Lake Forest City Council
July 7, 2026

Item: 9
994
complement ARB regulatory programs that continue to reduce motor vehicle emissions.

In this Handbook, we identify types of air quality-related information that we recommend land use agencies consider in the land use decision-making processes such as the development of regional, general, and community plans; zoning ordinances; environmental reviews; project siting; and permit issuance.

The Handbook provides recommendations on the siting of new sensitive land uses based on current analyses. It also contains information on approaches and methodologies for evaluating new projects from an air pollution perspective.

The Handbook looks at air quality issues associated with emissions from industrial, commercial, and mobile sources of air pollution. Mobile sources continue to be the largest overall contributors to the state’s air pollution problems, representing the greatest air pollution health risk to most Californians. Based on current health risk information for air toxics, the most serious pollutants on a statewide basis are diesel PM, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene, all of which are primarily emitted by motor vehicles. From a state perspective, ARB continues to pursue new strategies to further reduce motor vehicle-related emissions in order to meet air quality standards and reduce air toxics risk.

While mobile sources are the largest overall contributors to the state’s air pollution problems, industrial and commercial sources can also pose a health risk, particularly to people near the source. For this reason, the issue of incompatible land uses is an important focus of this document.

Handbook Audience
Even though the primary users of the Handbook will likely be agencies responsible for air quality and land use planning, we hope the ideas and technical issues presented in this Handbook will also be useful for:
„ public and community organizations and community residents; „ federal, state and regional agencies that fund, review, regulate, oversee, or otherwise influence environmental policies and programs affected by land use policies; and
„ private developers.

Item: 9
995

3. Key Community Focused Issues Land Use Agencies Should Consider Two key air quality issues that land use agencies should consider in their planning, zoning, and permitting processes are:
1) Incompatible Land Uses. Localized air pollution impacts from incompatible land use can occur when polluting sources, such as a heavily trafficked roadway, warehousing facilities, or industrial or commercial facilities, are located near a land use where sensitive individuals are found such as a school, hospital, or homes.
2) Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative air pollution impacts can occur from a concentration of multiple sources that individually comply with air pollution control requirements or fall below risk thresholds, but in the aggregate may pose a public health risk to exposed individuals. These sources can be heavy or light-industrial operations, commercial facilities such as autobody shops, large gas dispensing facilities, dry cleaners, and chrome platers, and freeways or other nearby busy transportation corridors.

Incompatible Land Uses
Land use policies and practices can worsen air pollution exposure and adversely affect public health by mixing incompatible land uses. Examples include locating new sensitive land uses, such as housing or schools, next to small metal plating facilities that use a highly toxic form of chromium, or very near large industrial facilities or freeways. Based on recent monitoring and health-based studies, we now know that air quality impacts from incompatible land uses can contribute to increased risk of illness, missed work and school, a lower quality of life, and higher costs for public health and pollution control.10 Avoiding incompatible land uses can be a challenge in the context of mixed-use industrial and residential zoning. For a variety of reasons, government agencies and housing advocates have encouraged the proximity of affordable housing to employment centers, shopping areas, and transportation corridors, partially as a means to reduce vehicle trips and their associated emissions. Generally speaking, typical distances in mixed-use communities between businesses and industries and other land uses such as homes and schools, should be adequate to avoid health risks. However, generalizations do not always hold as we addressed in section 1 of this Handbook.

In terms of siting air pollution sources, the proposed location of a project is a major factor in determining whether it will result in localized air quality impacts.

Often, the problem can be avoided by providing an adequate distance or setback

10 For more information, the reader should refer to ARB’s website on community health:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/ch.htm

Item: 9
996
between a source of emissions and nearby sensitive land uses. Sometimes, suggesting project design changes or mitigation measures in the project review phase can also reduce or avoid potential impacts. This underscores the importance of addressing potential incompatible land uses as early as possible in the project review process, ideally in the general plan itself.

Cumulative Air Pollution Impacts
The broad concept of cumulative air pollution impacts reflects the combination of regional air pollution levels and any localized impacts. Many factors contribute to air pollution levels experienced in any location. These include urban background air pollution, historic land use patterns, the prevalence of freeways and other transportation corridors, the concentration of industrial and commercial businesses, and local meteorology and terrain.

When considering the potential air quality impacts of polluting sources on individuals, project location and the concentration of emissions from air pollution sources need to be considered in the land use decision-making process. In section 4, the Handbook offers a series of questions that helps land use agencies determine if a project should undergo a more careful analysis. This holds true regardless of whether the project being sited is a polluting source or a sensitive land use project.

Large industrial areas are not the only land uses that may result in public health concerns in mixed-use communities. Cumulative air pollution impacts can also occur if land uses do not adequately provide setbacks or otherwise protect sensitive individuals from potential air pollution impacts associated with nearby light industrial sources. This can occur with activities such as truck idling and traffic congestion, or from indirect sources such as warehousing facilities that are located in a community or neighborhood.

In October 2004, Cal/EPA published its Environmental Justice Action Plan. In February 2005, the Cal/EPA Interagency Working Group approved a working definition of “cumulative impacts” for purposes of initially guiding the pilot projects that are being conducted pursuant to that plan. Cal/EPA is now in the process of developing a Cumulative Impacts Assessment Guidance document. Cal/EPA will revisit the working definition of “cumulative impacts” as the Agency develops that guidance. The following is the working definition:
“Cumulative impacts means exposures, public health or environmental effects from the combined emissions and discharges, in a geographic area, including environmental pollution from all sources, whether single or multi-media, routinely, accidentally, or otherwise released. Impacts will take into account sensitive populations and socio-economic factors, where applicable, and to the extent data are available.”

Item: 9
997

4. Mechanisms for Integrating Localized Air Quality Concerns Into Land Use Processes
Land use agencies should use each of their existing planning, zoning, and permitting authorities to address the potential health risk associated with new projects. Land use-specific mechanisms can go a long way toward addressing both localized and cumulative impacts from new air pollution sources that are not otherwise addressed by environmental regulations. Likewise, close collaboration and communication between land use agencies and local air districts in both the planning and project approval stages can further reduce these impacts. Local agency partnerships can also result in early identification of potential impacts from proposed activities that might otherwise escape environmental review.

When this happens, pollution problems can be prevented or reduced before projects are approved, when it is less complex and expensive to mitigate.

The land use entitlement process requires a series of planning decisions. At the highest level, the General Plan sets the policies and direction for the jurisdiction, and includes a number of mandatory elements dealing with issues such as housing, circulation, and health hazards. Zoning is the primary tool for implementing land use policies. Specific or community plans created in conjunction with a specific project also perform many of the same functions as a zoning ordinance. Zoning can be modified by means of variances and conditional use permits. The latter are frequently used to insure compatibility between otherwise conflicting land uses. Finally, new development usually requires the approval of a parcel or tract map before grading and building permits can be issued. These parcel or tract maps must be consistent with the applicable General Plan, zoning and other standards.

Land use agencies can use their planning authority to separate industrial and residential land uses, or to require mitigation where separation is not feasible. By separating incompatible land uses, land use agencies can prevent or reduce both localized and cumulative air pollution impacts without denying what might otherwise be a desirable project.11 For instance:
„ a dry cleaner could open a storefront operation in a community with actual cleaning operations performed at a remote location away from residential areas;
„ gas dispensing facilities with lower fuel throughput could be sited in mixeduse areas; „ enhanced building ventilation or filtering systems in schools or senior care centers can reduce ambient air from nearby busy arterials; or „ landscaping and regular watering can be used to reduce fugitive dust at a building construction site near a school yard.

11 It should be noted that such actions should also be considered as part of the General Plan or Plan element process.

Item: 9
998
The following general and specific land use approaches can help to reduce potential adverse air pollution impacts that projects may have on public health.

General Plans
The primary purpose of planning, and the source of government authority to engage in planning, is to protect public health, safety, and welfare. In its most basic sense, a local government General Plan expresses the community’s development goals and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of future land uses, forming the basis for most land use decisions. Therefore, the most effective mechanism for dealing with the central land use concept of compatibility and its relationship to cumulative air pollution impacts is the General Plan. Well before projects are proposed within a jurisdiction, the General Plan sets the stage for where projects can be sited, and their compatibility with comprehensive community goals, objectives, and policies.

In 2003, OPR revised its General Plan Guidelines, highlighting the importance of incorporating sustainable development and environmental justice policies in the planning process. The OPR General Plan Guidelines provides an effective and long-term approach to reduce cumulative air pollution impacts at the earliest planning stages. In light of these important additions to the Guidelines, land use agencies should consider updating their General Plans or Plan elements to address these revisions.

The General Plan and related Plan elements can be used to avoid incompatible land uses by incorporating air quality considerations into these documents. For instance, a General Plan safety element with an air quality component could be used to incorporate policies or objectives that are intended to protect the public from the potential for facility breakdowns that may result in a dangerous release of air toxics. Likewise, an air quality component to the transportation circulation element of the General Plan could include policies or standards to prevent or reduce local exposure to diesel exhaust from trucks and other vehicles. For instance, the transportation circulation element could encourage the construction of alternative routes away from residential areas for heavy-duty diesel trucks. By considering the relationship between air quality and transportation, the circulation element could also include air quality policies to prevent or reduce trips and travel, and thus vehicle emissions. Policies in the land use element of the General Plan could identify areas appropriate for future industrial, commercial, and residential uses. Such policies could also introduce design and distance parameters that reduce emissions, exposure, and risk from industrial and some commercial land uses (e.g., dry cleaners) that are in close proximity to residential areas or schools.

