive receptors.
• Verifying that construction equipment has properly operating and maintained mufflers.
• Requiring all combustion-powered construction equipment to be surrounded by a noise protection barrier
• Limiting operation hours to daytime hours on weekdays. • Paving roads where truck traffic is anticipated with low noise asphalt. • Orienting any public address systems onsite away from sensitive receptors and setting system volume at a level not readily audible past the property line.
(Ibid p. 11.) While the EIR assumes some of these measures in the Project design, the Project contains zero enforceable mitigation measures. The EIR should be revised to incorporate concrete and enforceable noise mitigation to account for its currently undisclosed impacts to adjacent residents.

F. The DEIR Insufficiently Analyzes and Mitigates Light Pollution Impacts.

The Project would allow warehouse and industrial uses within 82 feet of homes, 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The City’s General Plan requires Projects be designed to minimize light and glare through Action LU-2b. The City’s municipal code further requires all lights be designed and installed so that lighting is confined to the site and adjacent properties are protected from glare. (Lake Forest Municipal Code Section

9.72.085.) The EIR includes Threshold 4.1.4, which provides a Project would have an Item: 9
892

City of Lake Forest
September 15, 2025

adverse impact if it would “Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.”
Unfortunately, the EIR’s analysis of cumulative impacts incorrectly claims that a Project must have a significant impact to have a cumulative impact. However, the very reason cumulative impacts analysis is required because the impacts of cumulative development are lost when projects are analyzed individually. This is one of three warehouse projects in close proximity. The EIR fails to address whether the parking lighting, solar panels, security lighting, or other aspects of the combined projects would have an effect with regard to glare.

II. Environmentally Superior Alternatives Are Available and Must Be Adopted.

The City must fully consider alternative land uses that are economically viable and more compatible with nearby residential communities—such as mixed-use developments (e.g., small business + residential condos), business office complexes, research, medical, or clean-tech non-industrial facilities. It is inconceivable that there is not some sort of reduced-intensity alternative that would be feasible on the Project site.

An EIR is intended to identify the adverse environmental impacts of a project, mitigation measures for those impacts, and alternatives that could avoid the impacts altogether. The alternatives section has been identified by the California Supreme Court as the “core” of the EIR (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564), and an adequate EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 47 Cal.3d 376.) The Guidelines make clear that alternatives must be considered that do not meet all project objectives. The Guidelines say that alternatives should satisfy most of the basic objectives of the project, not all objectives. (Guidelines §15126.6 subd. (a).) In reality, it “is virtually a given that the alternatives to a project will not attain all of the project’s objectives.” (Watsonville Pilots Ass'n v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1087.)
Item: 9
893

City of Lake Forest
September 15, 2025

At first glance, the EIR’s seven objectives appear relatively broad:

1. Provide a permitted land use that is consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designation and that helps fulfill the demands of businesses and residents in the City of Lake Forest;

2. Re-envision an existing underutilized office/industrial property to build a new financially and environmentally sustainable building;

3. Re-envision an existing underutilized office/industrial property to provide a building type that is flexible and accommodating to a variety of permitted land uses to extend the useful life of the building;

4. Provide industrial development that is attractive and minimizes conflicts with the surrounding existing land uses;

5. Provide employment opportunities and facilitate job-creation for the residents of Lake Forest and surrounding communities to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment;

6. Redevelop an underutilized site for improvement and enhanced contribution to the City of Lake Forest’s fiscal benefits; and

7. Cluster land uses in proximity to other similar industrial/commercial uses and close to access points of the State highway system, such as State Route 241, to reduce traffic congestion on surface streets and reduce local air pollution emissions from vehicle sources
(DEIR p. 5-2.) In summary, the City seeks to reimagine an underused site in a way that is economically beneficial, provides jobs, and is consistent with City land use plans.

Many types of developments would meet these goals, including less-intensive or smaller versions of the same Project.

Even so, the EIR rejects smaller alternatives for failing to meet Project objectives.

The Reduced Daily Trip Alternative was rejected from consideration in the EIR because development of smaller buildings would allegedly “yield a very low land coverage that would not justify the relation between land value, building construction costs, and potential revenue, resulting in an unfeasible project.” (DEIR p. 5-5.) The EIR provides no evidence supporting this conclusion.

Item: 9
894

City of Lake Forest
September 15, 2025

The EIR rejects Alternative 2, continued use of the site as office space, for failing to meet 4 objectives. (DEIR p. 5-21.) However, three of these objectives (2, 3, 6) mean essentially the same thing – “revitalize” the site. Characterizing the Project’s objectives such that a failure to reimagine the site triggers failure of half of the objectives violates CEQA. It is impermissible for the lead agency to frame the alternatives considered in the EIR too narrowly, and thereby slant the analysis in favor of the proposed project. (We Advocate Through Environmental Review v. County of Siskiyou (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 683, 692 (“WATER”) [“If the principal project objective is simply pursuing the proposed project, then no alternative other than the proposed project would do”]; see, also, In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1163 [“a lead agency may not give a project's purpose an artificially narrow definition.”].) Such limitations on alternatives deprive the public of adequate information, and prejudice informed decision making. (WATER, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at 693.)
Finally, the EIR rejects the Reduced Project Alternative. This alternative proposes a 25% smaller version of the Project that would entail a new, 35-ft-tall, 124,352.25 square-foot tilt-up concrete industrial building with 7,500 square feet of office space, 48,750 square feet of manufacturing space, and 68,102.25 square feet of warehouse space. (DEIR p. 5-21 and 5-22.) The EIR admits this alternative would reduce impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, energy, utilities and service systems, and noise. (DEIR p. 5-30.) It would be the environmentally superior alternative. DEIR p. 5-32.) The EIR also admits this alternative would meet all 7 objectives, even if to a slightly lesser degree than the preferred Project. (DEIR p. 5-31.) However, based on its failure to perfectly achieve the applicant’s goals, it is not presented as the preferred Alternative.

CEQA requires a robust alternatives analysis with of a range of reasonable less impactful alternatives. (Guidelines, §15126.6, subd. (a).) “Meaningful analysis of alternatives in an EIR requires an analysis of meaningful alternatives.” (Save Our Capitol!, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 704.) The purpose of an EIR “is not to identify alleged alternatives that meet few if any of the project’s objectives so that these alleged alternatives may be readily eliminated.... [T]he key to the selection of the range of alternatives is to identify alternatives that meet most of the project’s objectives but have a reduced level of environmental impacts.” (Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville Item: 9
895

City of Lake Forest
September 15, 2025

(2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1089.) The range of alternatives analyzed must include a no project alternative.

Because feasible, environmentally superior alternatives exist in the form of Alternative 3, the Project may not be approved as proposed. (Pub. Resources Code § 21081; City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 341, 368.)
III. CEQA Prohibits Approval of the Proposed Project Because the City Cannot Support Findings Required for a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

CEQA prohibits approval of projects with significant adverse environmental impacts such as the proposed Project if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate those impacts. (Pub. Resources Code § 21002; Guidelines § 15021(a)(2).) When an agency seeks to approve a project despite its significant unmitigated impacts on the environment, the agency must adopt a statement of overriding considerations. (Pub. Resources Code § 21081.) A statement of overriding considerations must include two specific findings, supported by substantial evidence. The first finding that must be made is that “There is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect...” of the project. (Guidelines §§ 15043, 15093(b).) The second finding is that the project’s benefits outweigh its significant adverse environmental impacts. (Guidelines § 15093(a).) These findings must both be supported by substantial evidence. (Guidelines § 15093(a)-(b).)

“CEQA does not authorize an agency to proceed with a project that will have significant, unmitigated effects on the environment…unless the measures necessary to mitigate those effects are truly infeasible.” (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 341, 368 (“City of Marina”) emphasis added.) “[I]f the project can be economically successful with mitigation, then CEQA requires that mitigation…” (Uphold our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.

App. 4th at 600.)

CEQA requires there be substantial evidence in the record to support the claimed benefits of the Project that justify proceeding with a project notwithstanding its adverse impacts. (Public Resources Code § 21081; CEQA Guidelines § 15093(b).) “[A]n Item: 9
896

City of Lake Forest
September 15, 2025

agency's unsupported claim that the project will confer general benefits” is insufficient to override a project’s significant impacts. (Woodward Park Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v.

City of Fresno (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 892, 717.)
Rejecting alternatives and mitigation measures and substantiating project benefits requires justification to comply with CEQA (Guidelines § 15091(b)) and provide a basis for a Statement of Overriding Considerations. (Guidelines § 15093(b).) A project alternative may be rejected on the basis of legal infeasibility, but the City must make a finding supported by substantial evidence that such an alternative is legally infeasible.

Since Alternative 3 is legally feasible, the City cannot make the findings required to reject its adoption.

Approval of the Project, as proposed, would violate CEQA.

IV. Conclusion.

We urge the City to reject the current DEIR and require a comprehensive revision that addresses cumulative impacts and feasible and enforceable mitigation measures that address the industrial Project’s proximity to neighborhoods. The City must fully consider alternative land uses that are both economically viable and compatible with nearby residential communities—such as mixed-use developments (e.g., small business + residential condos), business office complexes, research, medical, or clean-tech nonindustrial facilities. The City should prioritize community engagement and the long-term well-being of residents over short-term industrial gains, as envisioned in its 2040 General Plan.

Sincerely,

Michelle Black
Douglas P. Carstens
Item: 9
897

City of Lake Forest
September 15, 2025

Attachments

1. Expert Comments of Ray Kapahi, Environmental Permitting Specialists, dated September 10, 2025

2. Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, California Department of Justice, September 2022, accessed at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehousebest-practices.pdf

3. Expert Comments of Traffic Engineer, Tom Brohard, dated September 4, 2025

4. CARB, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, accessed at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/californiaair-resources-board-air-quality-and-land-use-handbook-a-community-healthperspective.pdf

5. CARB, Concept Paper for the Freight Handbook (December 2019), accessed at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/2019.12.12%20- %20Concept%20Paper%20for%20the%20Freight%20Handbook_1.pdf Item: 9
898
Item: 9
899
Lake Forest Final Memo Rev 4.docx
C:\Users\Dell\Documents\2025 PROJECTS\2025 Lake Forest Warehouse\Lake Forest Memo\Lake Forest Final Memo Rev 4.docx

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Doug Carstens Date: September 10, 2025
Carstens, Black & Minteer, LLP

From: Ray Kapahi RK
Tel: 916.806.8333
E-Mail: [email protected]
Subject: Review of Air Quality Impacts from proposed IPT Enterprise Business Center, LLC City of Lake Forest, California

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Environmental Permitting Specialists (EPS) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC (Project) in Lake Forest (Orange County), California. The proposed project would involve demolition of office and industrial buildings and redevelopment of a 165,803 square feet industrial building.

The project is located at 26200 Enterprise Way in the north-central part of Lake Forest. (Figures 1 and 2). The site is assessable by State Route 241 which is located approximately 0.7 mile North of the project location and Interstate 5 which is located 3.75 miles Southwest of the project location.

The focus of our review was impacts from release of various air pollutants. Specifically, Section

4.3 (Air Quality) of the DEIR was reviewed. Impacts from both the construction and operational (occupancy) phases were reviewed and analyzed.

EPS review identified several deficiencies in the DEIR. These are noted on the following pages.

Item: 9
900
2 1. Not All Thresholds of Significance Were Identified Section 4.3.3.2 of the DEIR identified various air pollutants, their sources and their health effects. The section also identified state and federal ambient air quality standards (AAQS) and the prevailing air quality as measured at nearby air quality monitoring stations.

The DEIR failed to recognize that the concentrations of various air pollutants that appear in the AAQS also represent thresholds of significance. The concentration of various air pollutants in Table 4.3.B defines what we mean by clean or unhealthy air and therefore, project emissions need to be evaluated to identify potential violations of the AAQS that appear in this table.

This omission also appears in the SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines. In their April 18, 2024 Notice of Preparation the District references the Thresholds of Significance in the Guidelines, but these Guidelines omit the fact that the AAQS also represent a threshold of significance.

2. Peak Construction Emissions not Evaluated
The DEIR failed to quantify peak (1-hour) construction emissions. Many air pollutants, such as NOx, SO2 and CO have 1-hour AAQS. Without adequately determining peak construction emissions, it is not possible to determine maximum hourly impacts from these pollutants during the construction or operational phases.

3. Impacts from Secondary Pollutant Formation Ignored
The DEIR failed to evaluate the formation of secondary pollutants from the conversion of NOx and VOC into PM2.5. The amount of PM2.5 formed through secondary conversion of NOx can range from 4% to 34% and 11% to 41% through secondary conversion of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

4. Violation of Air Quality Standard for NOx During Construction The project would violate the 1-hour NOx standards during the construction phase. This is a critical oversight as the Orange County has been designated as “Extreme” nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone (smog) standard. The NOx violations directly impact the ozone concentration.

5. Unsupported Conclusions Related to Impacts
The DEIR identified Threshold 4.3.1 that states the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. How can this be possible then the project will create new violations of 1-hour NOx standard that directly exacerbated the regions ozone concentration. Similarly, Threshold 4.3.3 asserts that the project would not expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations when such concentrations were never quantified.

Item: 9
901
3 Since CEQA requires complete and full disclosure (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch LP) (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 514-515) of all impacts, the above issues are critical omissions. These issues are discussed in this Memorandum.

NOT ALL THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE IDENTIFIED
The DEIR identified (Section 4.3.3) the various air pollutants, their sources and their health effects. The section also identifies state and federal ambient air quality standards (AAQS) and the prevailing air quality as measured at nearby air quality monitoring stations.

The DEIR failed to recognize that the concentrations of various air pollutants that appear in the AAQS also represent thresholds of significance. The concentration of various air pollutants in Table 4.3.B defines what we mean by clean or unhealthy air. These standards are based on health studies and are designed to protect the most vulnerable segment of the population.

Periodically, these standards are reviewed in light of new information and are revised accordingly. For example, the ozone standard was originally set to 0.08 parts per million (ppm) in 1971 was revised to 0.12 in 1979 and then revised to 0.075 ppm in 2008 and then revised again to 0.07 ppm in 2015. These changes reflect new data on health impacts to the population from exposure to ozone.

The DEIR quantified the emission rates of several air pollutants listed in Table 4.3-B; however, it failed to translate these emissions to concentrations. Specifically, Table 4.3-J, 4.3-K and 4.3-O summarize the daily emission rate in pounds per day for both the construction and operational phases. However, these emission rates were not translated into concentrations. The harm to the public is from exposure to concentrations (parts per million, micrograms per cubic meter) that is related to emission rates but also is related to other factors discussed later in this Memorandum.

PEAK CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS NOT EVALUATE
The DEIR failed to quantify peak (1-hour) construction emissions. Many air pollutants, such as NOx and CO have 1-hour AAQS. Without adequately determining peak construction emissions, it is not possible to determine NOx, SO2 and CO impacts during the construction phase. Since the project involves demolition of existing buildings, peak hourly emissions are likely to be significant.

The DEIR provided daily emissions (lbs/day) in Tables 4.3-J, 4.3-K and 4.3.O. However, peak onehour emissions were not calculated. Without this information, it is not possible to determine short-term impacts.

IMPACTS FROM SECONDARY POLLUTANT FORMATION
The DEIR failed to evaluate the formation of secondary pollutants from the conversion of NOx and VOC into PM2.51. The amount of PM2.5 formed through secondary conversion of NOx can range from 4% to 34% and 11% to 41% through secondary conversion of VOCs. 1 USEPA: MACTEC Evaluating the Contribution of PM2.5 Precursor Gases. Available at:
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei13/mobile/hodan.pdf Item: 9
902
4 The omission of secondary pollutants is a critical omission since the South Coast Region is designated as “Extreme” non-attainment2for ozone and non-attainment for PM2.5.

VIOLATION OF 1-HOUR NOx STANDARDS DURING CONSTRUCTION
EPS analysis determined that NOx emissions during the construction phase as reported in Table

4.3.O (84.3 lbs/day or 10.54 lbs/hr over an 8-hour workday) would violate the federal and state 1-hour ambient air quality standards. The EPS analysis shows that maximum project level 1-hour NOx impacts would be 1,500 ug/m3. This is more than 8 times the federal standard. See Table 1.

When added to existing background concentration the cumulative 1-hour NOx impacts is estimated to equal 1,596 ug/m3.

The fact that both project level and cumulative impacts are significant is especially troubling as the region has been classified as “Extreme” non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. NOx emissions are a precursor to regional ozone formation. High concentrations of ozone lead to increased levels of asthma and other respiratory diseases. The very young and the elderly are most at risk from exposure to these air pollutants.

Table 1
Project Level and Cumulative Air Quality
Concentrations Caused by Project Emissions
Background
(2023)
Project Level Cumulative Standard
1-Hr NOx (NO2) 96 ug/m3
(0.051 ppm)
1,500 ug/m3 1,596 ug/m3
State 339 ug/m3
Federal 188 ug/m3
Background NOx data from DEIR Table 4.3.D
Threshold 4.3.1 in Section 4.3.3 asserted that the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. How can this be possible when the project creates new violations of the 1-hour NOx standards.

Threshold 4.3.3 presented in Section 4.3.6 of the DEIR concludes that the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations These conclusions are not substantiated since the project level NOx concentrations were never calculated in the DEIR.

Methodology for Calculating 1-Hour NOx Impacts
EPS used the following methodology to determine the concentrations of 1-hour NOx based on the reported construction emissions. Electronic copies of the modeling files are attached. 2 Information available at:. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/capp/cst/tch/ambient-air-quality-standards-designation-tool Item: 9
903
5 Dispersion Model and Model Options Used
AERMOD Version 24142 was used. The following options were used:
• Use of Flat and Terrain
• Use of Urban
• No Exponential Decay
Modeling Grid and Coordinate System
NOx concentrations were calculated using a rectangular (x-y) Cartesian coordinate system. A region 1,975 meters x 1,975 meters was used. The modeling region divided into 25 meter square cells for a total of 6,400 individual receptors in the vicinity of the project area. See Figure 4 for a layout of the modeling grid.

Meteorological Data
5 years (2017-2021) of hourly meteorological data from Mission Viejo as processes by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) were used. The station elevation as 168 meters.

Construction Emissions
Maximum daily emissions of NOx reported in Table 4.3.O the DEIR (84.3 pounds per day or 10.5 pounds per hour over an eight-hour day. Since peak hourly emissions were not calculated in the DEIR, the actual hourly NOx emissions are likely higher than 10.5 lbs/hr.

RESULTS
The results of this analysis indicate that NOx emissions during the construction phase of the Project would result in ambient concentrations that would violate both the Federal and California’s 1-hour ambient air quality standard for NOx emissions. These findings are summarized in Table 1.

Table 2
Summary of Project Level NOx Impacts
Pollutant
Maximum Construction
Related Impact
(ug/m3)
State or Federal Ambient Air
Quality Standard3
(ug/m3)
NOx (1-hour) 1,500 Federal: 188
State: 339
The spatial distribution of NOx is provided in Figures 5 and 6. Area within the contour marked “188” exceed the federal 1-hour NOx standard. These results indicate that the construction phase of this project would lead to significant NOx related air quality impacts, which have not been disclosed in the DEIR. This is a critical omission as the Orange County suffers from the 3 Copy of ambient air quality standards available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf, incorporated herein by this reference. The City should print out and include with this letter this referenced material.

Item: 9
904
6 worst air quality in the Country. NOx emissions are one of the main precursors that cause ozone (smog). Electronic copies of the modeling files are attached to verify EPS modeling results.

CONCLUSIONS
EPS review has identified numerous deficiencies and omissions related to air quality impacts associated with the proposed project. These are summarized below:

1. Not all thresholds were included in the DEIR. Had this been done, significant impacts would have been identified.

2. Peak construction emissions were not evaluated

3. Impacts from secondary pollutants from conversion of NOx and VOCs into fine particulate were not calculated

4. Violation of the federal and state 1-hour NOx standard

5. Unsupported conclusions on the severity of the air quality impacts Item: 9
905
Figures
and
Attachments
Item: 9
906
Figure 1
Project Location
Item: 9
907
Figure 2
Project Site Map
Source: IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC Project DEIR (July 2025) Item: 9
908
Figure 3
Source Location
Item: 9
909
Figure 4
Layout of Modeling Grid
Note: Each square is 25 meters x 25 meters
Item: 9
910
Figure 5
Spatial Distribution of 1-Hour NOx Concentration
(micrograms per cubic meter)
Note: Area inside the contour labeled “188” exceeds the federal 1-hour NOx standard Only concentrations outside the project site are subject to ambient air quality standards Item: 9
911
Figure 6
1 Hour NOx Concentration Close-Up of Numerical Values
(in micrograms per cubic meter)
Note: Only concentrations outside the project site are subject to ambient air quality standards Item: 9
912
Item: 9
913
l
ROB BONTA State of California
Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and
Mitigation Measures to Comply with the
California Environmental Quality Act
Item: 9
914
Table of Contents
I. Background .......................................................................................................................... 1 II. Proactive Planning: General Plans, Local Ordinances, and Good Neighbor Policies ......... 3 III. Community Engagement ..................................................................................................... 4 IV. Warehouse Siting and Design Considerations ..................................................................... 5 V. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis and Mitigation ................................ 7 VI. Noise Impacts Analysis and Mitigation ............................................................................. 10 VII. Traffic Impacts Analysis and Mitigation ........................................................................... 11 VIII. Other Significant Environmental Impacts Analysis and Mitigation .................................. 12 IX. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 13 Item: 9
915
Updated September 2022
1 In carrying out its duty to enforce laws across California, the California Attorney General’s Bureau of Environmental Justice (Bureau)1
regularly reviews proposed warehouse
projects for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other laws.

When necessary, the Bureau submits comment letters to lead agencies regarding warehouse projects, and in rare cases the Bureau has filed litigation to enforce CEQA.2 This document builds upon the Bureau’s work on warehouse projects, collecting information gained from the Bureau’s review of hundreds of warehouse projects across the state.3 It is meant to help lead agencies pursue CEQA compliance and promote environmentally-just development as they confront warehouse project proposals.4
While CEQA analysis is necessarily project-specific,
this document provides information on feasible best practices and mitigation measures, nearly all of which have been adapted from actual warehouse projects in California.

I. Background
In recent years, the proliferation of e-commerce and rising consumer expectations of rapid shipping have contributed to a boom in warehouse development.5 California, with its ports, population centers, and transportation network, has found itself at the center of this trend.

In 2020, the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland collectively accounted for over 34% of all United States international container trade.6 The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach alone generate about 35,000 container truck trips every day.7 Accordingly, the South Coast Air Basin now contains approximately 3,000 warehouses of over 100,000 square feet each, with a total warehouse capacity of approximately 700 million square feet, an increase of 20 percent over the last five years.
8 This trend has only accelerated, with e-commerce growing to 1 https://oag.ca.gov/environment/justice. 2 https://oag.ca.gov/environment/ceqa; People of the State of California v. City of Fontana (Super. Ct. San Bernardino County, No. CIVSB2121829); South Central Neighbors United et al. v. City of Fresno et al. (Super. Ct. Fresno County, No. 18CECG00690). 3 This September 2022 version revises and replaces the prior March 2021 version of this document.
4 Anyone reviewing this document to determine CEQA compliance responsibilities should consult their own attorney for legal advice.
5 As used in this document, “warehouse” or “logistics facility” is defined as a facility consisting of one or more buildings that stores cargo, goods, or products on a short- or long-term basis for later distribution to businesses and/or retail customers. 6 Data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Container TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent Units) (2020), https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Container-TEU/x3fb-aeda/ (Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland combined for 14.157 million TEUs, 34% of 41.24 million TEUs total nationwide) (last accessed September 18, 2022).
7 U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Operations Support – Port Peak Pricing Program Evaluation (2020), available at https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09014/sect2.htm (last accessed September 18, 2022).
8 South Coast Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist., Final Socioeconomic Assessment for Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, at 7-8, 41 (May 2021).

Item: 9
916
Updated September 2022
2 13% of all retail sales and 2021 being a second consecutive record year for new warehouse space leased.9
The latest data and forecasts predict that the next wave of warehouse development will be in the Central Valley.10
When done properly, these activities can contribute to the economy and consumer welfare. However, imprudent warehouse development can harm local communities and the environment. Among other pollutants, diesel trucks visiting warehouses emit nitrogen oxide (NOx)—a primary precursor to smog formation and a significant factor in the development of respiratory problems like asthma, bronchitis, and lung irritation—and diesel particulate matter (a subset of fine particular matter that is smaller than 2.5 micrometers)—a contributor to cancer, heart disease, respiratory illnesses, and premature death. 11 Trucks and on-site loading activities
can also be loud, bringing disruptive noise levels during 24/7 operation that can cause hearing damage after prolonged exposure.12 The hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of daily truck and passenger car trips that warehouses generate contribute to traffic jams, deterioration of road surfaces, and traffic accidents.

These environmental impacts also tend to be concentrated in neighborhoods already suffering from disproportionate health impacts and systemic vulnerability. For example, a comprehensive study by the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that communities located near large warehouses scored far higher on California’s environmental justice screening tool, which measures overall pollution and demographic vulnerability.13 That 9 U.S. Census Bureau News, Quarterly Retail E-Commerce Sales 4th Quarter 2021 (February 22, 2022), https://www.census.gov/retail/mrts/www/data/pdf/ec_current.pdf (last accessed September 18, 2022); CBRE Research, 2022 North America Industrial Big Box Report: Review and Outlook, at 2-3 (March 2022), available at https://www.cbre.com/insights/reports/2022- north-america-industrial-big-box#download-report (last accessed September 18, 2022). 10 CBRE Research, supra note 9, at 4, 36; New York Times, Warehouses Are Headed to the Central Valley, Too (Jul. 22, 2020), available at
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/us/coronavirus-ca-warehouse-workers.html. 11 California Air Resources Board, Nitrogen Dioxide & Health, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/nitrogen-dioxide-and-health (last accessed September 18, 2022) (NOx); California Air Resources Board, Summary: Diesel Particular Matter Health Impacts, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/summary-diesel-particulate-matter-health-impacts (last accessed September 18, 2022); Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and American Lung Association of California, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust, https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf (last accessed September 18, 2022) (DPM).
12 Noise Sources and Their Effects,
https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm (last accessed September 18, 2022) (a diesel truck moving 40 miles per hour, 50 feet away, produces 84 decibels of sound).
13 South Coast Air Quality Management District, “Final Socioeconomic Assessment for Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305” (May 2021), at 4-5.

Item: 9
917
Updated September 2022
3 study concluded that, compared to the South Coast Air Basin averages, communities in the South Coast Air Basin near large warehouses had a substantially higher proportion of people of color; were exposed to more diesel particulate matter; had higher rates of asthma, cardiovascular disease, and low birth weights; and had higher poverty and unemployment rates.14 Each area has its own unique history, but many of these impacts and vulnerabilities reflect historic redlining practices in these communities, which devalued land and concentrated poverty, racial outgroups, and pollution into designated areas.
15 II. Proactive Planning: General Plans, Local Ordinances, and Good Neighbor Policies To systematically guide warehouse development, we encourage local governing bodies to proactively plan for logistics projects in their jurisdictions. Proactive planning allows jurisdictions to prevent land use conflicts before they materialize and direct sustainable development. Benefits also include providing a predictable business environment, protecting residents from environmental harm, and setting consistent expectations jurisdiction-wide.

Proactive planning can take many forms. Land use designation and zoning decisions should channel development into appropriate areas. For example, establishing industrial districts near major highway and rail corridors but away from sensitive receptors16 can help attract investment while avoiding conflicts between warehouse facilities and residential communities.

Transition zones with lighter industrial and commercial land uses may also help minimize conflicts between residential and industrial uses.

In addition, general plan policies, local ordinances, and good neighbor policies should set minimum standards for logistics projects. General plan policies can be incorporated into existing economic development, land use, circulation, or other related general plan elements. Many jurisdictions alternatively choose to consolidate policies in a separate environmental justice element. Adopting general plan policies to guide warehouse development may also help 14 Id. at 5-7.
15 Beginning in the 1930s, federal housing policy directed investment away from Black, immigrant, and working-class communities by color-coding neighborhoods according to the purported “riskiness” of loaning to their residents. In California cities where such “redlining” maps were drawn, nearly all of the communities where warehouses are now concentrated were formerly coded “red,” signifying the least desirable areas where investment was to be avoided.

See University of Richmond Digital Scholarship Lab, Mapping Inequality, https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=12/33.748/-118.272&city=los-angeles-ca (Los Angeles), https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=13/32.685/-117.132&city=sandiego-ca (San Diego), https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=11/37.81/- 122.38&city=oakland-ca (Oakland),
https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=13/37.956/-121.326&city=stockton-ca (Stockton), https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=12/36.751/-119.86&city=fresnoca (Fresno) (all last accessed September 18, 2022). 16 In this document, “sensitive receptors” refers to residences, schools, public recreation facilities, health care facilities, places of worship, daycare facilities, community centers, or incarceration facilities.

Item: 9
918
Updated September 2022
4 jurisdictions comply with their obligations under SB 1000, which requires local government general plans to identify objectives and policies to reduce health risks in disadvantaged communities, promote civil engagement in the public decision making process, and prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities.17 Local ordinances and good neighbor policies that set development standards for all warehouses in the jurisdiction are a critical and increasingly common tool that serve several goals. When well-designed, these ordinances direct investment to local improvements, provide predictability for developers, conserve government resources by streamlining project review processes, and reduce the environmental impacts of industrial development. While many jurisdictions have adopted warehouse-specific development standards, an ordinance in the City of Fontana provides an example to review and build upon.18 Good neighbor policies in Riverside County and by the Western Riverside Council of Government include additional measures worth consideration.19
The Bureau encourages jurisdictions to adopt their own local ordinances that combine the strongest policies from those models with measures discussed in the remainder of this document.

III. Community Engagement
Early and consistent community engagement is central to establishing good relationships between communities, lead agencies, and warehouse developers and tenants. Robust community engagement can give lead agencies access to community residents’ on-the-ground knowledge and information about their concerns, build community support for projects, and develop creative solutions to ensure new logistics facilities are mutually beneficial. Examples of best practices for community engagement include:
• Holding a series of community meetings at times and locations convenient to members of the affected community and incorporating suggestions into the project design.
• Posting information in hard copy in public gathering spaces and on a website about the project. The information should include a complete, accurate project description, maps and drawings of the project design, and information about how the public can provide input and be involved in the project approval process. The 17 For more information about SB 1000, see https://oag.ca.gov/environment/sb1000. 18 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/pressdocs/Final%20Signed%20Fontana%20Ordinance.pdf (last accessed September 18, 2022). 19 For example, the Riverside County policy requires community benefits agreements and supplemental funding contributions toward additional pollution offsets, and the Western Riverside Council of Governments policy sets a minimum buffer zone of 300 meters between warehouses and sensitive receptors. https://www.rivcocob.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/01/Good-Neighbor-Policy-F-3-Final-Adopted.pdf (last accessed September 18, 2022) (Riverside County);
http://www.wrcog.cog.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/318/Good-Neighbor-Guidelines-for-SitingWarehouse-Distribution-Facilities-PDF?bidId= (last accessed September 18, 2022) (Western Riverside Council of Governments).