Land use agencies should also consider updating or creating an air quality element in the jurisdiction’s General Plan. In the air quality element, local decision-makers could develop long-term, effective plans and policies to address

Item: 9
999
air quality issues, including cumulative impacts. The air quality element can also provide a general reference guide that informs local land use planners about regional and community level air quality, regulatory air pollution control requirements and guidelines, and references emissions and pollution source data bases and assessment and modeling tools. As is further described in Appendix C of the Handbook, new assessment tools that ARB is developing can be included into the air quality element by reference. For instance, ARB's statewide risk maps could be referenced in the air quality element as a resource that could be consulted by developers or land use agencies Zoning
The purpose of "zoning" is to separate different land uses. Zoning ordinances establish development controls to ensure that private development takes place within a given area in a manner in which:
„ All uses are compatible (e.g., an industrial plant is not permitted in a residential area);
„ Common development standards are used (e.g., all homes in a given area are set back the same minimum distance from the street); and, „ Each development does not unreasonably impose a burden upon its neighbors (e.g., parking is required on site so as not to create neighborhood parking problems).

To do this, use districts called "zones" are established and standards are developed for these zones. The four basic zones are residential, commercial, industrial and institutional.

Land use agencies may wish to consider how zoning ordinances, particularly those for mixed-use areas, can be used to avoid exacerbating poor land use practices of the past or contributing to localized and cumulative air pollution impacts in the community.

Sometimes, especially in mixed-use zones, there is a potential for certain categories of existing businesses or industrial operations to result in cumulative air pollution impacts to new development projects. For example:
„ An assisted living project is proposed for a mixed-use zone adjacent to an existing chrome plating facility, or several dry cleaners; „ Multiple industrial sources regulated by a local air district are located directly upwind of a new apartment complex;
„ A new housing development is sited in a mixed-use zone that is downwind or adjacent to a distribution center that attracts diesel-fueled delivery trucks and TRUs; or
„ A new housing development or sensitive land use is sited without adequate setbacks from an existing major transportation corridor or rail yard.

Item: 9
1000
As part of the public process for making zoning changes, local land use agencies could work with community planning groups, local businesses, and community residents to determine how best to address existing incompatible land uses.

Land Use Permitting Processes
„ Questions to Consider When Reviewing New Projects
Very often, just knowing what questions to ask can yield critical information about the potential air pollution impacts of proposed projects – both from the perspective of a specific project as well as in the nature of existing air pollution sources in the same impact area. Available land use information can reveal the proximity of air pollution sources to sensitive individuals, the potential for incompatible land uses, and the location and nature of nearby air pollution sources. Air quality data, available from the ARB and local air districts, can provide information about the types and amounts of air pollution emitted in an area, regional air quality concentrations, and health risk estimates for specific sources.

General Plans and zoning maps are an excellent starting point in reviewing project proposals for their potential air pollution impacts. These documents contain information about existing or proposed land uses for a specific location as well as the surrounding area. Often, just looking at a map of the proposed location for a facility and its surrounding area will help to identify a potential adjacent incompatible land use.

The following pages are a “pull-out” list of questions to consider along with crossreferences to pertinent information in the Handbook. These questions are intended to assist land use agencies in evaluating potential air quality-related concerns associated with new project proposals.

The first group of questions contains project-related queries designed to help identify the potential for localized project impacts, particularly associated with incompatible land uses. The second group of questions focuses on the issue of potential cumulative impacts by including questions about existing emissions and air quality in the community, and community feedback. Depending on the answers to these questions, a land use agency may decide a more detailed review of the proposal is warranted.

The California Department of Education has already developed a detailed process for school siting which is outlined in Appendix E. However, school districts may also find this section helpful when evaluating the most appropriate site for new schools in their area. At a minimum, using these questions may encourage school districts to engage throughout their siting process with land use agencies and local air districts. The combined expertise of these entities can be useful in devising relevant design standards and mitigation measures that can

Item: 9
1001
reduce exposure to cumulative emissions, exposure, and health risk to students and school workers.

As indicated throughout the Handbook, we strongly encourage land use agencies to consult early and often with local air districts. Local air districts have the expertise, many of the analytical tools, and a working knowledge of the sources they regulate. It is also critical to fully involve the public and businesses that could be affected by the siting decision. The questions provided in the chart below do not imply any particular action should be taken by land use agencies.

Rather the questions are intended to improve the assessment process and facilitate informed decision-making.

Item: 9
1002
„ Project-Related Questions
This section includes project-related questions that, in conjunction with the questions in the next section, can be used to tailor the project evaluation. These questions are designed to help identify the potential for incompatible land uses from localized project impacts.

Questions to Consider When Reviewing New Projects
Project-Related Questions Cross-Reference to Relevant
Handbook Sections

1. Is the proposed project:
▲ A business or commercial license renewal
▲ A new or modified commercial project
▲ A new or modified industrial project
▲ A new or modified public facility project
▲ A new or modified transportation project
▲ A housing or other development in which
sensitive individuals may live or play
See Appendix A for typical land use
classifications and associated project
categories that could emit air
pollutants.

2. Does the proposed project:
▲ Conform to the zoning designation?
▲ Require a variance to the zoning
designation?
▲ Include plans to expand operations over
the life of the business such that additional
emissions may increase the pollution
burden in the community (e.g., from
additional truck operations, new industrial
operations or process lines, increased
hours of operation, build-out to the property
line, etc.)?
See Appendix F for a general
explanation of land use processes.

In addition, Section 3 contains a
discussion of how land use planning,
zoning, and permitting practices can
result in incompatible land uses or
cumulative air pollution impacts.

3. Has the local air district provided comments or
information to assist in the analysis?
See Section 5 and Appendix C for a
description of air quality-related tools
that the ARB and local air districts use
to provide information on potential air
pollution impacts.

4. Have public meetings been scheduled with the
affected community to solicit their involvement in
the decision-making process for the proposed
project?
See Section 7 for a discussion of
public participation, information and
outreach tools.

5. If the proposed project will be subject to local air district regulations:
▲ Has the project received a permit from the
local air district?
▲ Would it comply with applicable local air
district requirements?
▲ Is the local air district contemplating new
regulations that would reduce emissions
from the source over time?
▲ Will potential emissions from the project
See Appendix C for a description of
local air district programs.

Item: 9
1003
Project-Related Questions Cross-Reference to Relevant
Handbook Sections
trigger the local air district’s new source
review for criteria pollutants or air toxics
emissions?
▲ Is the local air district expected to ask the
proposed project to perform a risk
assessment?
▲ Is there sufficient new information or public
concern to call for a more thorough
environmental analysis of the proposed
project?
▲ Are there plans to expand operations over
time?
▲ Are there land-use based air quality
significance thresholds or design standards
that could be applied to this project in
addition to applicable air district
requirements?

6. If the proposed project will release air pollution
emissions, either directly or indirectly, but is not
regulated by the local air district:
▲ Is the local air district informed of the
project?
▲ Does the local air district believe that there
could be potential air pollution impacts
associated with this project category
because of the proximity of the project to
sensitive individuals?
▲ If the project is one in which individuals live
or play (e.g., a home, playground,
convalescent home, etc.), does the local air
district believe that the project’s proximity
to nearby sources could pose potential air
pollution impacts?
▲ Are there indirect emissions that could be
associated with the project (e.g., truck
traffic or idling, transport refrigeration unit
operations, stationary diesel engine
operations, etc.) that will be in close
proximity to sensitive individuals?
▲ Will the proposed project increase or serve
as a magnet for diesel traffic?
▲ Are there land-use based air quality
significance thresholds or design standards
that could be applied to this
project in addition to applicable air district
requirements?
▲ Is there sufficient new information or public
concern to call for a more thorough
environmental analysis of the proposed
project?
▲ Should the site approval process include
identification and mitigation of potential

See Section 1 for recommendations
on situations to avoid when siting
projects where sensitive individuals
would be located (sensitive sites).

Item: 9
1004
Project-Related Questions Cross-Reference to Relevant
Handbook Sections
direct or indirect emissions associated with
the potential project?

7. Does the local air district or land use agency have
pertinent information on the source, such as:
▲ Available permit and enforcement data,
including for the owner or operator of the
proposed source that may have other
sources in the State.
▲ Proximity of the proposed project to
sensitive individuals.
▲ Number of potentially exposed individuals
from the proposed project.
▲ Potential for the proposed project to
expose sensitive individuals to odor or
other air pollution nuisances.
▲ Meteorology or the prevailing wind patterns
between the proposed project and the
nearest receptor, or between the proposed
sensitive receptor project and sources that
could pose a localized or cumulative air
pollution impact.

See Appendix C for a description of
local air district programs.

See Appendix B for a listing of useful
information that land use agencies
should have on hand or have
accessible when reviewing proposed
projects for potential air pollution
impacts.

Also, do not hesitate to contact your
local air district regarding answers to
any of these questions that might not
be available at the land use agency.

See Section 1 for recommendations
on situations to avoid when siting
projects where sensitive individuals
would be located (sensitive sites).