Item: 9
919
Updated September 2022
5 information should be in a format that is easy to navigate and understand for members of the affected community.
• Providing notice by mail to residents and schools within a certain radius of the project and along transportation corridors to be used by vehicles visiting the project, and by posting a prominent sign on the project site. The notice should include a brief project description and directions for accessing complete information about the project and for providing input on the project. • Providing translation or interpretation in residents’ native language, where appropriate.
• For public meetings broadcast online or otherwise held remotely, providing for access and public comment by telephone and supplying instructions for access and public comment with ample lead time prior to the meeting. • Partnering with local community-based organizations to solicit feedback, leverage local networks, co-host meetings, and build support.
• Considering adoption of a community benefits agreement, negotiated with input from affected residents and businesses, by which the developer provides benefits to the affected community.
• Creating a community advisory board made up of local residents to review and provide feedback on project proposals in early planning stages. • Identifying a person to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activity and operations, and providing contact information for the community liaison to the surrounding community.
• Requiring signage in public view at warehouse facilities with contact information for a local designated representative for the facility operator who can receive community complaints, and requiring any complaints to be answered by the facility operator within 48 hours of receipt.

IV. Warehouse Siting and Design Considerations
The most important consideration when planning a logistics facility is its location.

Warehouses located in residential neighborhoods or near sensitive receptors expose community residents and those using or visiting sensitive receptor sites to the air pollution, noise, traffic, and other environmental impacts they generate. Therefore, placing facilities away from sensitive receptors significantly reduces their environmental and quality of life harms on local communities. The suggested best practices for siting and design of warehouse facilities does not relieve lead agencies’ responsibility under CEQA to conduct a project-specific analysis of the project’s impacts and evaluation of feasible mitigation measures and alternatives; lead agencies’ incorporation of the best practices must be part of the impact, mitigation and alternatives analyses to meet the requirements of CEQA. Examples of best practices when siting and designing warehouse facilities include:

Item: 9
920
Updated September 2022
6 • Per California Air Resources Board (CARB) guidance, siting warehouse facilities so that their property lines are at least 1,000 feet from the property lines of the nearest sensitive receptors.
20 • Providing adequate amounts of on-site parking to prevent trucks and other vehicles from parking or idling on public streets and to reduce demand for off-site truck yards.
• Establishing setbacks from the property line of the nearest sensitive receptor to warehouse dock doors, loading areas, and truck drive aisles, and locating warehouse dock doors, loading areas, and truck drive aisles on the opposite side of the building from the nearest sensitive receptors—e.g., placing dock doors on the north side of the facility if sensitive receptors are near the south side of the facility.
• Placing facility entry and exit points from the public street away from sensitive receptors—e.g., placing these points on the north side of the facility if sensitive receptors are adjacent to the south side of the facility. • Ensuring heavy duty trucks abide by the on-site circulation plans by constructing physical barriers to block those trucks from using areas of the project site restricted to light duty vehicles or emergency vehicles only. • Preventing truck queuing spillover onto surrounding streets by positioning entry gates after a minimum of 140 feet of space for queuing, and increasing the distance by 70 feet for every 20 loading docks beyond 50 docks. • Locating facility entry and exit points on streets of higher commercial classification that are designed to accommodate heavy duty truck usage. • Screening the warehouse site perimeter and onsite areas with significant truck traffic (e.g., dock doors and drive aisles) by creating physical, structural, and/or vegetative buffers that prevent or substantially reduce pollutant and noise dispersion from the facility to sensitive receptors.
• Planting exclusively 36-inch box evergreen trees to ensure faster maturity and four-season foliage.
• Requiring all property owners and successors in interest to maintain onsite trees and vegetation for the duration of ownership, including replacing any dead or unhealthy trees and vegetation.
• Posting signs clearly showing the designated entry and exit points from the public street for trucks and service vehicles.
• Including signs and drive aisle pavement markings that clearly identify onsite circulation patterns to minimize unnecessary onsite vehicle travel. • Posting signs indicating that all parking and maintenance of trucks must be conducted within designated on-site areas and not within the surrounding community or public streets.
20 CARB, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005), at ES-1. CARB staff has released draft updates to this siting and design guidance which suggests a greater distance may be warranted in some scenarios. CARB, Concept Paper for the Freight Handbook (December 2019), available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 03/2019.12.12%20-%20Concept%20Paper%20for%20the%20Freight%20Handbook_1.pdf (last accessed September 18, 2022).

Item: 9
921
Updated September 2022
7 V. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis and Mitigation Emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases are often among the most substantial environmental impacts from new warehouse facilities. CEQA compliance demands a proper accounting of the full air quality and greenhouse gas impacts of logistics facilities and adoption of all feasible mitigation of significant impacts. Although efforts by CARB and other authorities to regulate the heavy-duty truck and off-road diesel fleets have made excellent progress in reducing the air quality impacts of logistics facilities, the opportunity remains for local jurisdictions to further mitigate these impacts at the project level. Lead agencies and developers should also consider designing projects with their long-term viability in mind. Constructing the necessary infrastructure to prepare for the zero-emission future of goods movement not only reduces a facility’s emissions and local impact now, but it can also save money as demand for zero-emission infrastructure grows. In planning new logistics facilities, the Bureau strongly encourages developers to consider the local, statewide, and global impacts of their projects’ emissions.

Examples of best practices when studying air quality and greenhouse gas impacts include:
• Fully analyzing all reasonably foreseeable project impacts, including cumulative impacts. In general, new warehouse developments are not ministerial under CEQA because they involve public officials’ personal judgment as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project, even when warehouses are permitted by a site’s applicable zoning and/or general plan land use designation.21 • When 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 thresholds.
• Preparing a quantitative air quality study in accordance with local air district guidelines.
• Preparing a quantitative health risk assessment in accordance with California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and local air district guidelines.
• Refraining from labeling compliance with CARB or air district regulations as a mitigation measure—compliance with applicable regulations is required regardless of CEQA.
• Disclosing air pollution from the entire expected length of truck trips. CEQA requires full public disclosure of a project’s anticipated truck trips, which entails calculating truck trip length based on likely truck trip destinations, rather than the distance from the facility to the edge of the air basin, local jurisdiction, or other truncated endpoint. All air pollution associated with the project must be considered, regardless of where those impacts occur.
21 CEQA Guidelines § 15369.

Item: 9
922
Updated September 2022
8 • Accounting for all reasonably foreseeable greenhouse gas emissions from the project, without discounting projected emissions based on participation in California’s Cap-and-Trade Program.

Examples of measures to mitigate air quality and greenhouse gas impacts from construction are below. To ensure mitigation measures are enforceable and effective, they should be imposed as permit conditions on the project where applicable. • Requiring off-road construction equipment to be hybrid electric-diesel or zeroemission, where available, and all diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment to be equipped with CARB Tier IV-compliant engines or better, and including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts, with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities.
• Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
• Using electric-powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers, and providing electrical hook ups to the power grid rather than use of diesel-fueled generators to supply their power.
• Designating an area in the construction site where electric-powered construction vehicles and equipment can charge.
• Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area. • Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for particulates or ozone for the project area.
• Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than three minutes. • Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications. • Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts.
• Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings that have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L.
• Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction employees.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for construction employees.

Examples of measures to mitigate air quality and greenhouse gas impacts from operation include:
• Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles engaged in drayage22 to or from the project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030.
22 “Drayage” refers generally to transport of cargo to or from a seaport or intermodal railyard.

Item: 9
923
Updated September 2022
9 • Requiring all on-site motorized operational equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be zero-emission with the necessary charging or fueling stations provided.
• Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations.
• Forbidding trucks from idling for more than three minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use.
• Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the local air district, and the building manager. • Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity that is equal to or greater than the building’s projected energy needs, including all electrical chargers.
• Designing all project building roofs to accommodate the maximum future coverage of solar panels and installing the maximum solar power generation capacity feasible.
• Constructing zero-emission truck charging/fueling stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
• Running conduit to designated locations for future electric truck charging stations. • Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the underlying property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space, constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and requiring truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs when at loading docks.
• Oversizing electrical rooms by 25 percent or providing a secondary electrical room to accommodate future expansion of electric vehicle charging capability. • Constructing and maintaining electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of employee parking spaces (for example, requiring at least 10% of all employee parking spaces to be equipped with electric vehicle charging stations of at least Level 2 charging performance) • Running conduit to an additional proportion of employee parking spaces for a future increase in the number of electric light-duty charging stations. • Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, air filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the project.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project, and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air.
• Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel. • Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of Item: 9
924
Updated September 2022
10 trucks.
• 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. • Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking.
• Designing to LEED green building certification standards. • Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.
• Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route.
• Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project area.
• Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARBapproved courses. Also require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.
• 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.

VI. Noise Impacts Analysis and Mitigation
The noise associated with logistics facilities can be among their most intrusive impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Various sources, such as unloading activity, diesel truck movement, and rooftop air conditioning units, can contribute substantial noise pollution. These impacts are exacerbated by logistics facilities’ typical 24-hour, seven-days-per-week operation. Construction noise is often even greater than operational noise, so if a project site is near sensitive receptors, developers and lead agencies should adopt measures to reduce the noise generated by both construction and operation activities.

Examples of best practices when studying noise impacts include:
• Preparing a noise impact analysis that considers all reasonably foreseeable project noise impacts, including to nearby sensitive receptors. All reasonably foreseeable project noise impacts encompasses noise from both construction and operations, including stationary, on-site, and off-site noise sources. • Adopting a lower significance threshold for incremental noise increases when baseline noise already exceeds total noise significance thresholds, to account for the cumulative impact of additional noise and the fact that, as noise moves up the decibel scale, each decibel increase is a progressively greater increase in sound Item: 9
925
Updated September 2022
11 pressure than the last. For example, 70 dBA is ten times more sound pressure than 60 dBA.
• Disclosing and considering the significance of short-term noise levels associated with all aspects of project operation (i.e. both on-site noise generation and off-site truck noise). Considering only average noise levels may mask noise impacts sensitive receptors would consider significant—for example, the repeated but short-lived passing of individual trucks or loading activities at night.

Examples of measures to mitigate noise impacts include:
• Constructing physical, structural, or vegetative noise barriers on and/or off the project site.
• Planning and enforcing truck routes that avoid passing sensitive receptors. • Locating or parking all stationary construction equipment as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and directing emitted noise away from sensitive receptors. • Verifying that construction equipment has properly operating and maintained mufflers.
• Requiring all combustion-powered construction equipment to be surrounded by a noise protection barrier
• Limiting operation hours to daytime hours on weekdays. • Paving roads where truck traffic is anticipated with low noise asphalt. • Orienting any public address systems onsite away from sensitive receptors and setting system volume at a level not readily audible past the property line.

VII. Traffic Impacts Analysis and Mitigation
Warehouse facilities inevitably bring truck and passenger car traffic. Truck traffic can present substantial safety issues. Collisions with heavy-duty trucks are especially dangerous for passenger cars, motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians. These concerns can be even greater if truck traffic passes through residential areas, school zones, or other places where pedestrians are common and extra caution is warranted.

Examples of measures to mitigate traffic impacts include:
• Designing, clearly marking, and enforcing truck routes that keep trucks out of residential neighborhoods and away from other sensitive receptors. • Installing signs in residential areas noting that truck and employee parking is prohibited.
• Requiring preparation and approval of a truck routing plan describing the facility’s hours of operation, types of items to be stored, and truck routing to and from the facility to designated truck routes that avoids passing sensitive receptors.

The plan should include measures for preventing truck queuing, circling, stopping, and parking on public streets, such as signage, pavement markings, and queuing analysis and enforcement. The plan should hold facility operators responsible for violations of the truck routing plan, and a revised plan should be required from any new tenant that occupies the property before a business license Item: 9
926
Updated September 2022
12 is issued. The approving agency should retain discretion to determine if changes to the plan are necessary, including any additional measures to alleviate truck routing and parking issues that may arise during the life of the facility. • Constructing new or improved transit stops, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and crosswalks, with special attention to ensuring safe routes to schools. • Consulting with the local public transit agency and securing increased public transit service to the project area.
• Designating areas for employee pickup and drop-off.
• Implementing traffic control and safety measures, such as speed bumps, speed limits, or new traffic signs or signals.
• Placing facility entry and exit points on major streets that do not have adjacent sensitive receptors.
• Restricting the turns trucks can make entering and exiting the facility to route trucks away from sensitive receptors.
• Constructing roadway improvements to improve traffic flow. • Preparing a construction traffic control plan prior to grading, detailing the locations of equipment staging areas, material stockpiles, proposed road closures, and hours of construction operations, and designing the plan to minimize impacts to roads frequented by passenger cars, pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-truck traffic.

VIII. Other Significant Environmental Impacts Analysis and Mitigation Warehouse projects may result in significant environmental impacts to other resources, such as to aesthetics, cultural resources, energy, geology, or hazardous materials. All significant adverse environmental impacts must be evaluated, disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA. Examples of best practices and mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts that do not fall under any of the above categories include:
• Appointing a compliance officer who is responsible for implementing all mitigation measures, and providing contact information for the compliance officer to the lead agency, to be updated annually.
• Creating a fund to mitigate impacts on affected residents, schools, places of worship, and other community institutions by retrofitting their property. For example, retaining a contractor to retrofit/install HVAC and/or air filtration systems, doors, dual-paned windows, and sound- and vibration-deadening insulation and curtains.
• Sweeping surrounding streets on a daily basis during construction to remove any construction-related debris and dirt.
• Directing all lighting at the facility into the interior of the site. • Using full cut-off light shields and/or anti-glare lighting. • Requiring submission of a property maintenance program for agency review and approval providing for the regular maintenance of all building structures, landscaping, and paved surfaces.
• Using cool pavement to reduce heat island effects.

Item: 9
927
Updated September 2022
13 • Planting trees in parking areas to provide at least 35% shade cover of parking areas within fifteen years to reduce heat island impacts. • Using light colored roofing materials with a solar reflective index of 78 or greater. • Including on-site amenities, such as a truck operator lounge with restrooms, vending machines, and air conditioning, to reduce the need for truck operators to idle or travel offsite.
• Designing skylights to provide natural light to interior worker areas. • Installing climate control and air filtration in the warehouse facility to promote worker well-being.

IX. Conclusion
California’s world-class economy, ports, and transportation network position it at the center of the e-commerce and logistics industry boom. At the same time, California is a global leader in environmental protection and environmentally just development. The guidance in this document furthers these dual strengths, ensuring that all can access the benefits of economic development. The Bureau will continue to monitor proposed projects for compliance with CEQA and other laws. Lead agencies, developers, community advocates, and other interested parties should feel free to reach out to us as they consider how to guide warehouse development in their area.

Please do not hesitate to contact the Environmental Justice Bureau at [email protected] if you have any questions.

Item: 9
928
Item: 9
929
Item: 9
930
Item: 9
931
Item: 9
932
Item: 9
933
Item: 9
934
Item: 9
935
Item: 9
936
Item: 9
937
Item: 9
938
Item: 9
939
Item: 9
940
Item: 9
941
Item: 9
942
Item: 9
943
Item: 9
944
Item: 9
945
Item: 9
946
Item: 9
947

AIR QUALITY AND LAND USE HANDBOOK:

A COMMUNITY HEALTH PERSPECTIVE
April 2005
California Environmental Protection Agency
California Air Resources Board
Item: 9
948
Air Agency Contacts
FederalU.S. EPA, Region 9
Phone: (866)-EPA-WEST
Website: www.epa.gov/region09
Email: [email protected]
-StateCalifornia Air Resources Board
Phone: (916) 322-2990 (public info)
(800) 363-7664 (public info)
(800) 952-5588 (complaints)
(866)-397-5462 (env. justice)
Website: www.arb.ca.gov
Email: [email protected]
-LocalAmador County APCD
Phone: (209) 257-0112
Website: www.amadorapcd.org
E-Mail: [email protected]
Antelope Valley AQMD
Phone: (661) 723-8070
Complaint Line: (888) 732-8070
Website: www.avaqmd.ca.gov
E-Mail: [email protected]
Bay Area AQMD
Phone: (415) 749-5000
Complaint Line: (800) 334-6367
Website: www.baaqmd.gov
E-Mail: [email protected]
Butte County AQMD
Phone: (530) 891-2882
Website: www.bcaqmd.org
E-Mail: [email protected]
Calaveras County APCD
Phone: (209) 754-6504
E-Mail: [email protected]
Colusa County APCD
Phone: (530) 458-0590
Website: www.colusanet.com/apcd
E-Mail: [email protected]
El Dorado County AQMD
Phone: (530) 621-6662
Website:
www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/emd/apcd
E-Mail: [email protected]
Feather River AQMD
Phone: (530) 634-7659
Website: www.fraqmd.org
E-Mail: [email protected]
Glenn County APCD
Phone: (530) 934-6500
http://www.countyofglenn.net/air_pollution_
control
E-Mail: [email protected]
Great Basin Unified APCD
Phone: (760) 872-8211
Website: www.gbuapcd.org
E-Mail: [email protected]
Imperial County APCD
Phone: (760) 482-4606
E-Mail: [email protected]
Kern County APCD
Phone: (661) 862-5250
Website: www.kernair.org
E-Mail: [email protected]
Lake County AQMD
Phone: (707) 263-7000
Website: www.lcaqmd.net
E-Mail: [email protected]
Lassen County APCD
Phone: (530) 251-8110
E-Mail: [email protected]
Mariposa County APCD
Phone: (209) 966-2220
E-Mail: [email protected]
Mendocino County AQMD
Phone: (707) 463-4354
Website:
www.co.mendocino.ca.us/aqmd
E-Mail:
[email protected]
Modoc County APCD
Phone: (530) 233-6419
E-Mail: [email protected]
Mojave Desert AQMD
Phone: (760) 245-1661
(800) 635-4617
Website: www.mdaqmd.ca.gov
Monterey Bay Unified APCD
Phone: (831) 647-9411
(800) 253-6028 (Complaints)
Website: www.mbuapcd.org
E-Mail: [email protected]
North Coast Unified AQMD
Phone: (707) 443-3093
Website: www.ncuaqmd.org
E-Mail: [email protected]
Northern Sierra AQMD
Phone: (530) 274-9360
Website: www.myairdistrict.com
E-Mail: [email protected]
Northern Sonoma County
APCD
Phone: (707) 433-5911
E-Mail: [email protected]
Placer County APCD
Phone: (530) 889-7130
Website:
http://www.placer.ca.gov/airpolluti
on/airpolut.htm
E-Mail: [email protected]
Sacramento Metro AQMD
Phone: (916) 874-4800
Website: www.airquality.org
E-Mail: [email protected]
San Diego County APCD
Phone: (858) 650-4700
Website: www.sdapcd.org
San Joaquin Valley APCD
Phone: (559) 230-6000 (General)
(800) 281-7003
(San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced)
(800) 870-1037
(Madera, Fresno, Kings)
(800) 926-5550
(Tulare and Valley portion of Kern)
Website: www.valleyair.org
E-Mail: [email protected]
San Luis Obispo County
APCD
Phone: (805) 781-5912
Website: www.slocleanair.org
E-Mail: [email protected]
Santa Barbara County APCD
Phone (805) 961-8800
Website: www.sbcapcd.org
Email us: [email protected]
Shasta County AQMD
Phone: (530) 225-5789
Website:
www.co.shasta.ca.us/Departments/R
esourcemgmt/drm/aqmain.htm
E-Mail: [email protected]
Siskiyou County APCD
Phone: (530) 841-4029
E-Mail: [email protected]
South Coast AQMD
Phone: (909) 396-2000
Complaint Line: 1-800-CUT-SMOG
Website: www.aqmd.gov
Email: [email protected]
Tehama County APCD
Phone: (530) 527-3717
Website: www.tehcoapcd.net
Email: [email protected]
Tuolumne County APCD
Phone: (209) 533-5693
E-Mail:
[email protected]
Ventura County APCD
Phone: (805) 645-1400
Complaint Line: (805) 654-2797
Website: www.vcapcd.org
E-Mail: [email protected]
Yolo-Solano AQMD
Phone: (530) 757-3650
Website: www.ysaqmd.org
Email: [email protected]

Item: 9
949
Item: 9
950

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ ES-1

1. ARB RECOMMENDATIONS ON SITING NEW SENSITIVE LAND USES.......................................... 1 FREEWAYS AND HIGH TRAFFIC ROADS ..................................................................................................... 8 DISTRIBUTION CENTERS ........................................................................................................................ 11 RAIL YARDS .......................................................................................................................................... 15 PORTS.................................................................................................................................................. 19 PETROLEUM REFINERIES ....................................................................................................................... 21 CHROME PLATING OPERATIONS............................................................................................................. 23 DRY CLEANERS USING PERCHLOROETHYLENE (PERC DRY CLEANERS) ................................................... 27 GASOLINE DISPENSING FACILITIES ......................................................................................................... 30 OTHER FACILITY TYPES THAT EMIT AIR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN ......................................................... 32 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF ODOR AND DUST COMPLAINTS......................................................................... 32

2. HANDBOOK DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................ 35

3. KEY COMMUNITY FOCUSED ISSUES LAND USE AGENCIES SHOULD CONSIDER.................. 38 INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES .................................................................................................................... 38 CUMULATIVE AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS ................................................................................................... 39

4. MECHANISMS FOR INTEGRATING LOCALIZED AIR QUALITY CONCERNS INTO LAND USE PROCESSES............................................................................................................................... 40 GENERAL PLANS ................................................................................................................................... 41 ZONING................................................................................................................................................. 42 LAND USE PERMITTING PROCESSES ...................................................................................................... 43 OUTREACH TO OTHER AGENCIES........................................................................................................... 51

5. AVAILABLE TOOLS TO EVALUATE CUMULATIVE AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS AND RISK..................................................................................................................................................... 53

6. ARB PROGRAMS TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION IN COMMUNITIES............................................. 55

7. WAYS TO ENHANCE MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ..................................................... 58 Item: 9
951

APPENDICES
Appendix A Land Use Classifications And Associated Facility Categories That Could Emit Air Pollutants
Appendix B Land Use-Based Reference Tools To Evaluate New Projects For Potential Air Pollution Impacts
Appendix C ARB And Local Air District Information And Tools Concerning Cumulative Air Pollution Impacts
Appendix D Land Use And Air Quality Agency Roles In The Land Use Process Appendix E Special Processes That Apply To School Siting Appendix F General Processes Used By Land Use Agencies To Address Air Pollution Impacts
Appendix G Glossary Of Key Air Pollution Terms
Item: 9
952
Acknowledgments
The ARB staff would like to acknowledge the exceptional contributions made to this document by members of the ARB Environmental Justice Stakeholders Group. Since 2001, ARB staff has consistently relied on this group to provide critical and constructive input on implementing the specifics of ARB’s environmental justice policies and actions. The Stakeholders Group is convened by the ARB, and comprised of representatives from local land use and air agencies, community interest groups, environmental justice organizations, academia, and business. Their assistance and suggestions throughout the development of this Handbook have been invaluable.

Item: 9
953
Item: 9
954
Executive Summary
The Air Resources Board’s (ARB) primary goal in developing this document is to provide information that will help keep California’s children and other vulnerable populations out of harm’s way with respect to nearby sources of air pollution.

Recent air pollution studies have shown an association between respiratory and other non-cancer health effects and proximity to high traffic roadways. Other studies have shown that diesel exhaust and other cancer-causing chemicals emitted from cars and trucks are responsible for much of the overall cancer risk from airborne toxics in California. Also, ARB community health risk assessments and regulatory programs have produced important air quality information about certain types of facilities that should be considered when siting new residences, schools, day care centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities (i.e., sensitive land uses). Sensitive land uses deserve special attention because children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the non-cancer effects of air pollution. There is also substantial evidence that children are more sensitive to cancer-causing chemicals.

Focusing attention on these siting situations is an important preventative action.

ARB and local air districts have comprehensive efforts underway to address new and existing air pollution sources under their respective jurisdictions. The issue of siting is a local government function. As more data on the connection between proximity and health risk from air pollution become available, it is essential that air agencies share what we know with land use agencies. We hope this document will serve that purpose.

The first section provides ARB recommendations regarding the siting of new sensitive land uses near freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities. This list consists of the air pollution sources that we have evaluated from the standpoint of the proximity issue. It is based on available information and reflects ARB’s primary areas of jurisdiction – mobile sources and toxic air contaminants. A key air pollutant common to many of these sources is particulate matter from diesel engines. Diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) is a carcinogen identified by ARB as a toxic air contaminant and contributes to particulate pollution statewide.

Reducing diesel particulate emissions is one of ARB’s highest public health priorities and the focus of a comprehensive statewide control program that is reducing diesel PM emissions each year. ARB’s long-term goal is to reduce diesel PM emissions 85% by 2020. However, cleaning up diesel engines will take time as new engine standards phase in and programs to accelerate fleet turnover or retrofit existing engines are implemented. Also, these efforts are reducing diesel particulate emissions on a statewide basis, but do not yet capture every site where diesel vehicles and engines may congregate. Because living or going to school too close to such air pollution sources may increase both cancer and non-cancer health risks, we are recommending that proximity be considered in the siting of new sensitive land uses.

ES - 1
Item: 9
955
There are also other key toxic air contaminants associated with specific types of facilities. Most of these are subject to stringent state and local air district regulations. However, what we know today indicates that keeping new homes and other sensitive land uses from siting too close to such facilities would provide additional health protection. Chrome platers are a prime example of facilities that should not be located near vulnerable communities because of the cancer health risks from exposure to the toxic material used during their operations.

In addition to source specific recommendations, we also encourage land use agencies to use their planning processes to ensure the appropriate separation of industrial facilities and sensitive land uses. While we provide some suggestions, how to best achieve that goal is a local issue. In the development of these guidelines, we received valuable input from local government about the spectrum of issues that must be considered in the land use planning process. This includes addressing housing and transportation needs, the benefits of urban infill, community economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues. All of these factors are important considerations. The recommendations in the Handbook need to be balanced with other State and local policies.

Our purpose with this document is to highlight the potential health impacts associated with proximity to air pollution sources so planners explicitly consider this issue in planning processes. We believe that with careful evaluation, infill development, mixed use, higher density, transit-oriented development, and other concepts that benefit regional air quality can be compatible with protecting the health of individuals at the neighborhood level. One suggestion for achieving this goal is more communication between air agencies and land use planners. Local air districts are an important resource that should be consulted regarding sources of air pollution in their jurisdictions. ARB staff will also continue to provide updated technical information as it becomes available.

Our recommendations are as specific as possible given the nature of the available data. In some cases, like refineries, we suggest that the siting of new sensitive land uses should be avoided immediately downwind. However, we leave definition of the size of this area to local agencies based on facility specific considerations.

Also, project design that would reduce air pollution exposure may be part of the picture and we encourage consultation with air agencies on this subject.

In developing the recommendations, our first consideration was the adequacy of the data available for an air pollution source category. Using that data, we assessed whether we could reasonably characterize the relative exposure and health risk from a proximity standpoint. That screening provided the list of air pollution sources that we were able to address with specific recommendations.

We also considered the practical implications of making hard and fast recommendations where the potential impact area is large, emissions will be reduced with time, and air agencies are in the process of looking at options for additional emission control. In the end, we tailored our recommendations to minimize the highest exposures for each source category independently. Due to the large variability in relative risk in the source categories, we chose not to apply ES - 2
Item: 9
956
a uniform, quantified risk threshold as is typically done in air quality permitting programs. Instead, because these guidelines are not regulatory or binding on local agencies, we took a more qualitative approach in developing the distancebased recommendations.

Where possible, we recommend a minimum separation between a new sensitive land use and known air pollution risks. In other cases, we acknowledge that the existing health risk is too high in a relatively large area, that air agencies are working to reduce that risk, and that in the meantime, we recommend keeping new sensitive land uses out of the highest exposure areas. However, it is critical to note that our implied identification of the high exposure areas for these sources does not mean that the risk in the remaining impact area is insignificant. Rather, we hope this document will bring further attention to the potential health risk throughout the impact area and help garner support for our ongoing efforts to reduce health risk associated with air pollution sources. Areas downwind of major ports, rail yards, and other inter-modal transportation facilities are prime examples.

We developed these recommendations as a means to share important public health information. The underlying data are publicly available and referenced in this document. We also describe our rationale and the factors considered in developing each recommendation, including data limitations and uncertainties.

These recommendations are advisory and should not be interpreted as defined “buffer zones.” We recognize the opportunity for more detailed site-specific analyses always exists, and that there is no “one size fits all” solution to land use planning.

As California continues to grow, we collectively have the opportunity to use all the information at hand to avoid siting scenarios that may pose a health risk. As part of ARB’s focus on communities and children’s health, we encourage land use agencies to apply these recommendations and work more closely with air agencies. We also hope that this document will help educate a wider audience about the value of preventative action to reduce environmental exposures to air pollution.

ES - 3
Item: 9
957
Item: 9
958

1. ARB Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Protecting California’s communities and our children from the health effects of air pollution is one of the most fundamental goals of state and local air pollution control programs. Our focus on children reflects their special vulnerability to the health impacts of air pollution. Other vulnerable populations include the elderly, pregnant women, and those with serious health problems affected by air pollution. With this document, we hope to more effectively engage local land use agencies as partners in our efforts to reduce health risk from air pollution in all California communities.

Later sections emphasize the need to strengthen the connection between air quality and land use in both planning and permitting processes. Because the siting process for many, but not all air pollution sources involves permitting by local air districts, there is an opportunity for interagency coordination where the proposed location might pose a problem. To enhance the evaluation process from a land use perspective, section 4 includes recommended project related questions to help screen for potential proximity related issues.

Unlike industrial and other stationary sources of air pollution, the siting of new homes or day care centers does not require an air quality permit. Because these situations fall outside the air quality permitting process, it is especially important that land use agencies be aware of potential air pollution impacts.

The following recommendations address the issue of siting “sensitive land uses” near specific sources of air pollution; namely:
• High traffic freeways and roads
• Distribution centers
• Rail yards
• Ports
• Refineries
• Chrome plating facilities
• Dry cleaners
• Large gas dispensing facilities
The recommendations for each category include a summary of key information and guidance on what to avoid from a public health perspective.