8. Based upon the project application, its location, and the nature of the source, could the proposed
project:
▲ Be a polluting source that is located in
proximity to, or otherwise upwind, of a
location where sensitive individuals live or
play?
▲ Attract sensitive individuals and be located
in proximity to or otherwise downwind, of a
source or multiple sources of pollution,
including polluting facilities or
transportation-related sources that
contribute emissions either directly or
indirectly?
▲ Result in health risk to the surrounding
community?
See Section 3 for a discussion of
what is an incompatible land use and
the potential cumulative air pollution
impacts.

See Section 1 for recommendations
on situations to avoid when siting
projects where sensitive individuals
would be located (sensitive sites).

9. If a CEQA categorical exemption is proposed, were
the following questions considered:
▲ Is the project site environmentally sensitive
as defined by the project’s location? (A
project that is ordinarily insignificant in its
impact on the environment may in a
particularly sensitive environment be
significant.)
▲ Would the project and successive future
projects of the same type in the
approximate location potentially result in
cumulative impacts?
▲ Are there "unusual circumstances” creating
the possibility of significant effects?
See CEQA Guidelines section 15300,
and Public Resources Code, section
21084.

See Section 1 for recommendations
on situations to avoid when siting
projects where sensitive individuals
would be located (sensitive sites).

See also Section 5 and Appendix C
for a description of air quality-related
tools that the ARB and local air
districts use to provide information on
potential air pollution impacts.

Item: 9
1005
„ Questions Related to Cumulative Impact Assessment
The following questions can be used to provide the decision-maker with a better understanding of the potential for cumulative air pollution impacts to an affected community. Answers to these questions will help to determine if new projects or activities warrant a more detailed review. It may also help to see potential environmental concerns from the perspective of the affected community.

Additionally, responses can provide local decision-makers with information with which to assess the best policy options for addressing neighborhood-scale air pollution concerns.

The questions below can be used to identify whether existing tools and procedures are adequate to address land use-related air pollution issues. This process can also be used to pinpoint project characteristics that may have the greatest impact on community-level emissions, exposure, and risk. Such elements can include: the compliance record of existing sources including those owned or operated by the project proponent; the concentration of emissions from polluting sources within the approximate area of sensitive sites; transportation circulation in proximity to the proposed project; compatibility with the General Plan and General Plan elements; etc.

The local air district can provide useful assistance in the collection and evaluation of air quality-related information for some of the questions and should be consulted early in the process.

Questions Related to Cumulative Impact Assessment
Technical Questions Cross-Reference to Relevant
Handbook Sections

1. Is the community home to industrial facilities? See Appendix A for typical land use classifications and associated project
categories that could emit air pollutants.

2. Do one or more major freeways or high-traffic volume surface streets cut through the community?
See transportation circulation element
of your general plan. See also
Appendix B for useful information that
land use agencies should have on hand
or have accessible when reviewing
proposed projects for potential air
pollution impacts.

See Section 1 for recommendations on
situations to avoid when siting projects
where sensitive individuals would be
located (sensitive sites).

3. Is the area classified for mixed-use zoning? See your general plan and zoning ordinances.

4. Is there an available list of air pollution sources in the community?
Contact your local air district.

5. Has a walk-through of the community been conducted
to gather the following information:

See Appendix B for a listing of useful
information that land use agencies
hld h hd h

Item: 9
1006
Technical Questions Cross-Reference to Relevant
Handbook Sections
▲ Corroborate available information on land use
activities in the area (e.g., businesses,
housing developments, sensitive individuals,
etc.)?
▲ Determine the proximity of existing and
anticipated future projects to residential areas
or sensitive individuals?
▲ Determine the concentration of emission
sources (including anticipated future projects)
to residential areas or sensitive individuals?
should have on hand or have
accessible when reviewing proposed
projects for potential air pollution
impacts. Also contact your local air
district.

6. Has the local air district been contacted to obtain
information on sources in the community?
See Section 7 for a discussion of
public participation, information and
outreach tools.

7. What categories of commercial establishments are
currently located in the area and does the local air
district have these sources on file as being
regulated or permitted?
See Appendix A for typical land use
classifications and associated project
categories that could emit air
pollutants. Also contact your local air
district.

8. What categories of indirect sources such as
distribution centers or warehouses are currently
located in the area?
See Appendix A for typical land use
classifications and associated project
categories that emit air pollutants.

9. What air quality monitoring data are available? Contact your local air district.

10. Have any risk assessments been performed on
emission sources in the area?
Contact your local air district.

11. Does the land use agency have the capability of
applying a GIS spatial mapping tool that can
overlay zoning, sub-development information, and
other neighborhood characteristics, with air
pollution and transportation data?
See Appendix B for a listing of useful
information that land use agencies
should have on hand or have
accessible when reviewing proposed
projects for potential air pollution
impacts. Also contact your local air
district for tools that can be used to
supplement available land use
agency tools.

12. Based on available information, is it possible to
determine if the affected community or
neighborhood experiences elevated health risk due
to a concentration of air pollution sources in close
proximity, and if not, can the necessary information
be obtained?
Contact your local air district. Also
see Section 1 for recommendations
on situations to avoid when siting
projects where sensitive individuals
would be located (sensitive sites).

13. Does the community have a history of chronic
complaints about air quality?
See Section 7 for a discussion of public
participation, information and outreach
tools. Also contact your local air district.

14. Is the affected community included in the public
participation process for the agency’s decision?
See Section 7 for a discussion of public
participation, information and outreach
tools.

15. Have community leaders or groups been contacted
about any pre-existing or chronic community air
quality concerns?
See Section 7 for a discussion of public
participation, information and outreach
tools. Also contact your local air district.

Item: 9
1007
„ Mitigation Approaches
In addition to considering the suitability of the project location, opportunities for mitigation of air pollution impacts should be considered. Sometimes, a land use agency may find that selection of a different project location to avoid a health risk is not feasible. When that happens, land use agencies should consider design improvements or other strategies that would reduce the risk. Such strategies could include performance or design standards, consultation with local air districts and other agencies on appropriate actions that these agencies should, or plan to, undertake, and consultation and outreach in the affected community.

Potential mitigation measures should be feasible, cost-effective solutions within the available resources and authority of implementing agencies to enforce.12 „ Conditional Use Permits and Performance Standards
Some types of land uses are only allowed upon approval of a conditional use permit (also called a CUP or special use permit). A conditional use permit does not re-zone the land but specifies conditions under which a particular land use will be permitted. Such land uses could be those with potentially significant environmental impacts. Local zoning ordinances specify the uses for which a conditional use permit is required, the zones they may be allowed in, and public hearing procedures. The conditional use permit imposes special requirements to ensure that the use will not be detrimental to its surroundings.

In the context of land use planning, performance standards are requirements imposed on projects or project categories through conditional use permits to ensure compliance with general plan policies and local ordinances. These standards could apply to such project categories as distribution centers, very large gas dispensing facilities, autobody shops, dry cleaners, and metal platers.

Land use agencies may wish to consider adding land use-based performance standards to zoning ordinances in existing mixed-use communities for certain air pollution project categories. Such standards would provide certainty and equitable treatment to all projects of a similar nature, and reserve the more resource intensive conditional or special use permits to projects that require a more detailed analysis. In developing project design or performance standards, land use agencies should consult with the local air district. Early and regular consultation can avoid duplication or inconsistency with local air district control requirements when considering the site-specific design and operation of a project.

12 A land use agency has the authority to condition or deny a project based upon information collected and evaluated through the land use decision-making process. However, any denial would need to be based upon identifiable, generally applicable, articulated standards set forth in the local government’s General Plan and zoning codes. One way of averting this is to conduct early and regular outreach to the community and the local air district so that community and environmental concerns can be addressed and accommodated into the project proposal.

Item: 9
1008
Examples of land use-based air quality-specific performance standards include the following:
„ Placing a process vent away from the direction of the local playground that is nearby or increasing the stack height so that emissions are dispersed to reduce the emissions impact on surrounding homes or schools. „ Setbacks between the project fence line and the population center. „ Limiting the hours of operation of a facility to avoid excess emissions exposure or foul odors to nearby individuals.
„ An ordinance that requires fleet operators to use cleaner vehicles before project approval (if a new business), or when expanding the fleet (if an existing business); and
„ Providing alternate routes for truck operations that discourage detours into residential neighborhoods.

Outreach to Other Agencies
When questions arise regarding the air quality impacts of projects, including potential cumulative impacts, land use agencies should consult the local air district. Land use agencies should also consider the following suggestions to avoid creating new incompatible land uses:
„ Consult with the local air district to help determine if emissions from a particular project will adversely impact sensitive individuals in the area, if existing or future effective regulations or permit requirements will affect the proposed project or other sources in the vicinity of the proposed project, or if additional inspections should be required.
„ Check with ARB for new information and modeling tools that can help evaluate projects seeking to site within your jurisdiction. „ Become familiar with ARB's Land Use-Air Quality Linkage Report to determine whether approaches and evaluation tools contained in the Report can be used to reduce transportation-related impacts on communities.
„ Contact and collaborate with other state agencies that play a role in the land use decision-making process, e.g., the State Department of Education, the California Energy Commission, and Caltrans. These agencies have information on mitigation measures and mapping tools that could be useful in addressing local problems.
„ Information Clearinghouse
„ Land use agencies can refer to the ARB statewide electronic information clearinghouse for information on what measures other jurisdictions are using to address comparable issues or sources.13

13 This information can be accessed from ARB’s website by going to:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/clearinghouse.htm

Item: 9
1009
The next section addresses available air quality assessment tools that land use agencies can use to evaluate the potential for localized or cumulative impacts in their communities.