Item: 9
959
Sensitive individuals refer to those segments of the
population most susceptible to poor air quality (i.e.,
children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality). Land uses where sensitive individuals are most likely to spend time include schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential
communities (sensitive sites or sensitive land uses).

We are characterizing sensitive land uses as simply as we can by using the example of residences, schools, day care centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities. However, a variety of facilities are encompassed. For example, residences can include houses, apartments, and senior living complexes.

Medical facilities can include hospitals, convalescent homes, and health clinics.

Playgrounds could be play areas associated with parks or community centers.

In developing these recommendations, ARB first considered the adequacy of the data available for each air pollution source category. We assessed whether we could generally characterize the relative exposure and health risk from a proximity standpoint. The documented non-cancer health risks include triggering of asthma attacks, heart attacks, and increases in daily mortality and hospitalization for heart and respiratory diseases. These health impacts are well documented in epidemiological studies, but less easy to quantify from a particular air pollution source. Therefore, the cancer health impacts are used in this document to provide a picture of relative risk. This screening process provided the list of source categories we were able to address with specific recommendations. In evaluating the available information, we also considered the practical implications of making hard and fast recommendations where the potential impact area is large, emissions will be reduced with time, and air agencies are in the process of looking at options for additional emission control.

Due to the large variability in relative risk between the source categories, we chose not to apply a uniform, quantified risk threshold as is typically done in regulatory programs. Therefore, in the end, we tailored our recommendations to minimize the highest exposures for each source category independently.

Additionally, because this guidance is not regulatory or binding on local agencies, we took a more qualitative approach to developing distance based recommendations.

Where possible, we recommend a minimum separation between new sensitive land uses and existing sources. However, this is not always possible, particularly where there is an elevated health risk over large geographical areas. Areas downwind of ports and rail yards are prime examples. In such cases, we recommend doing everything possible to avoid locating sensitive receptors within the highest risk zones. Concurrently, air agencies and others will be working to reduce the overall risk through controls and measures within their scope of authority.

Item: 9
960
The recommendations were developed from the standpoint of siting new sensitive land uses. Project-specific data for new and existing air pollution sources are available as part of the air quality permitting process. Where such information is available, it should be used. Our recommendations are designed to fill a gap where information about existing facilities may not be readily available. These recommendations are only guidelines and are not designed to substitute for more specific information if it exists.

A summary of our recommendations is shown in Table 1-1. The basis and references1
supporting each of these recommendations, including health studies, air quality modeling and monitoring studies is discussed below beginning with freeways and summarized in Table 1-2. As new information becomes available, it will be included on ARB’s community health web page.

1 Detailed information on these references are available on ARB’s website at:
http://www.ARB.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm.

Item: 9
961
Table 1-1
Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses
Such As Residences, Schools, Daycare Centers, Playgrounds, or Medical Facilities*
Source
Category Advisory Recommendations
Freeways and
High-Traffic
Roads
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.

Distribution
Centers
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).
• Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.

Rail Yards
•
•
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard.

Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches.

Ports
• Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the ARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.

Refineries
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation.

Chrome Platers • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.

Dry Cleaners
Using
Perchloroethylene
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with 3 or more machines, consult with the local air district.
• Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perc dry cleaning operations.

Gasoline
Dispensing
Facilities
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50 foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.
*Notes:
• These recommendations are advisory. Land use agencies have to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues.

Item: 9
962
• Recommendations are based primarily on data showing that the air pollution exposures addressed here (i.e., localized) can be reduced as much as 80% with the recommended separation.
• The relative risk for these categories varies greatly (see Table 1-2). To determine the actual risk near a particular facility, a site-specific analysis would be required. Risk from diesel PM will decrease over time as cleaner technology phases in.
• These recommendations are designed to fill a gap where information about existing facilities may not be readily available and are not designed to substitute for more specific information if it exists. The recommended distances take into account other factors in addition to available health risk data (see individual category descriptions).
• Site-specific project design improvements may help reduce air pollution exposures and should also be considered when siting new sensitive land uses.
• This table does not imply that mixed residential and commercial development in general is incompatible. Rather it focuses on known problems like dry cleaners using perchloroethylene that can be addressed with reasonable preventative actions.
• A summary of the basis for the distance recommendations can be found in Table 1-2.

Item: 9
963
Table 1-2
Summary of Basis for Advisory Recommendations
Source
Category
Range of
Relative
Cancer
Risk1,2
Summary of Basis for Advisory Recommendations
Freeways
and HighTraffic
Roads
300 –
1,700
• In traffic-related studies, the additional non-cancer health risk attributable to proximity was seen within 1,000 feet and was strongest within 300 feet. California freeway studies show about a 70% drop off in particulate pollution levels at 500 feet.

Distribution
Centers3
Up to
500
• Because ARB regulations will restrict truck idling at distribution centers, transport refrigeration unit (TRU) operations are the largest onsite diesel PM emission source followed by truck travel in and out of distribution centers.
• Based on ARB and South Coast District emissions and modeling analyses, we estimate an 80 percent drop-off in pollutant concentrations at approximately 1,000 feet from a distribution center.

Rail Yards Up to
500
• The air quality modeling conducted for the Roseville Rail Yard Study predicted the highest impact is within 1,000 feet of the Yard, and is associated with service and maintenance activities.

The next highest impact is between a half to one mile of the Yard, depending on wind direction and intensity.

Ports Studies
underway
• ARB will evaluate the impacts of ports and develop a new comprehensive plan that will describe the steps needed to reduce public health impacts from port and rail activities in California. In the interim, a general advisory is appropriate based on the magnitude of diesel PM emissions associated with ports.

Refineries Under 10
• Risk assessments conducted at California refineries show risks from air toxics to be under 10 chances of cancer per million.4

• Distance recommendations were based on the amount and potentially hazardous nature of many of the pollutants released as part of the refinery process, particularly during non-routine emissions releases.

Chrome
Platers 10-100
• ARB modeling and monitoring studies show localized risk of hexavalent chromium diminishing significantly at 300 feet. There are data limitations in both the modeling and monitoring studies.

These include variability of plating activities and uncertainty of emissions such as fugitive dust. Hexavalent chromium is one of the most potent toxic air contaminants. Considering these factors, a distance of 1,000 feet was used as a precautionary measure.

Dry
Cleaners
Using
Perchloroethylene
(perc)
15-150
• Local air district studies indicate that individual cancer risk can be reduced by as much as 75 percent by establishing a 300 foot separation between a sensitive land use and a one-machine perc dry cleaning operation. For larger operations (2 machines or more), a separation of 500 feet can reduce risk by over 85 percent.

Item: 9
964
Source
Category
Range of
Relative
Cancer
1,2
Summary of Basis for Advisory Recommendations
Risk
Gasoline
Dispensing
Facilities
(GDF)5
Typical
GDF:

Less
than 10
Large
GDF:

Between
Less
than 10
and 120
• Based on the CAPCOA Gasoline Service Station Industry-wide Risk Assessment Guidelines, most typical GDFs (less than

3.6 million gallons per year) have a risk of less than 10 at 50 feet under urban air dispersion conditions. Over the last few years, there has been a growing number of extremely large GDFs with sales over 3.6 and as high as 19 million gallons per year. Under rural air dispersion conditions, these large GDFs can pose a larger risk at a greater distance.
1 For cancer health effects, risk is expressed as an estimate of the increased chances of getting cancer due to facility emissions over a 70-year lifetime. This increase in risk is expressed as chances in a million (e.g., 10 chances in a million).
2 The estimated cancer risks are a function of the proximity to the specific category and were calculated independent of the regional health risk from air pollution. For example, the estimated regional cancer risk from air toxics in the Los Angeles region (South Coast Air Basin) is approximately 1,000 in a million.
3 Analysis based on refrigerator trucks.
4 Although risk assessments performed by refineries indicate they represent a low cancer risk, there is limited data on non-cancer effects of pollutants that are emitted from these facilities.

Refineries are also a source of non-routine emissions and odors. 5 A typical GDF in California dispenses under 3.6 million gallons of gasoline per year. The cancer risk for this size facility is likely to be less than 10 in a million at the fence line under urban air dispersion conditions.

A large GDF has fuel throughputs that can range from 3.6 to 19 million gallons of gasoline per year. The upper end of the risk range (i.e., 120 in a million) represents a hypothetical worst case scenario for an extremely large GDF under rural air dispersion conditions.

Item: 9
965
Freeways and High Traffic Roads
Air pollution studies indicate that living close to high traffic and the associated emissions may lead to adverse health effects beyond those associated with regional air pollution in urban areas. Many of these epidemiological studies have focused on children. A number of studies identify an association between adverse non-cancer health effects and living or attending school near heavily traveled roadways (see findings below). These studies have reported associations between residential proximity to high traffic roadways and a variety of respiratory symptoms, asthma exacerbations, and decreases in lung function in children.

One such study that found an association between traffic and respiratory symptoms in children was conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Measurements of traffic-related pollutants showed concentrations within 300 meters (approximately 1,000 feet) downwind of freeways were higher than regional values. Most other studies have assessed exposure based on proximity factors such as distance to freeways or traffic density.

These studies linking traffic emissions with health impacts build on a wealth of data on the adverse health effects of ambient air pollution. The data on the effects of proximity to traffic-related emissions provides additional information that can be used in land use siting and regulatory actions by air agencies. The key observation in these studies is that close proximity increases both exposure and the potential for adverse health effects. Other effects associated with traffic emissions include premature death in elderly individuals with heart disease.

Key Health Findings

• Reduced lung function in children was associated with traffic density, especially trucks, within 1,000 feet and the association was strongest within 300 feet. (Brunekreef, 1997)
• Increased asthma hospitalizations were associated with living within 650 feet of heavy traffic and heavy truck volume. (Lin, 2000)
• Asthma symptoms increased with proximity to roadways and the risk was greatest within 300 feet. (Venn, 2001)
• Asthma and bronchitis symptoms in children were associated with proximity to high traffic in a San Francisco Bay Area community with good overall regional air quality. (Kim, 2004)
• A San Diego study found increased medical visits in children living within 550 feet of heavy traffic. (English, 1999)
In these and other proximity studies, the distance from the roadway and truck traffic densities were key factors affecting the strength of the association with adverse health effects. In the above health studies, the association of trafficrelated emissions with adverse health effects was seen within 1,000 feet and was

Item: 9
966
strongest within 300 feet. This demonstrates that the adverse effects diminished with distance.

In addition to the respiratory health effects in children, proximity to freeways increases potential cancer risk and contributes to total particulate matter exposure. There are three carcinogenic toxic air contaminants that constitute the majority of the known health risk from motor vehicle traffic – diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) from trucks, and benzene and 1,3-butadiene from passenger vehicles. On a typical urban freeway (truck traffic of 10,000-20,000/day), diesel PM represents about 70 percent of the potential cancer risk from the vehicle traffic. Diesel particulate emissions are also of special concern because health studies show an association between particulate matter and premature mortality in those with existing cardiovascular disease.

Distance Related Findings
A southern California study (Zhu, 2002) showed measured concentrations of vehicle-related pollutants, including ultra-fine particles, decreased dramatically within approximately 300 feet of the 710 and 405 freeways. Another study looked at the validity of using distance from a roadway as a measure of exposure to traffic related air pollution (Knape, 1999). This study showed that concentrations of traffic related pollutants declined with distance from the road, primarily in the first 500 feet.
0 50000
100000
150000
200000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Distance from Freeway (feet)
Total Particle Number (cm-3)
405 freeway - Diesel <5%
710 freeway - Diesel >25%
Figure 1-1
Decrease In Concentration of Freeway Diesel PM Emissions With Distance
These findings are consistent with air quality modeling and risk analyses done by ARB staff that show an estimated range of potential cancer risk that decreases with distance from freeways. The estimated risk varies with the local meteorology, including wind pattern. As an example, at 300 feet downwind from a freeway (Interstate 80) with truck traffic of 10,000 trucks per day, the potential cancer risk was as high as 100 in one million (ARB Roseville Rail Yard Study).

The cancer health risk at 300 feet on the upwind side of the freeway was much

Item: 9
967
less. The risk at that distance for other freeways will vary based on local conditions – it may be higher or lower. However, in all these analyses the relative exposure and health risk dropped substantially within the first 300 feet.

This phenomenon is illustrated in Figure 1-1.

State law restricts the siting of new schools within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roadways with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roadways with 50,000 vehicles with some exceptions.2
However, no such requirements apply to the siting of
residences, day care centers, playgrounds, or medical facilities. The available data show that exposure is greatly reduced at approximately 300 feet. In the traffic-related studies the additional health risk attributable to the proximity effect was strongest within 1,000 feet.

The combination of the children’s health studies and the distance related findings suggests that it is important to avoid exposing children to elevated air pollution levels immediately downwind of freeways and high traffic roadways. These studies suggest a substantial benefit to a 500-foot separation.

The impact of traffic emissions is on a gradient that at some point becomes indistinguishable from the regional air pollution problem. As air agencies work to reduce the underlying regional health risk from diesel PM and other pollutants, the impact of proximity will also be reduced. In the meantime, as a preventative measure, we hope to avoid exposing more children and other vulnerable individuals to the highest concentrations of traffic-related emissions.

Recommendation
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.

References
• Brunekreef, B. et al. “Air pollution from truck traffic and lung function in children living near motorways.” Epidemiology. 1997; 8:298-303 • Lin, S. et al. “Childhood asthma hospitalization and residential exposure to state route traffic.” Environ Res. 2002;88:73-81
• Venn. et al. “Living near a main road and the risk of wheezing illness in children.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2001; Vol.164, pp. 2177-2180
• Kim, J. et al. “Traffic-related air pollution and respiratory health: East Bay Children’s Respiratory Health Study.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2004; Vol. 170. pp. 520-526

2 Section 17213 of the California Education Code and section 21151.8 of the California Public Resources Code. See also Appendix E for a description of special processes that apply to school siting.

Item: 9
968
• Zhu, Y et al. “Study of Ultra-Fine Particles Near A Major Highway With HeavyDuty Diesel Traffic.” Atmospheric Environment. 2002 ; 36:4323-4335 • Knape, M. “Traffic related air pollution in city districts near motorways.” The Science of the Total Environment. 1999; 235:339-341
• Roseville Rail Yard Study. ARB (October 2004)
• ARB Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. (2000)
• Delfino RJ “Epidemiologic Evidence for Asthma and Exposure to Air Toxics:

Linkages Between Occupational, Indoor, and Community Air Pollution Research.” Environmental Health Perspectives. (2002) 110 (supplement 4):
573-589
• English P., Neutra R., Scalf R. Sullivan M. Waller L. Zhu L. “Examining Associations Between Childhood Asthma and Traffic Flow Using a Geographic Information System.” (1999) Environmental Health Perspectives 107(9): 761-767
Distribution Centers
Distribution centers or warehouses are facilities that serve as a distribution point for the transfer of goods. Such facilities include cold storage warehouses, goods transfer facilities, and inter-modal facilities such as ports. These operations involve trucks, trailers, shipping containers, and other equipment with diesel engines. A distribution center can be comprised of multiple centers or warehouses within an area. The size can range from several to hundreds of acres, involving a number of different transfer operations and long waiting periods. A distribution center can accommodate hundreds of diesel trucks a day that deliver, load, and/or unload goods up to seven days a week. To the extent that these trucks are transporting perishable goods, they are equipped with diesel-powered transport refrigeration units (TRUs) or TRU generator sets.