Item: 9
1010

5. Available Tools to Evaluate Cumulative Air Pollution Emissions and Risk
Until recently, California has traditionally approached air pollution control from the perspective of assessing whether the pollution was regional, category-specific, or from new or existing sources. This methodology has been generally effective in reducing statewide and regional air pollution impacts and risk levels. However, such an incremental, category-by-category, source-by-source approach may not always address community health impacts from multiple sources - including mobile, industrial, and commercial facilities.

As a result of air toxics and children's health concerns over the past several years, ARB and local air districts have begun to develop new tools to evaluate and inform the public about cumulative air pollution impacts at the community level. One aspect of ARB’s programs now underway is to consolidate and make accessible air toxics emissions and monitoring data by region, using modeling tools and other analytical techniques to take a preliminary look at emissions, exposure, and health risk in communities.

ARB has developed multiple tools to assist local air districts perform assessments of cumulative emissions, exposure, and risk on a neighborhood scale. These tools include:
„ Regional risk maps that show trends in potential cancer risk from toxic air pollutants in southern and central California between 1990 and 2010. These maps are based on the U.S. EPA’s ASPEN model. These maps provide an estimate of background levels of toxic air pollutant risk but are not detailed enough to assess individual neighborhoods or facilities.14 „ The Community Health Air Pollution Information System (CHAPIS) is a userfriendly, Internet-based system for displaying information on emissions from sources of air pollution in an easy to use mapping format. CHAPIS contains information on air pollution emissions from selected large facilities and small businesses that emit criteria and toxic air pollutants. It also contains information on air pollution emissions from motor vehicles. When released in 2004, CHAPIS did not contain information on every source of air pollution or every air pollutant. However, ARB continues to work with local air districts to include all of the largest air pollution sources and those with the highest documented air pollution risk. Additional facilities will be added to CHAPIS as more data become available.15

14 For further information on these maps, please visit ARB’s website at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/cti/hlthrisk/hlthrisk.htm
15 For further information on CHAPIS, please click on:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/chapis1/chapis1.htm

Item: 9
1011
„ The Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) is a software database package that evaluates emissions from one or more facilities to determine the overall health risk posed by the facility(-ies) on the surrounding community. Proper use of HARP ensures that the risk assessment meets the latest risk assessment guidelines published by the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). HARP is designed with air quality professionals in mind and is available from the ARB. „ The Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS) is a computer program that can be used to estimate emissions associated with land development projects in California such as residential neighborhoods, shopping centers, office buildings, and construction projects. URBEMIS uses emission factors available from the ARB to estimate vehicle emissions associated with new land uses.

Local air districts, and others can use these tools to assess a new project, or plan revision. For example, these tools can be used to:
„ Identify if there are multiple sources of air pollution in the community; „ Identify the major sources of air pollution in the area under consideration; „ Identify the background potential cancer risk from toxic air pollution in the area under consideration;
„ Estimate the risk from a new facility and how it adds to the overall risk from other nearby facilities; and
„ Provide information to decision-makers and key stakeholders on whether there may be significant issues related to cumulative emissions, exposure, and health risk due to a permitting or land use decision.

If an air agency wishes to perform a cumulative air pollution impact analysis using any of these tools, it should consult with the ARB and/or the local air district to obtain information or assistance on the data inputs and procedures necessary to operate the program. In addition, land use agencies could consult with local air districts to determine the availability of land use and air pollution data for entry into an electronic Geographical Information System (GIS) format. GIS is an easier mapping tool than the more sophisticated models described in Appendix C. GIS mapping makes it possible to superimpose land use with air pollution information so that the spatial relationship between air pollution sources, sensitive receptors, and air quality can be visually represented. Appendix C provides a general description of the impact assessment process and microscale, or community level modeling tools that are available to evaluate potential cumulative air pollution impacts. Modeling protocols will be accessible on ARB’s website as they become available. The ARB will also provide land use agencies and local air districts with statewide regional modeling results and information regarding micro-scale modeling.

Item: 9
1012

6. ARB Programs to Reduce Air Pollution in Communities
ARB’s regulatory programs reduce air pollutant emissions through statewide strategies that improve public health in all California communities. ARB’s overall program addresses motor vehicles, consumer products, air toxics, air-quality planning, research, education, enforcement, and air monitoring. Community health and environmental justice concerns are a consideration in all these programs. ARB’s programs are statewide but recognize that extra efforts may be needed in some communities due to historical mixed land-use patterns, limited participation in public processes in the past, and a greater concentration of air pollution sources in some communities.

ARB’s strategies are intended to result in better air quality and reduced health risk to residents throughout California. The ARB’s priority is to prevent or reduce the public’s exposure to air pollution, including from toxic air contaminants that pose the greatest risk, particularly to infants and children who are more vulnerable to air pollution.

In October 2003, ARB updated its statewide control strategy to reduce emissions from source categories within its regulatory authority. A primary focus of the strategy is to achieve federal and state air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter throughout California, and to reduce health risk from diesel PM. Along with local air districts, ARB will continue to address air toxics emissions from regulated sources (see Table 6-1 for a summary of ARB activities). As indicated earlier, ARB will also provide analytical tools and information to land use agencies and local air districts to help assess and mitigate cumulative air pollution impacts.

The ARB will continue to consider the adoption of or revisions to needed air toxics control measures as part of the state’s ongoing air toxics assessment program.16
As part of its effort to reduce particulate matter and air toxics emissions from diesel PM, the ARB has developed a Diesel Risk Reduction Program17 that lays out several strategies in a three-pronged approach to reduce emissions and their associated risk:
„ Stringent emission standards for all new diesel-fueled engines; „ Aggressive reductions from in-use engines; and
„ Low sulfur fuel that will reduce PM and still provide the quality of diesel fuel needed to control diesel PM.

16 For continuing information and updates on state measures, the reader can refer to ARB’s website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/toxics.htm. 17 For a comprehensive description of the program, please refer to ARB’s website at http://www.arbB.ca.gov/diesel/dieselrrp.htm.

Item: 9
1013
Table 6-1

ARB ACTIONS TO ADDRESS

CUMULATIVE AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS IN COMMUNITIES
Information Collection
• Improve emission inventories, air monitoring data, and analysis tools that can help to identify areas with high cumulative air pollution impacts • Conduct studies in coordination with OEHHA on the potential for cancer and noncancer health effects from air pollutants emitted by specific source categories • Establish web-based clearinghouse for local land use strategies Emission Reduction Approaches (2004-2006)*
• Through a public process, consider development and/or amendment of regulations and related guidance to reduce emissions, exposure, and health risk at a statewide and local level for the following sources:
− Diesel PM sources such as stationary diesel engines, transport refrigeration units, portable diesel engines, on-road public fleets, off-road public fleets, heavy-duty diesel truck idling, harbor craft vessels, waste haulers − Other air toxics sources, such as formaldehyde in composite wood products, hexavalent chromium for chrome plating and chromic acid anodizing, thermal spraying, and perchloroethylene dry cleaning
• Develop technical information for the following:*
− Distribution centers
− Modeling tools such as HARP and CHAPIS
• Adopt rules and pollution prevention initiatives within legal authority to reduce emissions from mobile sources and fuels, and consumer products • Develop and maintain Air Quality Handbook as a tool for use by land use agencies and local air districts to address cumulative air pollution impacts Other Approaches
• Establish guidelines for use of statewide incentive funding for high priority mobile source emission reduction projects
*Because ARB will continue to review the need to adopt or revise statewide measures, the information contained in this chart will be updated on an ongoing basis.

A number of ARB’s diesel risk reduction strategies have been adopted. These include measures to reduce emissions from refuse haulers, urban buses, transport refrigeration units, stationary and portable diesel engines, and idling trucks and school buses. These sources are all important from a community perspective.18

18 The reader can refer to ARB’s website for information on its mobile source-related programs at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/msprog.htm, as well as regulations adopted and under consideration as part of the Diesel Risk Reduction Program at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/dieselrrp.htm

Item: 9
1014
The ARB will continue to evaluate the health effects of air pollutants while implementing programs with local air districts to reduce air pollution in all California communities.

Local air districts also have ambitious programs to reduce criteria pollutants and air toxics from regulated sources in their region. Many of these programs also benefit air quality in local communities as well as in the broader region. For more information on what is being done in your area to reduce cumulative air pollution impacts through air pollution control programs, you should contact your local air district.19

19 Local air district contacts can be found on the inside cover to this Handbook.

Item: 9
1015

7. Ways to Enhance Meaningful Public Participation
Community involvement is an important part of the land use process. The public is entitled to the best possible information about the air they breathe and what is being done to prevent or reduce unhealthful air pollution in their communities. In particular, information on how land use decisions can affect air pollution and public health should be made accessible to all communities, including lowincome and minority communities.

Effective community participation consistently relies on a two-way flow of information – from public agencies to community members about opportunities, constraints, and impacts, and from community members back to public officials about needs, priorities, and preferences. The outreach process needed to build understanding and local neighborhood involvement requires data, methodologies, and formats tailored to the needs of the specific community.

More importantly, it requires the strong collaboration of local government agencies that review and approve projects and land uses to improve the physical and environmental surroundings of the local community.

Many land use agencies, especially those in major metropolitan areas, are familiar with, and have a long-established public review process. Nevertheless, public outreach can often be improved. Active public involvement requires engaging the public in ways that do not require their previous interest in or knowledge of the land use or air pollution control requirements, and a commitment to taking action where appropriate to address the concerns that are raised.
„ Direct Community Outreach
In conjunction with local air districts, land use agencies should consider designing an outreach program for community groups, other stakeholders, and local government agency staffs that address the problem of cumulative air pollution impacts, and the public and government role in reducing them. Such a program could consider analytical tools that assist in the preparation and presentation of information in a way that supports sensible decision-making and public involvement. Table 7-1 contains some general outreach approaches that might be considered.

Item: 9
1016
Table 7-1
Public Participation Approaches
• Staff and community leadership awareness training on
environmental justice programs and community-based issues • Surveys to identify the website information needs of interested community-based organizations and other stakeholders
• Information materials on local land use and air district authorities
• Community-based councils to facilitate and invite resident participation in the planning process
• Neighborhood CEQA scoping sessions that allows for
community input prior to technical analysis
• Public information materials on siting issues are under review including materials written for the affected community, and in different media that widens accessibility
• Public meetings
• Identify other opportunities to include community-based organizations in the process
To improve outreach, local land use agencies should consider the following activities:
„ Hold meetings in communities affected by agency programs, policies, and projects at times and in places that encourage public participation, such as evenings and weekends at centrally located community meeting rooms, libraries, and schools.
„ Assess the need for and provide translation services at public meetings. „ Hold community meetings to update residents on the results of any special air monitoring programs conducted in their neighborhood. „ Hold community meetings to discuss and evaluate the various options to address cumulative impacts in their community.
„ In coordination with local air districts, make staff available to attend meetings of community organizations and neighborhood groups to listen to and, where appropriate, act upon community concerns. „ Establish a specific contact person for environmental justice issues. „ Increase student and community awareness of local government land use activities and policies through outreach opportunities. „ Make air quality and land use information available to communities in an easily understood and useful format, including fact sheets, mailings, brochures, public service announcements, and web pages, in English and other languages.
„ On the local government web-site, dedicate a page or section to what the land use program is doing regarding environmental justice and cumulative environmental impacts, and, as applicable, activities conducted with local air districts such as neighborhood air monitoring studies, pollution prevention, air pollution sources in neighborhoods, and risk reduction.

Item: 9
1017
„ Allow, encourage, and promote community access to land use activities, including public meetings, General Plan or Community Plan updates, zoning changes, special studies, CEQA reviews, variances, etc. „ Distribute information in multiple languages, as needed, on how to contact the land use agency or local air district to obtain information and assistance regarding environmental justice programs, including how to participate in public processes.
„ Create and distribute a simple, easy-to-read, and understandable public participation handbook, which may be based on the “Public Participation Guidebook” developed by ARB.
„ Other Opportunities for Meaningful Public Outreach
„ Community-Based Planning Committees
Neighborhood-based or community planning advisory councils could be established to invite and facilitate direct resident participation into the planning process. With the right training and technical assistance, such councils can provide valuable input and a forum for the review of proposed amendments to plans, zone changes, land use permits, and suggestions as to how best to prevent or reduce cumulative air pollution impacts in their community.
„ Regional Partnerships
Consider creating regional coalitions of key growth-related organizations from both the private and public sectors, with corporations, communities, other jurisdictions, and government agencies. Such partnerships could facilitate agreement on common goals and win-win solutions tailored specifically for the region. With this kind of dialogue, shared vision, and collaboration, barriers can be overcome and locally acceptable sustainable solutions implemented. Over the long term, such strategies will help to bring about clean air in communities as well as regionally.

Item: 9
1018

APPENDIX A

LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS AND ASSOCIATED FACILITY CATEGORIES

THAT COULD EMIT AIR POLLUTANTS
(1)
Land Use
Classifications –
by Activityi
(2)
Facility or Project Examples
(3)
Key Pollutantsii,iii
(4)
Air Pollution
Permitsiv

COMMERCIAL/ LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL:

SHOPPING, BUSINESS,

AND COMMERCIAL
▲ Primarily retail shops
and stores, office,
commercial
activities, and light
industrial or small
business
Dry cleaners; drive-through
restaurants; gas dispensing facilities;
auto body shops; metal plating shops;
photographic processing shops;
textiles; apparel and furniture
upholstery; leather and leather
products; appliance repair shops;
mechanical assembly cleaning;
printing shops
VOCs, air toxics, including
diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx
Limited; Rules for
applicable
equipment
▲ Goods storage or
handling activities,
characterized by
loading and
unloading goods at
warehouses, large
storage structures,
movement of goods,
shipping, and
trucking.

Warehousing; freight-forwarding
centers; drop-off and loading areas;
distribution centers
VOCs, air toxics, including
diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx Nov
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL:

RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT
▲ Medical waste at
research hospitals
and labs
Incineration; surgical and medical
instrument manufacturers,
pharmaceutical manufacturing, biotech
research facilities
Air toxics, NOx, CO, SOx Yes
▲ Electronics, electrical
apparatus,
components, and
accessories
Computer manufacturer; integrated
circuit board manufacturer; semiconductor production Air toxics, VOCs Yes ▲ College or university
lab or research
center
Medical waste incinerators; lab
chemicals handling, storage and
disposal
Air toxics, NOx, CO, SOx,
PM10 Yes
▲ Research and
development labs
Satellite manufacturer; fiber-optics
manufacturer; defense contractors;
space research and technology; new
vehicle and fuel testing labs
Air toxics, VOCs Yes
▲ Commercial testing
labs
Consumer products; chemical
handling, storage and disposal Air toxics, VOCs Yes
A-1
Item: 9
1019

APPENDIX A
(1)
Land Use
Classifications –
by Activityi
(2)
Facility or Project Examples
(3)
Key Pollutantsii,iii
(4)
Air Pollution
Permitsiv
INDUSTRIAL: NONENERGY-RELATED
▲ Assembly plants,
manufacturing
facilities, industrial
machinery
Adhesives; chemical; textiles; apparel
and furniture upholstery; clay, glass,
and stone products production; asphalt
materials; cement manufacturers,
wood products; paperboard containers
and boxes; metal plating; metal and
canned food product fabrication; auto
manufacturing; food processing;
printing and publishing; drug, vitamins,
and pharmaceuticals; dyes; paints;
pesticides; photographic chemicals;
polish and wax; consumer products;
metal and mineral smelters and
foundries; fiberboard; floor tile and
cover; wood and metal furniture and
fixtures; leather and leather products;
general industrial and metalworking
machinery; musical instruments; office
supplies; rubber products and plastics
production; saw mills; solvent
recycling; shingle and siding; surface
coatings
VOCs, air toxics, including
diesel PM, NOx, PM, CO,
SOx
Yes
INDUSTRIAL: ENERGY

AND UTILITIES
▲ Water and sewer
operations Pumping stations; air vents; treatment VOCs, air toxics, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10 Yes ▲ Power generation
and distribution
Power plant boilers and heaters;
portable diesel engines; gas turbine
engines
NOx, diesel PM, NOx,
CO, SOx, PM10, VOCs Yes
▲ Refinery operations
Refinery boilers and heaters; coke
cracking units; valves and flanges;
flares
VOCs, air toxics, including
diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx,
PM10
Yes
▲ Oil and gas
extraction Oil recovery systems; uncovered wells NOx, diesel PM, VOCs, CO, SOx, PM10 Yes ▲ Gasoline storage,
transmission, and
marketing
Above and below ground storage
tanks; floating roof tanks; tank farms;
pipelines
VOCs, air toxics, including
diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx,
PM10
Yes
▲ Solid and hazardous
waste treatment,
storage, and
disposal activities.

Landfills; methane digester systems;
process recycling facility for concrete
and asphalt materials
VOCs, air toxics, NOx,
CO, SOx, PM10 Yes
CONSTRUCTION (NONTRANSPORTATION)
Building construction; demolition sites
PM (re-entrained road
dust), asbestos, diesel
PM, NOx, CO, SOx,
PM10, VOCs
Limited; state
and federal offroad equipment
standards
A-2
Item: 9
1020

APPENDIX A
(1)
Land Use
Classifications –
by Activityi
(2)
Facility or Project Examples
(3)
Key Pollutantsii,iii
(4)
Air Pollution
Permitsiv

DEFENSE
Ordnance and explosives demolition;
range and testing activities; chemical
production; degreasing; surface
coatings; vehicle refueling; vehicle and
engine operations and maintenance
VOCs, air toxics, including
diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx,
PM10
Limited;
prescribed
burning;
equipment and
solvent rules

TRANSPORTATION
▲ Vehicular movement
Residential area circulation systems;
parking and idling at parking
structures; drive-through
establishments; car washes; special
events; schools; shopping malls, etc.