The activities associated with delivering, storing, and loading freight produces diesel PM emissions. Although TRUs have relatively small diesel-powered engines, in the normal course of business, their emissions can pose a significant health risk to those nearby. In addition to onsite emissions, truck travel in and out of distribution centers contributes to the local pollution impact.

ARB is working to reduce diesel PM emissions through regulations, financial incentives, and enforcement programs. In 2004, ARB adopted two airborne toxic control measures that will reduce diesel PM emissions associated with distribution centers. The first will limit nonessential (or unnecessary) idling of diesel-fueled commercial vehicles, including those entering from other states or countries. This statewide measure, effective in 2005, prohibits idling of a vehicle more than five minutes at any one location.3
The elimination of unnecessary
idling will reduce the localized impacts caused by diesel PM and other air toxics

3 For further information on the Anti-Idling ATCM, please click on:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/idling/outreach/factsheet.pdf

Item: 9
969
in diesel vehicle exhaust. This should be a very effective new strategy for reducing diesel PM emissions at distribution centers as well as other locations.

The second measure requires that TRUs operating in California become cleaner over time. The measure establishes in-use performance standards for existing TRU engines that operate in California, including out-of-state TRUs. The requirements are phased-in beginning in 2008, and extend to 2019.4

ARB also operates a smoke inspection program for heavy-duty diesel trucks that focuses on reducing truck emissions in California communities. Areas with large numbers of distribution centers are a high priority.

Key Health Findings
Diesel PM has been identified by ARB as a toxic air contaminant and represents 70 percent of the known potential cancer risk from air toxics in California. Diesel PM is an important contributor to particulate matter air pollution. Particulate matter exposure is associated with premature mortality and health effects such as asthma exacerbation and hospitalization due to aggravating heart and lung disease.

Distance Related Findings
Although distribution centers are located throughout the state, they are usually clustered near transportation corridors, and are often located in or near population centers. Diesel PM emissions from associated delivery truck traffic and TRUs at these facilities may result in elevated diesel PM concentrations in neighborhoods surrounding those sites. Because ARB regulations will restrict truck idling at distribution centers, the largest continuing onsite diesel PM emission source is the operation of TRUs. Truck travel in and out of distribution centers also contributes to localized exposures, but specific travel patterns and truck volumes would be needed to identify the exact locations of the highest concentrations.

As part of the development of ARB’s regulation for TRUs, ARB staff performed air quality modeling to estimate exposure and the associated potential cancer risk of onsite TRUs for a typical distribution center. For an individual person, cancer risk estimates for air pollution are commonly expressed as a probability of developing cancer from a lifetime (i.e., 70 years) of exposure. These risks were calculated independent of regional risk. For example, the estimated regional cancer risk from air toxics in the Los Angeles region (South Coast Air Basin) is approximately 1,000 additional cancer cases per one million population.

4 For further information on the Transport Refrigeration Unit ATCM, please click on:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/trufaq.pdf

Item: 9
970
The diesel PM emissions from a facility are dependent on the size (horsepower), age, and number of engines, emission rates, the number of hours the truck engines and/or TRUs operate, distance, and meteorological conditions at the site. This assessment assumes a total on-site operating time for all TRUs of 300 hours per week. This would be the equivalent of 40 TRU-equipped trucks a day, each loading or unloading on-site for one hour, 12 hours a day and seven days a week.

As shown in Figure 1-2 below, at this estimated level of activity and assuming a current fleet diesel PM emission rate, the potential cancer risk would be over 100 in a million at 800 feet from the center of the TRU activity. The estimated potential cancer risk would be in the 10 to 100 per million range between 800 to 3,300 feet and fall off to less than 10 per million at approximately 3,600 feet.

However with the implementation of ARB’s regulation on TRUs, the risk will be significantly reduced.5
We have not conducted a risk assessment for distribution centers based on truck traffic alone, but on an emissions basis, we would expect similar risks for a facility with truck volumes in the range of 100 per day.

Figure 1-2

Estimated Risk Range versus Distance from Center of TRU Activity Area* Emission Rate
2000 (0.70 g/bhp-hr)
2010 (0.24 g/bhp-hr)
2020 (0.05 g/bhp-hr)
Distance from Center of
Source (meters)
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 KEY:

Potential Cancer Risk > 100 per million
Potential Cancer Risk ≥ 10 and < 100 per million
Potential Cancer Risks < 10 per million
*Assumes 300 hours per week of TRU engine operation at 60% load factor The estimated potential cancer risk level in Figure 1-2 is based on a number of assumptions that may not reflect actual conditions for a specific site. For example, increasing or decreasing the hours of diesel engine operations would change the potential risk levels. Meteorological and other facility specific parameters can also impact the results. Therefore, the results presented here are not directly applicable to any particular facility or operation. Rather, this information is intended to provide an indication as to the potential relative levels of risk that may be observed from operations at distribution centers. As shown in Figure 1-2, the estimated risk levels will decrease over time as lower-emitting diesel engines are used.

5 These risk values assume an exposure duration of 70 years for a nearby resident and uses the methodology specified in the 2003 OEHHA health risk assessment guidelines.

Item: 9
971
Another air modeling analysis, performed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD), evaluated the impact of diesel PM emissions from distribution center operations in the community of Mira Loma in southern California. Based on dispersion of diesel PM emissions from a large distribution center, Figure 1-3 shows the relative pollution concentrations at varying distances downwind. As Figure 1-3 shows, there is about an 80 percent drop off in concentration at approximately 1,000 feet.

Sensitivity of Concentration to Downwind Distance from a Distribution Center with TRUs
0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Distance (feet)
Rel. Conc.

Figure 1-3
Decrease In Relative Concentration of Risk
With Distance
Both the ARB and the South Coast AQMD analyses indicate that providing a separation of 1,000 feet would substantially reduce diesel PM concentrations and public exposure downwind of a distribution center. While these analyses do not provide specific risk estimates for distribution centers, they provide an indication of the range of risk and the benefits of providing a separation. ARB recommends a separation of 1,000 feet based on the combination of risk analysis done for TRUs and the decrease in exposure predicted with the South Coast AQMD modeling. However, ARB staff plans to provide further information on distribution centers as we collect more data and implement the TRU control measure.

Taking into account the configuration of distribution centers can also reduce population exposure and risk. For example, locating new sensitive land uses away from the main entry and exit points helps to reduce cancer risk and other health impacts.

Item: 9
972
Recommendations
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating TRUs per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).
• Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.

References
• Airborne Toxic Control Measure To Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. ARB (August 20, 2004). Rule effectiveness date awaiting submittal of regulation to the Office of Administration Law. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/idling/idling.htm
• Revised Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets, and Facilities Where TRUs Operate. ARB (October 28, 2003).
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/trude03/revisor.doc
• Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. SCAQMD (August 2003) http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/diesel_analysis.doc • “Mira Loma Study: Analysis of the Impact of Diesel Particulate Emissions from Warehouse/Distribution Center Operations”, PowerPoint presentation.

SCAQMD (July 31, 2002)
Rail Yards
Rail yards are a major source of diesel particulate air pollution. They are usually located near inter-modal facilities, which attract heavy truck traffic, and are often sited in mixed industrial and residential areas. ARB, working with the Placer County air district and Union Pacific Railroad, recently completed a study6 of the
Roseville Rail Yard (Yard) in northern California that focused on the health risk from diesel particulate. A comprehensive emissions analysis and air quality modeling were conducted to characterize the estimated potential cancer risk associated with the facility.

6 To review the study, please click on: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrstudy.htm

Item: 9
973
The Yard encompasses about 950 acres on a one-quarter mile wide by four-mile long strip of land that parallels Interstate 80. It is surrounded by commercial, industrial, and residential properties. The Yard is one of the largest service and maintenance rail yards in the West with over 30,000 locomotives visiting annually.

Using data provided by Union Pacific Railroad, the ARB determined the number and type of locomotives visiting the Yard annually and what those locomotives were doing - moving, idling, or undergoing maintenance testing. Union Pacific provided the annual, monthly, daily, and hourly locomotive activity in the yard including locomotive movements; routes for arrival, departure, and through trains; and locomotive service and testing. This information was used to estimate the emissions of particulate matter from the locomotives, which was then used to model the potential impacts on the surrounding community.

The key findings of the study are:
• Diesel PM emissions in 2000 from locomotive operations at the Roseville Yard were estimated at about 25 tons per year.
• Of the total diesel PM in the Yard, moving locomotives accounted for about 50 percent, idling locomotives about 45 percent, and locomotive testing about five percent.
• Air quality modeling predicts potential cancer risks greater than 500 in a million (based on 70 years of exposure) in a 10-40 acre area immediately adjacent to the Yard’s maintenance operations.
• The risk assessment also showed elevated cancer risk impacting a larger area covering about a 10 by 10 mile area around the Yard.

The elevated concentrations of diesel PM found in the study contribute to an increased risk of cancer and premature death due to cardiovascular disease, and non-cancer health effects such as asthma and other respiratory illnesses. The magnitude of the risk, the general location, and the size of the impacted area depended on the meteorological data used to characterize conditions at the Yard, the dispersion characteristics, and exposure assumptions. In addition to these variables, the nature of locomotive activity will influence a risk characterization at a particular rail yard. For these reasons, the quantified risk estimates in the Roseville Rail Yard Study cannot be directly applied to other rail yards. However, the study does indicate the health risk due to diesel PM from rail yards needs to be addressed. ARB, in conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), and local air districts, is working with the rail industry to identify and implement short term, mid-term and long-term mitigation strategies. ARB also intends to conduct a second rail study in southern California to increase its understanding of rail yard operations and the associated public health impacts.

Item: 9
974
Key Health Findings
Diesel PM has been identified by ARB as a toxic air contaminant and represents 70 percent of the known potential cancer risk from air toxics in California. Diesel PM is an important contributor to particulate matter air pollution. Particulate matter exposure is associated with premature mortality and health effects such as asthma exacerbation and hospitalization due to aggravating heart and lung disease.

Distance Related Findings
Two sets of meteorological data were used in the Roseville study because of technical limitations in the data. The size of the impact area was highly dependent on the meteorological data set used. The predicted highest impact area ranged from 10 - 40 acres with the two different meteorological data sets.

This area, with risks estimated above 500 in a million, is adjacent to an area that includes a maintenance shop (see Figure 1-4). The high concentration of diesel PM emissions is due to the number of locomotives and nature of activities in this area, particularly idling locomotives.

The area of highest impact is within 1,000 feet of the Yard. The next highest impact zone as defined in the report had a predicted risk between 500 and 100 in one million and extends out between a half to one mile in some spots, depending on which meteorological conditions were assumed. The impact areas are irregular in shape making it difficult to generalize about the impact of distance at a particular location. However, the Roseville Rail Yard Study clearly indicates that the localized health risk is high, the impact area is large, and mitigation of the locomotive diesel PM emissions is needed.

For facilities like rail yards and ports, the potential impact area is so large that the real solution is to substantially reduce facility emissions. However, land use planners can avoid encroaching upon existing rail facilities and those scheduled for expansion. We also recommend that while air agencies tackle this problem, land use planners try not to add new sensitive individuals into the highest exposure areas. Finally, we recommend that land use agencies consider the potential health impacts of rail yards in their planning and permitting processes.

Additional limitations and mitigation may be feasible to further reduce exposure on a site-specific basis.

Item: 9
975
Recommendation
•
Figure 1-4
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard7
.

Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches.
•
References
•

Roseville Rail Yard Study. ARB (2004)
7 The rail yard risk analysis was conducted for the Union Pacific rail yard in Roseville, California.

This rail yard is one of the largest in the state. There are other rail yards in California with comparable levels of activity that should be considered “major” for purposes of this Handbook.

Item: 9
976
Ports
Air pollution from maritime port activities is a growing concern for regional air quality as well as air quality in nearby communities. The primary air pollutant associated with port operations is directly emitted diesel particulate. Port-related activities also result in emissions that form ozone and secondary particulate in the atmosphere. The emission sources associated with ports include diesel engine-powered ocean-going ships, harbor craft, cargo handling equipment, trucks, and locomotives. The size and concentration of these diesel engines makes ports one of the biggest sources of diesel PM in the state. For that reason, ARB has made it a top priority to reduce diesel PM emissions at the ports, in surrounding communities, and throughout California.

International, national, state, and local government collaboration is critical to reducing port emissions based on both legal and practical considerations. For example, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the U.S. EPA establish emission standards for ocean-going vessels and U.S.-flagged harbor craft, respectively. ARB is pursuing further federal actions to tighten these standards. In addition, ARB and local air districts are reducing emissions from ports through a variety of approaches. These include: incentive programs to fund cleaner engines, enhanced enforcement of smoke emissions from ships and trucks, use of dockside electricity instead of diesel engines, cleaner fuels for ships, harbor craft, locomotives, and reduced engine idling. The two ATCMs that limit truck idling and reduce emissions from TRUs (discussed under “Distribution Centers”) also apply to ports.

ARB is also developing several other regulations that will reduce port-related emissions. One rule would require ocean-going ships to use a cleaner marine diesel fuel to power auxiliary engines while in California coastal waters and at dock. Ships that frequently visit California ports would also be required to further reduce their emissions. ARB has adopted a rule that would require harbor craft to use the same cleaner diesel fuel used by on-road trucks in California. In 2005, ARB will consider a rule that would require additional controls for in-use harbor craft, such as the use of add-on emission controls and accelerated turnover of older engines.

Key Health Findings
Port activities are a major source of diesel PM. Diesel PM has been identified by ARB as a toxic air contaminant and represents 70 percent of the known potential cancer risk from air toxics in California. Diesel PM is an important contributor to particulate matter air pollution. Particulate matter exposure is associated with premature mortality and health effects such as asthma exacerbation and hospitalization due to aggravating heart and lung disease.

Item: 9
977
Distance Related Findings
The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach provide an example of the emissions impact of port operations. A comprehensive emissions inventory was completed in June 2004. These ports combined are one of the world’s largest and busiest seaports. Located in San Pedro Bay, about 20 miles south of downtown Los Angeles, the port complex occupies approximately 16 square miles of land and water. Port activities include five source categories that produce diesel emissions. These are ocean-going vessels, harbor craft, cargo handling equipment, railroad locomotives, and heavy-duty trucks.

The baseline emission inventory provides emission estimates for all major air pollutants. This analysis focuses on diesel PM from in-port activity because these emissions have the most potential health impact on the areas adjacent to the port. Ocean vessels are the largest overall source of diesel PM related to the ports, but these emissions occur primarily outside of the port in coastal waters, making the impact more regional in nature.

The overall in-port emission inventory for diesel particulate for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach is estimated to be 550 tons per year. The emissions fall in the following major categories: ocean-going vessels (17%), harbor craft (25%), cargo handling (47%), railroad locomotive (3%), and heavy duty vehicles (8%). In addition to in-port emissions, ship, rail, and trucking activities also contribute to regional emissions and increase emissions in nearby neighborhoods. Off-port emissions associated with related ship, rail, and trucking activities contribute an additional 680 tons per year of diesel particulate at the Port of Los Angeles alone.

To put this in perspective, the diesel PM emissions estimated for the Roseville Yard in ARB’s 2004 study are 25 tons per year. The potential cancer risk associated with these emissions is 100 in one million at a distance of one mile, or one half mile, depending on the data set used. This rail yard covers one and a half square miles. The Los Angeles and Long Beach ports have combined diesel PM emissions of 550 tons per year emitted from a facility that covers a much larger area - 16 miles. The ports have about twice the emission density of the rail yard - 34 tons per year per square mile compared to 16 tons per year per square mile. However, while this general comparison is illustrative of the overall size of the complex, a detailed air quality modeling analysis would be needed to assess the potential health impact on specific downwind areas near the ports.