VOCs, NOx, PM (reentrained road dust) air
toxics e.g., benzene,
diesel PM, formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, 1,3
butadiene, CO, SOx,
PM10
No
▲ Road construction
and surfacing
Street paving and repair; new highway
construction and expansion
VOCs, air toxics, including
diesel PM, NOx, CO, SOx,
PM10
No
▲ Trains Railroads; switch yards; maintenance
yards
▲ Marine and port
activities
Recreational sailing; commercial
marine operations; hotelling
operations; loading and un-loading;
servicing; shipping operations; port or
marina expansion; truck idling
▲ Aircraft Takeoff, landing, and taxiing; aircraft
maintenance; ground support activities
▲ Mass transit and
school buses Bus repair and maintenance
VOCs, NOx, CO, SOx,
PM10, air toxics, including
diesel PM
Limited;
Applicable state
and federal MV
standards, and
possible
equipment rules

NATURAL

RESOURCES
▲ Farming operations
Agricultural burning; diesel operated
engines and heaters; small food
processors; pesticide application;
agricultural off-road equipment
Diesel PM, VOCs, NOx,
PM10, CO, SOx,
pesticides
Limitedvi;
Agricultural
burning
requirements,
applicable state
and federal
mobile source
standards;
pesticide rules
▲ Livestock and dairy
operations Dairies and feed lots Ammonia, VOCs, PM10 Yesvii ▲ Logging Off-road equipment e.g., diesel fueled
chippers, brush hackers, etc.

Diesel PM, NOx, CO,
SOx, PM10, VOCs
Limited;
Applicable
state/federal
mobile source
standards
▲ Mining operations Quarrying or stone cutting; mining; drilling or dredging
PM10, CO, SOx, VOCs,
NOx, and asbestos in
some geographical areas
Applicable
equipment rules
and dust controls
A-3
Item: 9
1021

APPENDIX A
(1)
Land Use
Classifications –
by Activityi
(2)
Facility or Project Examples
(3)
Key Pollutantsii,iii
(4)
Air Pollution
Permitsiv

RESIDENTIAL
Housing Housing developments; retirement
developments; affordable housing
Fireplace emissions
(PM10, NOx, VOCs, CO,
air toxics);
Water heater combustion
(NOx, VOCs, CO)
Novii

ACADEMIC AND

INSTITUTIONAL
▲ Schools, including
school-related
recreational activities
Schools; school yards; vocational
training labs/classrooms such as auto
repair/painting and aviation mechanics
Air toxics Yes/Noviii
▲ Medical waste Incineration Air toxics, NOx, CO,
PM10 Yes
▲ Clinics, hospitals,
convalescent homes Air toxics Yes

i
These classifications were adapted from the American Planning Association’s “Land Based Classification Standards.” The Standards provide a consistent model for classifying land uses based on their characteristics.

The model classifies land uses by refining traditional categories into multiple dimensions, such as activities, functions, building types, site development character, and ownership constraints. Each dimension has its own set of categories and subcategories. These multiple dimensions allow users to have precise control over landuse classifications. For more information, the reader should refer to the Association’s website at http://www.planning.org/LBCS/GeneralInfo/.
ii This column includes key criteria pollutants and air toxic contaminants that are most typically associated with the identified source categories.

Additional information on specific air toxics that are attributed to facility categories can be found in ARB’s Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Report for the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program (May 15, 1997). This information can be viewed at ARB’s web site at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ab2588/final96/guide96.pdf.

Criteria air pollutants are those air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which an ambient air quality standard has been set. Criteria pollutants include ozone (formed by the reaction of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight), particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead.

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) combine with nitrogen oxides to form ozone, as well as particulate matter.

VOC emissions result primarily from incomplete fuel combustion and the evaporation of chemical solvents and fuels. On-road mobile sources are the largest contributors to statewide VOC emissions. Stationary sources of VOC emissions include processes that use solvents (such as dry-cleaning, degreasing, and coating operations) and petroleum-related processes (such as petroleum refining, gasoline marketing and dispensing, and oil and gas extraction). Areawide VOC sources include consumer products, pesticides, aerosols and paints, asphalt paving and roofing, and other evaporative emissions.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are a group of gaseous compounds of nitrogen and oxygen, many of which contribute to the formation of ozone and particulate matter. Most NOx emissions are produced by the combustion of fuels.

Mobile sources make up about 80 percent of the total statewide NOx emissions. Mobile sources include onroad vehicles and trucks, aircraft, trains, ships, recreational boats, industrial and construction equipment, farm A-4
Item: 9
1022

APPENDIX A

equipment, off-road recreational vehicles, and other equipment. Stationary sources of NOx include both internal and external combustion processes in industries such as manufacturing, food processing, electric utilities, and petroleum refining. Areawide source, which include residential fuel combustion, waste burning, and fires, contribute only a small portion of the total statewide NOx emissions, but depending on the community, may contribute to a cumulative air pollution impact.

Particulate matter (PM) refers to particles small enough to be breathed into the lungs (under 10 microns in size). It is not a single substance, but a mixture of a number of highly diverse types of particles and liquid droplets. It can be formed directly, primarily as dust from vehicle travel on paved and unpaved roads, agricultural operations, construction and demolition.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless and odorless gas that is directly emitted as a by-product of combustion.

The highest concentrations are generally associated with cold stagnant weather conditions that occur during winter. CO problems tend to be localized.

An Air Toxic Contaminant (air toxic) is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serous illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Similar to criteria pollutants, air toxics are emitted from stationary, areawide, and mobile sources. They contribute to elevated regional and localized risks near industrial and commercial facilities and busy roadways. The ten compounds that pose the greatest statewide risk are: acetaldehyde; benzene; 1,3-butadiene; carbon tetrachloride; diesel particulate matter (diesel PM); formaldehyde; hexavalent chromium; methylene chloride; para-dichlorobenzene; and perchloroethylene. The risk from diesel PM is by far the largest, representing about 70 percent of the known statewide cancer risk from outdoor air toxics. The exhaust from diesel-fueled engines is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and particles, many of which are known human carcinogens. Diesel PM is emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. In California, on-road diesel-fueled vehicles contribute about 26 percent of statewide diesel PM emissions, with an additional 72 percent attributed to other mobile sources such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and other equipment. Stationary engines in shipyards, warehouses, heavy equipment repair yards, and oil and gas production operations contribute about two percent of statewide emissions. However, when this number is disaggregated to a subregional scale such as neighborhoods, the risk factor can be far greater. iii The level of pollution emitted is a major determinant of the significance of the impact. iv Indicates whether facility activities listed in column 4 are generally subject to local air district permits to operate. This does not include regulated products such as solvents and degreasers that may be used by sources that may not require an operating permit per se, e.g., a gas station or dry cleaner. v
Generally speaking, warehousing or distribution centers are not subject to local air district permits. However, depending on the district, motor vehicle fleet rules may apply to trucks or off-road vehicles operated and maintained by the facility operator. Additionally, emergency generators or internal combustion engines operated on the site may require an operating permit.
vi Authorized by recent legislation SB700.
vii Local air districts do not require permits for woodburning fireplaces inside private homes. However, some local air districts and land use agencies do have rules or ordinances that require new housing developments or home re-sales to install U.S. EPA –certified stoves. Some local air districts also ban residential woodburning during weather inversions that concentrate smoke in residential areas. Likewise, home water heaters are not subject to permits; however, new heaters could be subject to emission limits that are imposed by federal or local agency regulations.
viii Technical training schools that conduct activities normally permitted by a local air district could be subject to an air permit.

A-5
Item: 9
1023
Item: 9
1024

APPENDIX B

LAND USE-BASED REFERENCE TOOLS TO EVALUATE

NEW PROJECTS FOR POTENTIAL AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS
Land use agencies generally have a variety of tools and approaches at hand, or accessible from local air districts that can be useful in performing an analysis of potential air pollution impacts associated with new projects. These tools and approaches include:
„ Base map of the city or county planning area and terrain elevations. „ General Plan designations of land use (existing and proposed). „ Zoning maps.
„ Land use maps that identify existing land uses, including the location of facilities that are permitted or otherwise regulated by the local air district. Land use agencies should consult with their local air district for information on regulated facilities. „ Demographic data, e.g., population location and density, distribution of population by income, distribution of population by ethnicity, and distribution of population by age.

The use of population data is a normal part of the planning process. However, from an air quality perspective, socioeconomic data is useful to identify potential community health and environmental justice issues.
„ Emissions, monitoring, and risk-based maps created by the ARB or local air districts that show air pollution-related health risk by community across the state. „ Location of public facilities that enhance community quality of life, including parks, community centers, and open space.
„ Location of industrial and commercial facilities and other land uses that use hazardous materials, or emit air pollutants. These include chemical storage facilities, hazardous waste disposal sites, dry cleaners, large gas dispensing facilities, auto body shops, and metal plating and finishing shops. „ Location of sources or facility types that result in diesel on-road and off-road emissions, e.g., stationary diesel power generators, forklifts, cranes, construction equipment, on-road vehicle idling, and operation of transportation refrigeration units.

Distribution centers, marine terminals and ports, rail yards, large industrial facilities, and facilities that handle bulk goods are all examples of complex facilities where these types of emission sources are frequently concentrated.1 Very large facilities, such as ports, marine terminals, and airports, could be analyzed regardless of proximity to a receptor if they are within the modeling area. „ Location and zoning designations for existing and proposed schools, buildings, or outdoor areas where sensitive individuals may live or play. „ Location and density of existing and proposed residential development. „ Zoning requirements, property setbacks, traffic flow requirements, and idling restrictions for trucks, trains, yard hostlers2
, construction equipment, or school
buses.
„ Traffic counts (including diesel truck traffic counts), within a community to validate or augment existing regional motor vehicle trip and speed data.

1 The ARB is currently evaluating the types of facilities that may act as complex point sources and developing methods to identify them.
2 Yard hostler means a tractor less than 300 horsepower that is used to transfer semi-truck or tractortrailer containers in and around storage, transfer, or distribution yards or areas and is often equipped with a hydraulic lifting fifth wheel for connection to trailer containers.