ARB is in the process of evaluating the various port-related emission sources from the standpoint of existing emissions, growth forecasts, new control options, regional air quality impacts, and localized health risk. A number of public processes - both state and local - are underway to address various aspects of these issues. Until more of these analyses are complete, there is little basis for recommending a specific separation between new sensitive land uses and ports.

Item: 9
978
For example, the type of data we have showing the relationship between air pollutant concentrations and distance from freeways is not yet available.

Also, the complexity of the port facilities makes a site-specific analysis critical.

Ports are a concentration of multiple emission sources with differing dispersion and other characteristics. In the case of the Roseville rail yard, we found a high, very localized impact associated with a particular activity, service and maintenance. By contrast, the location, size, and nature of impact areas can be expected to vary substantially for different port activities. For instance, ground level emissions from dockside activities would behave differently from ship stack level emissions.

Nonetheless, on an emissions basis alone, we expect locations downwind of ports to be substantially impacted. For that reason, we recommend that land use agencies track the current assessment efforts, and consider limitations on the siting of new sensitive land uses in areas immediately downwind of ports.

Recommendations
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the ARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.

References
• Roseville Rail Yard Study. ARB (2004)
•
•
Final Draft, “Port-Wide Baseline Air Emissions Inventory.” Port of Los Angeles (June 2004)
Final Draft, “2002 Baseline Air Emissions Inventory.” Port of Long Beach (February 2004)
Petroleum Refineries
A petroleum refinery is a complex facility where crude oil is converted into petroleum products (primarily gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel), which are then transported through a system of pipelines and storage tanks for final distribution by delivery truck to fueling facilities throughout the state. In California, most crude oil is delivered either by ship from Alaska or foreign sources, or is delivered via pipeline from oil production fields within the state. The crude oil then undergoes many complex chemical and physical reactions, which include distillation, catalytic cracking, reforming, and finishing. These refining processes have the potential to emit air contaminants, and are subject to extensive emission controls by district regulations.

As a result of these regulations covering the production, marketing, and use of gasoline and other oil by-products, California has seen significant regional air quality benefits both in terms of cleaner fuels and cleaner operating facilities. In

Item: 9
979
the 1990s, California refineries underwent significant modifications and modernization to produce cleaner fuels in response to changes in state law.

Nevertheless, while residual emissions are small when compared to the total emissions controlled from these major sources, refineries are so large that even small amounts of fugitive, uncontrollable emissions and associated odors from the operations, can be significant. This is particularly the case for communities that may be directly downwind of the refinery. Odors can cause health symptoms such as nausea and headache. Also, because of the size, complexity, and vast numbers of refinery processes onsite, the occasional refinery upset or malfunction can potentially result in acute or short-term health effects to exposed individuals.

Key Health Findings
Petroleum refineries are large single sources of emissions. For volatile organic compounds (VOCs), eight of the ten largest stationary sources in California are petroleum refineries. For oxides of nitrogen (NOx), four of the ten largest stationary sources in California are petroleum refineries. Both of these compounds react in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. Ozone impacts lung function by irritating and damaging the respiratory system. Petroleum refineries are also large stationary sources of both particulate matter under 10 microns in size (PM10) and particulate matter under 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5). Exposure to particulate matter aggravates a number of respiratory illnesses, including asthma, and is associated with premature mortality in people with existing cardiac and respiratory disease. Both long-term and short-term exposure can have adverse health impacts. Finer particles pose an increased health risk because they can deposit deep in the lung and contain substances that are particularly harmful to human health. NOx are also significant contributors to the secondary formation of PM2.5.

Petroleum refineries also emit a variety of toxic air pollutants. These air toxics vary by facility and process operation but may include: acetaldehyde, arsenic, antimony, benzene, beryllium, 1,3-butadiene, cadmium compounds, carbonyl sulfide, carbon disulfide, chlorine, dibenzofurans, diesel particulate matter, formaldehyde, hexane, hydrogen chloride, lead compounds, mercury compounds, nickel compounds, phenol, 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, toluene, and xylenes (mixed) among others. The potential health effects associated with these air toxics can include cancer, respiratory irritation, and damage to the central nervous system, depending on exposure levels.

Distance Related Findings
Health risk assessments for petroleum refineries have shown risks from toxic air pollutants that have quantifiable health risk values to be around 10 potential cancer cases per million. Routine air monitoring and several air monitoring studies conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area (Crockett) and the South Coast Air Basin (Wilmington) have not identified significant health risks specifically

Item: 9
980
associated with refineries. However, these studies did not measure diesel PM as no accepted method currently exists, and there are many toxic air pollutants that do not have quantifiable health risk values.

In 2002, ARB published a report on the results of the state and local air district air monitoring done near oil refineries. The purpose of this evaluation was to try to determine how refinery-related emissions might impact nearby communities.

This inventory of air monitoring activities included 10 ambient air monitoring stations located near refineries in Crockett and four stations near refineries in Wilmington. These monitoring results did not identify significant increased health risks associated with the petroleum refineries. In 2002-2003, ARB conducted additional monitoring studies in communities downwind of refineries in Crockett and Wilmington. These monitoring results also did not indicate significant increased health risks from the petroleum refineries.

Consequently, there are no air quality modeling or air monitoring data that provides a quantifiable basis for recommending a specific separation between refineries and new sensitive land uses. However, in view of the amount and potentially hazardous nature of many of the pollutants released as part of the refinery process, we believe the siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind should be avoided. Land use agencies should consult with the local air district when considering how to define an appropriate separation for refineries within their jurisdiction.

Recommendations
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation.

References
• Review of Current Ambient Air Monitoring Activities Related to California Bay Area and South Coast Refineries. ARB (March 2002)
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aaqm/qmosqual/special/mldrefinery.pdf • Community Air Quality Monitoring: Special Studies – Crockett. ARB (September 2004)
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/communities/studies/crockett/crockett.htm • Wilmington Study - Air Monitoring Results. ARB (2003) http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/communities/studies/wilmington/wilmington.htm Chrome Plating Operations
Chrome plating operations rely on the use of the toxic metal hexavalent chromium, and have been subject to ARB and local air district control programs for many years. Regulation of chrome plating operations has reduced statewide emissions substantially. However, due to the nature of chrome plating

Item: 9
981
operations and the highly toxic nature of hexavalent chromium, the remaining health risk to nearby residents is a continuing concern.

Chrome plating operations convert hexavalent chromium in solution to a chromium metal layer by electroplating, and are categorized based upon the thickness of the chromium metal layer applied. In “decorative plating”, a layer of nickel is first plated over a metal substrate. Following this step, a thin layer of chromium is deposited over the nickel layer to provide a decorative and protective finish, for example, on faucets and automotive wheels. “Hard chrome plating” is a process in which a thicker layer of chromium metal is deposited directly on metal substrates such as engine parts, industrial machinery, and tools to provide greater protection against corrosion and wear.

Hexavalent chromium is emitted into the air when an electric current is applied to the plating bath. Emissions are dependent upon the amount of electroplating done per year and the control requirements. A unit of production referred to as an ampere-hour represents the amount of electroplating produced. Small facilities have an annual production rate of 100,000 – 500,000 ampere-hours, while medium-size facilities may have a production rate of 500,000 to about 3 million ampere-hours. The remaining larger facilities have a range of production rates that can be as high as 80 million ampere-hours.

The control requirements, which reduce emissions from the plating tanks, vary according to the size and type of the operation. Facilities either install add-on pollution control equipment, such as filters and scrubbers, or in-tank controls, such as fume suppressants and polyballs. With this combination of controls, the overall hexavalent chromium emissions have been reduced by over 90 percent.

Larger facilities typically have better controls that can achieve efficiencies greater than 99 percent. However, even with stringent controls, the lack of maintenance and good housekeeping practices can lead to problems. And, since the material itself is inherently dangerous, any lapse in compliance poses a significant risk to nearby residents.

A 2002 ARB study in the San Diego community of Barrio Logan measured unexpectedly high concentrations of hexavalent chromium near chrome platers.

The facilities were located in a mixed-use area with residences nearby. The study found that fugitive dust laden with hexavalent chromium was an important source of emissions that likely contributed to the elevated cancer risk. Largely as a result of this study, ARB is in the process of updating the current requirements to further reduce the emissions from these facilities.

In December 2004, the ARB adopted an ATCM to reduce emissions of hexavalent chromium and nickel from thermal spraying operations through the installation of best available control technology. The ATCM requires all existing facilities to comply with its requirements by January 1, 2006. New and modified thermal spraying operations must comply upon initial startup. An existing thermal spraying facility may be exempt from the minimum control efficiency

Item: 9
982
requirements of the ATCM if it is located at least 1,640 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor and emits no more than 0.5 pound per year of hexavalent chromium.8
Key Health Findings
Hexavalent chromium is one of the most toxic air pollutants regulated by the State of California. Hexavalent chromium is a carcinogen and has been identified in worker health studies as causing lung cancer. Exposure to even very low levels of hexavalent chromium should be avoided.

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has found that: 1) many epidemiological studies show a strong association between hexavalent chromium exposure in the work place and respiratory cancer; and 2) all short-term assays reported show that hexavalent chromium compounds can cause damage to human DNA.

Hexavalent chromium when inhaled over a period of many years can cause a variety of non-cancer health effects. These health effects include damage to the nose, blood disorders, lung disease, and kidney damage. The non-cancer health impacts occur with exposures considerably higher than exposures causing significant cancer risks. It is less likely that the public would be exposed to hexavalent chromium at levels high enough to cause these non-cancer health effects. Non-cancer health effects, unlike cancer health effects, have a threshold or exposure level below which non-cancer health effects would not be expected.

Distance Related Findings
ARB’s 2002 Barrio Logan Study measured concentrations of hexavalent chromium in the air near two chrome plating facilities. The study was conducted from December 2001 to May 2002. There were two chrome platers on the street - one decorative and one hard plater. The purpose of the study was to better understand the near source impact of hexavalent chromium emissions. Air monitors were placed at residences next to the platers and at varying distances down the street. The monitors were moved periodically to look at the spatial distribution of the impact. Source testing and facility inspections identified one of the facilities as the likely source.

The first two weeks of monitoring results showed unexpectedly high levels of hexavalent chromium at a number of the monitoring sites. The high concentrations were intermittent. The concentrations ranged from 1 to 22 ng/m3 compared to the statewide average of 0.1 ng/m3. If these levels were to continue for 70 years, the potential cancer risk would be 150 in one million. The highest value was found at an air monitor behind a house adjacent to one of the

8 For further information on the ATCM, please refer to:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/thermspr/thermalspr.htm

Item: 9
983
plating facilities–approximately 30 feet from the back entrance. Lower, but significant concentrations were found at an ambient air monitor 250 feet away.

The monitoring covered a period when the facility was not operating its plating tank. During this period, one of the highest concentrations was measured at an adjacent house. It appears that chromium-laden dust was responsible for high concentrations at this location since there was no plating activity at the time.

Dust samples from the facility were tested and found to contain high levels of hexavalent chromium. On the day the highest concentration was measured at the house next door, a monitor 350 feet away from the plater’s entrance showed very little impact. Similar proximity effects are shown in ARB modeling studies.

Figure 1-5 shows how the relative health risk varies as a function of distance from a chrome plater. This analysis is based on a medium-sized chrome plater with an annual production rate of 3 million ampere-hours. As shown in Figure 1- 5, the potential health risk drops off rapidly, with over 90 percent reduction in risk within 300 feet. This modeling was done in 2003 as part of a review of ARB’s current air toxic control measure for chrome platers and is based on data from a recent ARB survey of chrome platers in California. The emission rates are only for plating operations. Because there are insufficient data available to directly quantify the impacts, the analysis does not include fugitive emissions, which the Barrio Logan analysis indicated could be significant.

Figure 1-5
Risk vs. Distance From Chrome Plater
(Based on plating tank emissions)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Distance From Edge of Facility (feet)
Impact Normalized (%)
Both the ARB Barrio Logan monitoring results and ARB’s 2003 modeling analysis suggests that the localized emissions impact of a chrome plater diminishes significantly at 300 feet. However, in developing our recommendation, we also considered the following factors:

Item: 9
984
• some chrome platers will have higher volumes of plating activity, •
•
•
potential dust impacts were not modeled,
we have only one monitoring study looking at the impact of distance, and, hexavalent chromium is one of the most potent toxic air contaminants ARB has identified.

Given these limitations in the analysis, we recommend a separation of 1,000 feet as a precautionary measure. For large chrome platers, site specific information should be obtained from the local air district.

Recommendation
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.

References
• Ambient Air Monitoring for Hexavalent Chromium and Metals in Barrio Logan:

May 2001 through May 2002. ARB, Monitoring and Laboratory Division (October 14, 2003)
• Draft Barrio Logan Report. ARB, Planning and Technical Support Division (November 2004)
• Proposed Amendments to the Hexavalent Chromium Control Measure for Decorative and Hard Chrome Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Facilities.

ARB (April 1998)
• Murchison, Linda; Suer, Carolyn; Cook, Jeff. “Neighborhood Scale Monitoring in Barrio Logan,” (AWMA Annual Conference Proceedings, June 2003)
Dry Cleaners Using Perchloroethylene (Perc Dry Cleaners) Perchloroethylene (perc) is the solvent most commonly used by the dry cleaning industry to clean clothes or other materials. The ARB and other public health agencies have identified perc as a potential cancer-causing compound. Perc persists in the atmosphere long enough to contribute to both regional air pollution and localized exposures. Perc dry cleaners are the major source of perc emissions in California.

Since 1990, the statewide concentrations and health risk from exposure to perc has dropped over 70 percent. This is due to a number of regulatory requirements on perc dry cleaners and other sources, including degreasing operations, brake cleaners, and adhesives. ARB adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Perc Emissions from Dry Cleaning Operations in 1993. ARB has also prohibited the use of perc in aerosol adhesives and automotive brake cleaners.

Item: 9
985
Perc dry cleaners statewide are required to comply with ARB and local air district regulations to reduce emissions. However, even with these controls, some emissions continue to occur. Air quality studies indicate that there is still the potential for significant risks even near well-controlled dry cleaners. The South Coast AQMD has adopted a rule requiring that all new dry cleaners use alternatives to perc and that existing dry cleaners phase out the use of perc by December 2020. Over time, transition to non-toxic alternatives should occur.

However, while perc continues to be used, a preventative approach should be taken to siting of new sensitive land uses.

Key Health Findings
Inhalation of perc may result in both cancer and non-cancer health effects. An assessment by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) concluded that perc is a potential human carcinogen and can cause non-cancer health effects. In addition to the potential cancer risk, the effects of long-term exposure include dizziness, impaired judgment and perception, and damage to the liver and kidneys. Workers have shown signs of liver toxicity following chronic exposure to perc, as well as kidney dysfunction and neurological effects. Non-cancer health effects occur with higher exposure levels than those associated with significant cancer risks. The public is more likely to be exposed to perchloroethylene at levels causing significant cancer risks than to levels causing non-cancer health effects. Non-cancer health effects, unlike cancer health effects, have a threshold or exposure level below which noncancer health effects would not be expected. The ARB formally identified perc as a toxic air contaminant in October 1991.

One study has determined that inhalation of perc is the predominant route of exposure to infants living in apartments co-located in the same building with a business operating perc dry cleaning equipment. Results of air sampling within co-residential buildings indicate that dry cleaners can cause a wide range of exposures depending on the type and maintenance of the equipment. For example, a well-maintained state-of-the-art system may have risks in the range of 10 in one million, whereas a badly maintained machine with major leaks can have potential cancer risks of thousands in one million.

The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) is developing Industry-wide Risk Assessment Guidelines for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaners which, when published, will provide detailed information on public health risk from exposure to emissions from this source.

Distance Related Findings
Risk created by perc dry cleaning is dependent on the amount of perc emissions, the type of dry cleaning equipment, proximity to the source, and how the emissions are released and dispersed (e.g., type of ventilation system, stack parameters, and local meteorology). Dry cleaners are often located near

Item: 9
986
residential areas, and near shopping centers, schools, day-care centers, and restaurants.

The vast majority of dry cleaners in California have one dry cleaning machine per facility. The South Coast AQMD estimates that an average well-controlled dry cleaner uses about 30 to 160 gallons of cleaning solvent per year, with an average of about 100 gallons. Based on these estimates, the South Coast AQMD estimates a potential cancer risk between 25 to 140 in one million at residential locations 75 feet or less from the dry cleaner, with an average of about 80 in one million. The estimate could be as high as 270 in one million for older machines.

CAPCOA’s draft industry-wide risk assessment of perc dry cleaning operations indicates that the potential cancer risk for many dry cleaners may be in excess of potential cancer risk levels adopted by the local air districts. The draft document also indicates that, in general, the public’s exposure can be reduced by at least 75 percent, by providing a separation distance of about 300 feet from the operation. This assessment is based on a single machine with perc use of about 100 gallons per year. At these distances, the potential cancer risk would be less than 10 potential cases per million for most scenarios.

The risk would be proportionately higher for large, industrial size, dry cleaners.

These facilities typically have two or more machines and use 200 gallons or more per year of perc. Therefore, separation distances need to be greater for large dry cleaners. At a distance of 500 feet, the remaining risk for a large plant can be reduced by over 85 percent.

In California, a small number of dry cleaners that are co-located (sharing a common wall, floor, or ceiling) with a residence have the potential to expose the inhabitants of the residence to high levels of perc. However, while special requirements have been imposed on these existing facilities, the potential for exposure still exists. Avoiding these siting situations in the future is an important preventative measure.

Local air districts are a source of information regarding specific dry cleaning operations—particularly for large industrial operations with multiple machines.

The 300 foot separation recommended below reflects the most common situation – a dry cleaner with only one machine. While we recommend 500 feet when there are two or more machines, site specific information should be obtained from the local air district for some very large industrial operations. Factors that can impact the risk include the number and type of machines, controls used, source configuration, building dimensions, terrain, and meteorological data.

Item: 9
987
Recommendation
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines provide 500 feet. For operations with 3 or more machines, consult with the local air district. • Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perc dry cleaning operations.

References
• Proposed Amended Rule 1421 – Control of Perchloroethylene Emissions from Dry Cleaning Systems, Final Staff Report. South Coast AQMD. (October 2002)
• Air Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Perchloroethylene from Dry Cleaning Operations. ARB (1994)
(http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/atcm/percatcm.htm)
• “An Assessment of Tetrachloroethylene in Human Breast Milk”, Judith Schreiber, New York State Department of Health – Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment, Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, Vol.2, Suppl.2, pp. 15-26, 1992.
• Draft Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaner Industrywide Risk Assessment Guidelines. (CAPCOA (November 2002) • Final Environmental Assessment for Proposed Amended Rule 1421 – Control of Perchloroethylene Emissions from Dry Cleaning Systems. South Coast AQMD. (October 18, 2002)
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
Refueling at gasoline dispensing facilities releases benzene into the air.

Benzene is a potent carcinogen and is one of the highest risk air pollutants regulated by ARB. Motor vehicles and motor vehicle-related activity account for over 90 percent of benzene emissions in California. While gasoline-dispensing facilities account for a small part of total benzene emissions, near source exposures for large facilities can be significant.

Since 1990, benzene in the air has been reduced by over 75 percent statewide, primarily due to the implementation of emissions controls on motor vehicle vapor recovery equipment at gas stations, and a reduction in benzene levels in gasoline. However, benzene levels are still significant. In urban areas, average benzene exposure is equivalent to about 50 in one million.

Gasoline dispensing facilities tend to be located in areas close to residential and shopping areas. Benzene emissions from the largest gas stations may result in near source health risk beyond the regional background and district health risk thresholds. The emergence of very high gasoline throughput at large retail or

Item: 9
988
wholesale outlets makes this a concern as these types of outlets are projected to account for an increasing market share in the next few years.

Key Health Findings
Benzene is a human carcinogen identified by ARB as a toxic air contaminant.

Benzene also can cause non-cancer health effects above a certain level of exposure. Brief inhalation exposure to high concentrations can cause central nervous system depression. Acute effects include central nervous system symptoms of nausea, tremors, drowsiness, dizziness, headache, intoxication, and unconsciousness. It is unlikely that the public would be exposed to levels of benzene from gasoline dispensing facilities high enough to cause these noncancer health effects.

Distance Related Findings
A well-maintained vapor recovery system can decrease emissions of benzene by more than 90% compared with an uncontrolled facility. Almost all facilities have emission control systems. Air quality modeling of the health risks from gasoline dispensing facilities indicate that the impact from the facilities decreases rapidly as the distance from the facility increases.

Statistics reported in the ARB’s staff reports on Enhanced Vapor Recovery released in 2000 and 2002, indicated that almost 96 percent of the gasoline dispensing facilities had a throughput less than 2.4 million gallons per year. The remaining four percent, or approximately 450 facilities, had throughputs exceeding 2.4 million gallons per year. For these stations, the average gasoline throughput was 3.6 million gallons per year.

Figure 1-6
Gasoline Dispensing Facility Health Risk
for 3,600,000 gal/yr throughput

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Distance From Fenceline (feet)
Risk (per million)
As shown in Figure 1-6, the risk levels for a gasoline dispensing facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year is about 10 in one million at a distance of 50 feet from the fenceline. However, as the throughput increases, the potential risk increases.

Item: 9
989
As mentioned above, air pollution levels in the immediate vicinity of large gasoline dispensing facilities may be higher than the surrounding area (although tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles dominates the health impacts). Very large gasoline dispensing facilities located at large wholesale and discount centers may dispense nine million gallons of gasoline per year or more. At nine million gallons, the potential risk could be around 25 in one million at 50 feet, dropping to about five in one million at 300 feet. Some facilities have throughputs as high as 19 million gallons.

Recommendation
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gasoline dispensing facility (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50 foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.

References
• Gasoline Service Station Industry-wide Risk Assessment Guidelines.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (December 1997 and revised November 1, 2001)
• Staff Report on Enhanced Vapor Recovery. ARB (February 4, 2000) • The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. ARB (2004) • Staff Report on Enhanced Vapor Recovery Technology Review. ARB (October 2002)
Other Facility Types that Emit Air Pollutants of Concern In addition to source specific recommendations, Table 1-3 includes a list of other industrial sources that could pose a significant health risk to nearby sensitive individuals depending on a number of factors. These factors include the amount of pollutant emitted and its toxicity, the distance to nearby individuals, and the type of emission controls in place. Since these types of facilities are subject to air permits from local air districts, facility specific information should be obtained where there are questions about siting a sensitive land use close to an industrial facility.

Potential Sources of Odor and Dust Complaints
Odors and dust from commercial activities are the most common sources of air pollution complaints and concerns from the public. Land use planning and permitting processes should consider the potential impacts of odor and dust on surrounding land uses, and provide for adequate separation between odor and dust sources. As with other types of air pollution, a number of factors need to be considered when determining an adequate distance or mitigation to avoid odor or

Item: 9
990
Table 1-3 – Examples of Other Facility Types That Emit1 Air Pollutants of Concern
Categories Facility Type Air Pollutants of Concern
Commercial
Autobody Shops Metals, Solvents
Furniture Repair Solvents2
, Methylene Chloride
Film Processing Services Solvents, Perchloroethylene
Distribution Centers Diesel Particulate Matter
Printing Shops
Diesel Engines
Solvents
Diesel Particulate Matter
Industrial
Construction Particulate Matter, Asbestos
Manufacturers Solvents, Metals
Metal Platers, Welders, Metal
Spray (flame spray) Operations
Hexavalent Chromium, Nickel,
Metals
Chemical Producers Solvents, Metals
Furniture Manufacturers Solvents
Shipbuilding and Repair Hexavalent chromium and other
metals, Solvents
Rock Quarries and Cement
Manufacturers
Particulate Matter, Asbestos
Hazardous Waste Incinerators Dioxin, Solvents, Metals
Power Plants Benzene, Formaldehyde,
Particulate Matter
Research and Development
Facilities
Solvents, Metals, etc.

Public
Landfills Benzene, Vinyl Chloride, Diesel
Particulate Matter
Waste Water Treatment Plants Hydrogen Sulfide
Medical Waste Incinerators Dioxin, Benzene, PAH, PCBs,
1,3-Butadiene
Recycling, Garbage Transfer
Stations
Diesel Particulate Matter
Municipal Incinerators Dioxin, Benzene, PAH, PCBs,
1,3-Butadiene
Transportation
Truck Stops Diesel Particulate Matter
Agricultural
Operations
Farming Operations Diesel Particulate Matter, VOCs,
NOx, PM10, CO, SOx, Pesticides
Livestock and Dairy Operations Ammonia, VOCs, PM10 1
Not all facilities will emit pollutants of concern due to process changes or chemical substitution. Consult the local air district regarding specific facilities. 2 Some solvents may emit toxic air pollutants, but not all solvents are toxic air contaminants.

Item: 9
991
dust complaints in a specific situation. Local air districts should be consulted for advice when these siting situations arise.

Table 1-4 lists some of the most
common sources of odor complaints
received by local air districts.

Complaints about odors are the
responsibility of local air districts and
are covered under state law. The
types of facilities that can cause odor
complaints are varied and can range
from small commercial facilities to large
industrial facilities, and may include
waste disposal and recycling
operations. Odors can cause health
symptoms such as nausea and
headache. Facilities with odors may
also be sources of toxic air pollutants
(See Table 1-3). Some common
sources of odors emitted by facilities
are sulfur compounds, organic solvents, and the decomposition/digestion of biological materials. Because of the subjective nature of an individual’s sensitivity to a particular type of odor, there is no specific rule for assigning appropriate separations from odor sources. Under the right meteorological conditions, some odors may still be offensive several miles from the source.

Table 1-4
Sources of Odor Complaints
„ Sewage Treatment Plants
„ Landfills
„ Recycling Facilities
„ Waste Transfer Stations
„ Petroleum Refineries
„ Biomass Operations
„ Autobody Shops
„ Coating Operations
„ Fiberglass Manufacturing
„ Foundries
„ Rendering Plants
„ Livestock Operations
Sources of dust are also common sources of air pollution-related complaints.

Operations that can result in dust problems are rock crushing, gravel production, stone quarrying, and mining operations. A common source of complaints is the dust and noise associated with blasting that may be part of these operations.

Besides the health impacts of dust as particulate matter, thick dust also impairs visibility, aesthetic values, and can soil homes and automobiles. Local air districts typically have rules for regulating dust sources in their jurisdictions, but dust sources can still be a concern. Therefore, separation of these facilities from residential and other new sensitive land uses should be considered.

In some areas of California, asbestos occurs naturally in stone deposits.

Asbestos is a potent carcinogenic substance when inhaled. Asbestos-containing dust may be a public health concern in areas where asbestos-containing rock is mined, crushed, processed, or used. Situations where asbestos-containing gravel has been used in road paving materials are also a source of asbestos exposure to the general public. Planners are advised to consult with local air pollution agencies in areas where asbestos-containing gravel or stone products are produced or used.

Item: 9
992

2. Handbook Development
ARB and local air districts share responsibility for improving statewide air quality.

As a result of California’s air pollution control programs, air quality has improved and health risk has been reduced statewide. However, state and federal air quality standards are still exceeded in many areas of California and the statewide health risk posed by toxic air contaminants (air toxics) remains too high. Also, some communities experience higher pollution exposures than others - making localized impacts, as well regional or statewide impacts, an important consideration. It is for this reason that this Handbook has been produced - to promote better, more informed decision-making by local land use agencies that will improve air quality and public health in their communities.

Land use policies and practices, including planning, zoning, and siting activities, can play a critical role in air quality and public health at the local level. For instance, even with the best available control technology, some projects that are sited very close to homes, schools, and other public places can result in elevated air pollution exposures. The reverse is also true – siting a new school or home too close to an existing source of air pollution can pose a public health risk. The ARB recommendations in section 1 address this issue.

This Handbook is an informational document that we hope will strengthen the relationship between air quality and land use agencies. It highlights the need for land use agencies to address the potential for new projects to result in localized health risk or contribute to cumulative impacts where air pollution sources are concentrated.

Avoiding these incompatible land uses is a key to reducing localized air pollution exposures that can result in adverse health impacts, especially to sensitive individuals.

Individual siting decisions that result in incompatible land uses are often the result of locating “sensitive” land uses next to polluting sources. These decisions can be of even greater concern when existing air pollution exposures in a community are considered. In general terms, this is often referred to as the issue of “cumulative impacts.” ARB is working with local air districts to better define these situations and to make information about existing air pollution levels (e.g., from local businesses, motor vehicles, and other areawide sources) more readily available to land use agencies.

In December 2001, the ARB adopted “Policies and Actions for Environmental Justice” (Policies). These Policies were developed in coordination with a group of stakeholders, representing local government agencies, community interest

Item: 9
993
groups, environmental justice organizations, academia, and business (Environmental Justice Stakeholders Group).

The Policies included a commitment to work with land use planners, transportation agencies, and local air districts to develop ways to identify, consider, and reduce cumulative air pollution emissions, exposure, and health risks associated with land use planning and decision-making. Developed under the auspices of the ARB’s Environmental Justice Stakeholders Group, this Handbook is a first step in meeting that commitment.

ARB has produced this Handbook to help achieve several objectives:
„ Provide recommendations on situations to avoid when siting new residences, schools, day care centers, playgrounds, and medical-related facilities (sensitive sites or sensitive land uses);
„ Identify approaches that land use agencies can use to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts associated with general plan policies, new land use development, siting, and permitting decisions; „ Improve and facilitate access to air quality data and evaluation tools for use in the land use decision-making process;
„ Encourage stronger collaboration between land use agencies and local air districts to reduce community exposure to source-specific and cumulative air pollution impacts; and
„ Emphasize community outreach approaches that promote active public involvement in the air quality/land use decision-making process.

This Handbook builds upon California’s 2003 General Plan Guidelines. These Guidelines, developed by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), explain the land use planning process and applicable legal requirements.

This Handbook also builds upon a 1997 ARB report, “The Land Use-Air Quality Linkage” (“Linkage Report”).9
The Linkage Report was an outgrowth of the
California Clean Air Act which, among other things, called upon local air districts to focus particular attention on reducing emissions from sources that indirectly cause air pollution by attracting vehicle trips. Such indirect sources include, but are not limited to, shopping centers, schools and universities, employment centers, warehousing, airport hubs, medical offices, and sports arenas. The Linkage Report summarizes data as of 1997 on the relationships between land use, transportation, and air quality, and highlights strategies that can help to reduce the use of single occupancy automobile use. Such strategies

9 To access this report, please refer to ARB's website or click on:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/programs/link97.pdf