B-1
Item: 9
1025

Item: 9
1026

APPENDIX C

ARB AND LOCAL AIR DISTRICT INFORMATION AND TOOLS

CONCERNING CUMULATIVE AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS
It is the ARB’s policy to support research and data collection activities toward the goal of reducing cumulative air pollution impacts. These efforts include updating and improving the air toxics emissions inventory, performing special air monitoring studies in specific communities, and conducting a more complete assessment of non-cancer health effects associated with air toxics and criteria pollutants.1
This information is important because
it helps us better understand links between air pollution and the health of sensitive individuals -- children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality.

ARB is working with CAPCOA and OEHHA to improve air pollutant data and evaluation tools to determine when and where cumulative air pollution impacts may be a problem.

The following provides additional information on this effort.

How are emissions assessed?
Detailed information about the sources of air pollution in an area is collected and maintained by local air districts and the ARB in what is called an emission inventory.

Emission inventories contain information about the nature of the business, the location, type and amount of air pollution emitted, the air pollution-producing processes, the type of air pollution control equipment, operating hours, and seasonal variations in activity.

Local districts collect emission inventory data for most stationary source categories.

Local air districts collect air pollution emission information directly from facilities and businesses that are required to obtain an air pollution operating permit. Local air districts use this information to compile an emission inventory for areas within their jurisdiction. The ARB compiles a statewide emission inventory based on the information collected by the ARB and local air districts. Local air districts provide most of the stationary source emission data, and ARB provides mobile source emissions as well as some areawide emission sources such as consumer products and paints. ARB is also developing map-based tools that will display information on air pollution sources.

Criteria pollutant data have been collected since the early 1970’s, and toxic pollutant inventories began to be developed in the mid-1980’s.

1 A criteria pollutant is any air pollutant for which EPA has established a National Ambient Air Quality Standard or for which California has established a State Ambient Air Quality Standard, including: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, ozone, particulates and sulfur oxides. Criteria pollutants are measured in each of California’s air basins to determine whether the area meets or does not meet specific federal or state air quality standards. Air toxics or air toxic contaminants are listed pollutants recognized by California or EPA as posing a potential risk to health.

Page C-1
Item: 9
1027

APPENDIX C
How is the toxic emission inventory developed?
Emissions data for toxic air pollutants is a high priority for communities because of concerns about potential health effects. Most of ARB’s air toxics data is collected through the toxic “Hot Spots” program. Local air districts collect emissions data from industrial and commercial facilities. Facilities that exceed health-based thresholds are required to report their air toxics emissions as part of the toxic “Hot Spots” program and update their emissions data every four years. Facilities are required to report their air toxics emissions data if there is an increase that would trigger the reporting threshold of the hotspots program. Air toxics emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products are estimated by the ARB. These estimates are generally regional in nature, reflecting traffic and population.

The ARB also maintains chemical speciation profiles that can be used to estimate toxics emissions when no toxic emissions data is available.

What additional toxic emissions information is needed?
In order to assess cumulative air pollution impacts, updated information from individual facilities is needed. Even for sources where emissions data are available, additional information such as the location of emissions release points is often needed to better model cumulative impacts. In terms of motor vehicles, emissions data are currently based on traffic models that only contain major roads and freeways. Local traffic data are needed so that traffic emissions can be more accurately assigned to specific streets and roads. Local information is also needed for off-road emission sources, such as ships, trains, and construction equipment. In addition, hourly maximum emissions data are needed for assessing acute air pollution impacts.

What work is underway?
ARB is working with CAPCOA to improve toxic emissions data, developing a community health air pollution information system to improve access to emission information, conducting neighborhood assessment studies to better understand toxic emission sources, and conducting surveys of sources of toxic pollutants.

How is air pollution monitored?
While emissions data identify how much air pollution is going into the air, the state’s air quality monitoring network measures air pollutant levels in outdoor air. The statewide air monitoring network is primarily designed to measure regional exposure to air pollutants, and consists of more than 250 air monitoring sites.

The air toxics monitoring network consists of approximately 20 permanent sites. These sites are supplemented by special monitoring studies conducted by ARB and local air districts. These sites measure approximately sixty toxic air pollutants. Diesel PM, which is the major driver of urban air toxic risk, is not monitored directly. Ten of the Page C-2
Item: 9
1028

APPENDIX C
60 toxic pollutants, not including diesel, account for most of the remaining potential cancer risk in California urban areas.

What additional monitoring has been done?
Recently, additional monitoring has been done to look at air quality at the community level. ARB’s community monitoring was conducted in six communities located throughout the state. Most sites were in low-income, minority communities located near major sources of air pollution, such as refineries or freeways. The monitoring took place for a year or more in each community, and included measurements of both criteria and toxic pollutants.

What is being learned from community monitoring?
In some cases, the ARB or local air districts have performed air quality monitoring or modeling studies covering a particular region of the state. When available, these studies can give information about regional air pollution exposures.

The preliminary results of ARB’s community monitoring are providing insights into air pollution at the community level. Urban background levels are a major contributor to the overall risk from air toxics in urban areas, and this urban background tends to mask the differences between communities. When localized elevated air pollutant levels were measured, they were usually associated with local ground-level sources of toxic pollutants. The most common source of this type was busy streets and freeways. The impact these ground-level sources had on local air quality decreased rapidly with distance from the source. Pollutant levels usually returned to urban background levels within a few hundred meters of the source.

These results indicate that tools to assess cumulative impacts must be able to account for both localized, near-source impacts, as well as regional background air pollution.

The tools that ARB is developing for this purpose are air quality models.

How can air quality modeling be used?
While air monitoring can directly measure cumulative exposure to air pollution, it is limited because all locations cannot be monitored. To address this, air quality modeling provides the capability to estimate exposure when air monitoring is not feasible. Air quality modeling can be refined to assess local exposure, identify locations of potential hot spots, and identify the relative contribution of emission sources to exposure at specific locations. The ARB has used this type of information to develop regional cumulative risk maps that estimate the cumulative cancer air pollution risk for most of California. While these maps only show one air pollution-related health risk, it does provide a useful starting point.

Page C-3
Item: 9
1029

APPENDIX C
What is needed for community modeling?
Air quality models have been developed to assess near-source impacts, but they have very exacting data requirements. These near-source models estimate the impact of local sources, but do not routinely include the contribution from regional air pollution background. To estimate cumulative air pollution exposure at a neighborhood scale, a modeling approach needs to combine features of both micro-scale and regional models.

In addition, improved methods are needed to assess near-source impacts under light and variable wind conditions, when high local concentrations are more likely to occur. A method for modeling long-term exposure to air pollutants near freeways and other high traffic areas is also needed.

What modeling work has ARB developed?
A key component of ARB’s Community Health Program is the Neighborhood Assessment Program (NAP). As described later in this section, the NAP studies are being conducted to better understand pollution impacts at the community level.

Through two such studies conducted in Barrio Logan (San Diego) and Wilmington (Los Angeles), ARB is refining community-level modeling methodologies. Regional air toxics modeling is also being performed to better understand regional air pollution background levels.

In a parallel effort, ARB is developing modeling protocols for estimating cumulative emissions, exposure, and risk from air pollution. The protocols will cover modeling approaches and uncertainties, procedures for running the models, the development of statewide risk maps, and methods for estimating health risks. The protocols are subject to an extensive peer review process prior to release.

How are air pollution impacts on community health assessed? On a statewide basis, ARB’s toxic air contaminant program identifies and reduces public exposure to air toxics. The focus of the program has been on reducing potential cancer risk, because monitoring results show potential urban cancer risk levels are too high.

ARB has also looked for potential non-cancer risks based on health reference levels provided by OEHHA. On a regional basis, the pollutants measured in ARB’s toxic monitoring network are generally below the OEHHA non-cancer reference exposure levels.

As part of its community health program, the ARB is looking at potential cancer and non-cancer risk. This could include chronic or acute health effects. If the assessment work shows elevated exposures on a localized basis, ARB will work with OEHHA to assess the health impacts.

Page C-4
Item: 9
1030

APPENDIX C
What tools has ARB developed to assess cumulative air pollution impacts? ARB has developed the following tools and reports to assist land use agencies and local air districts assess and reduce cumulative emissions, exposure, and risk on a neighborhood scale.

Statewide Risk Maps
ARB has produced regional risk maps that show the statewide trends for Southern and Central California in estimated potential cancer risk from air toxics between 1990 and 2010.2 These maps will supplement U.S. EPA’s ASPEN model and are available on the ARB’s Internet site. These maps are best used to obtain an estimate of the regional background air pollution health risk and are not detailed enough to estimate the exact risk at a specific location.

ARB also has maps that focus in more detail on smaller areas that fall within the Southern and Central California regions for these same modeled years. The finest visual resolution available in the maps on this web site is two by two kilometers. These maps are not detailed enough to assess individual neighborhoods or facilities.

Community Health Air Pollution Information System (CHAPIS) CHAPIS is an Internet-based procedure for displaying information on emissions from sources of air pollution in an easy to use mapping format. CHAPIS uses Geographical Information System (GIS) software to deliver interactive maps over the Internet.

CHAPIS relies on emission estimates reported to the ARB’s emission inventory database - California Emissions Inventory Development and Reporting System, or CEIDARS.

Through CHAPIS, air district staff can quickly and easily identify pollutant sources and emissions within a specified area. CHAPIS contains information on air pollution emissions from selected large facilities and small businesses that emit criteria and toxic air pollutants. It also contains information on air pollution emissions from motor vehicle and areawide emissions. CHAPIS does not contain information on every source of air pollution or every air pollutant. It is a major long-term objective of CHAPIS to include all of the largest air pollution sources and those with the highest documented air pollution risk. CHAPIS will be updated on a periodic basis and additional facilities will be added to CHAPIS as more data becomes available.

CHAPIS is being developed in stages to assure data quality. The initial release of CHAPIS will include facilities emitting 10 or more tons per year of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, PM10, or reactive organic gases; air toxics from refineries and power plants of 50 megawatts or more; and facilities that conducted health risk

2 ARB maintains state trends and local potential cancer risk maps that show statewide trends in potential inhalable cancer risk from air toxics between 1990 and 2010. This information can be viewed at ARB’s web site at http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/cti/hlthrisk/hlthrisk.htm) Page C-5
Item: 9
1031

APPENDIX C
assessments under the California Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Program.3

CHAPIS can be used to identify the emission contributions from mobile, area, and point sources on that community.
“Hot Spots” Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP)
HARP4 is a software package available from the ARB and is designed with air quality professionals in mind. It models emissions and release data from one or more facilities to estimate the potential health risk posed by the selected facilities on the neighboring community. HARP uses the latest risk assessment guidelines published by OEHHA.

With HARP, a user can perform the following tasks:
„ Create and manage facility databases;
„ Perform air dispersion modeling;
„ Conduct health risk analyses;
„ Output data reports; and
„ Output results to GIS mapping software.

HARP can model downwind concentrations of air toxics based on the calculated emissions dispersion at a single facility. HARP also has the capability of assessing the risk from multiple facilities, and for multiple locations of concern near those facilities.

While HARP has the capability to assess multiple source impacts, there had been limited application of the multiple facility assessment function in the field at the time of HARP’s debut in 2003. HARP can also evaluate multi-pathway, non-inhalation health risk resulting from air pollution exposure, including skin and soil exposure, and ingestion of meat and vegetables contaminated with air toxics, and other toxics that have accumulated in a mother’s breast milk.

Neighborhood Assessment Program (NAP)
The NAP5
has been a key component of ARB’s Community Health Program. It includes the development of tools that can be used to perform assessments of cumulative air pollution impacts on a neighborhood scale. The NAP studies have been done to better understand how air pollution affects individuals at the neighborhood level. Thus far, ARB has conducted neighborhood scale assessments in Barrio Logan and Wilmington.

As part of these studies, ARB is collecting data and developing a modeling protocol that can be used to conduct cumulative air pollution impact assessments. Initially these

3 California Health & Safety Code section 44300, et seq. 4 More detailed information can be found on ARB’s website at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/harp/harp.htm
5 For more information on the Program, please refer to: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/programs/nap/nap.htm Page C-6
Item: 9
1032

APPENDIX C
assessments will focus on cumulative inhalation cancer health risk and chronic noncancer impacts. The major challenge is developing modeling methods that can combine both regional and localized air pollution impacts, and identifying the critical data necessary to support these models. The objective is to develop methods and tools from these studies that can ultimately be applied to other areas of the state. In addition, the ARB plans to use these methods to replace the ASPEN regional risk maps currently posted on the ARB Internet site.

Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS)
URBEMIS6 is a computer program that can be used to estimate emissions associated with land development projects in California such as residential neighborhoods, shopping centers, office buildings, and construction projects. URBEMIS uses emission factors available from the ARB to estimate vehicle emissions associated with new land uses. URBEMIS estimates sulfur dioxide emissions from motor vehicles in addition to reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and PM10.

Land-Use Air Quality Linkage Report7
This report summarizes data currently available on the relationships between land use, transportation and air quality. It also highlights strategies that can help to reduce the use of the private automobile. It also briefly summarizes two ARB-funded research projects. The first project analyzes the travel patterns of residents living in five higher density, mixed use neighborhoods in California, and compares them to travel in more auto-oriented areas. The second study correlates the relationship between travel behavior and community characteristics, such as density, mixed land uses, transit service, and accessibility for pedestrians.

6 For more information on this model, please refer to ARB’s website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/soft.htm.
7 To access this report, please refer to ARB's website or click on:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/programs/link97.pdf
Page C-7
Item: 9
1033

Item: 9
1034

APPENDIX D

LAND USE AND AIR QUALITY AGENCY ROLES

IN THE LAND USE PROCESS
A wide variety of federal, state, and local government agencies are responsible for regulatory, planning, and siting decisions that can have an impact on air pollution. They include local land use agencies, regional councils of government, school districts, local air districts, ARB, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to name a few. This Section will focus on the roles and responsibilities of local and state agencies. The role of school districts will be discussed in Appendix E.

Local Land Use Agencies
Under the State Constitution, land use agencies have the primary authority to plan and control land use.1
Each of California’s incorporated cities and counties are required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan.2

The General Plan's long-term goals are implemented through zoning ordinances.

These are local laws adopted by counties and cities that describe for specific areas the kinds of development that will be allowed within their boundaries.

Land use agencies are also the lead for doing environmental assessments under CEQA for new projects that may pose a significant environmental impact, or for new or revised General Plans.

Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs)
Operating in each of California’s 58 counties, LAFCOs are composed of local elected officials and public members who are responsible for coordinating changes in local governmental boundaries, conducting special studies that review ways to reorganize, simplify, and streamline governmental structures, and preparing a sphere of influence for each city and special district within each county. Each Commission's efforts are directed toward seeing that local government services are provided efficiently and economically while agricultural and open-space lands are protected. LAFCO decisions strive to balance the competing needs in California for efficient services, affordable housing, economic opportunity, and conservation of natural resources.

1 The legal basis for planning and land use regulation is the "police power" of the city or county to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare. The California Constitution gives cities and counties the power to make and enforce all local police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. State law reference: California Constitution, Article XI §7. 2 OPR General Plan Guidelines, 2003:
http://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/PDFs/General_Plan_Guidelines_2003.pdf Page D-1
Item: 9
1035

APPENDIX D
Councils of Government (COG)
COGs are organizations composed of local counties and cities that serve as a focus for the development of sound regional planning, including plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. They can also function as the metropolitan planning organization for coordinating the region's transportation programs. COGs also prepare regional housing need allocations for updates of General Plan housing elements.

Local Air Districts
Under state law, air pollution control districts or air quality management districts (local air districts) are the local government agencies responsible for improving air quality and are generally the first point of contact for resolving local air pollution issues or complaints. There are 35 local air districts in California3 that have authority and primary
responsibility for regional clean air planning. Local air districts regulate stationary sources of air pollutants within their jurisdiction including but not limited to industrial and commercial facilities, power plants, construction activities, outdoor burning, and other non-mobile sources of air pollution. Some local air districts also regulate public and private motor vehicle fleet operators such as public bus systems, private shuttle and taxi services, and commercial truck depots.
„ Regional Clean Air Plans
Local air districts are responsible for the development and adoption of clean air plans that protect the public from the harmful effects of air pollution. These plans incorporate strategies that are necessary to attain ambient air quality standards. Also included in these regional air plans are ARB and local district measures to reduce statewide emissions from mobile sources, consumer products, and industrial sources. „ Facility-Specific Considerations
Permitting. In addition to the planning function, local air districts adopt and enforce regulations, issue permits, and evaluate the potential environmental impacts of projects.

Pollution is regulated through permits and technology-based rules that limit emissions from operating units within a facility or set standards that vehicle fleet operators must meet. Permits to construct and permits to operate contain very specific requirements and conditions that tell each regulated source what it must do to limit its air pollution in compliance with local air district rules, regulations, and state law. Prior to receiving a permit, new facilities must go through a New Source Review (NSR) process that establishes air pollution control requirements for the facility. Permit conditions are typically contained in the permit to operate and specify requirements that businesses must follow; these may include limits on the amount of pollution that can be emitted, the

3 Contact information for local air districts in California is listed in the front of this Handbook.

Page D-2
Item: 9
1036

APPENDIX D
type of pollution control equipment that must be installed and maintained, and various record-keeping requirements.

Local air districts also notify the public about new permit applications for major new facilities, or major modifications to existing facilities that seek to locate within 1,000 feet of a school.

Local air districts can also regulate other types of sources to reduce emissions. These include regulations to reduce emissions from the following sources:
„ hazardous materials in products used by industry such as paints, solvents, and degreasers; „ agricultural and residential burning;
„ leaking gasoline nozzles at service stations;
„ public fleet vehicles such as sanitation trucks and school buses; and „ fugitive or uncontrolled dust at construction sites.

However, while emissions from industrial and commercial sources are typically subject to the permit authority of the local air district, sensitive sites such as a day care center, convalescent home, or playground are not ordinarily subject to an air permit. Local air district permits address the air pollutant emissions of a project but not its location.

Under the state’s air toxics program, local air districts regulate air toxic emissions by adopting ARB air toxic control measures, or more stringent district-specific requirements, and by requiring individual facilities to perform a health risk assessment if emissions at the source exceed district-specific health risk thresholds4 , 5 (See the
section on ARB programs for a more detailed summary of this program).

One approach by which local air districts regulate air toxics emissions is through the "Hot Spots" program.6 The risk assessments submitted by the facilities under this

4 Cal/EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has published “A Guide to Health Risk Assessment” for lay people involved in environmental health issues, including policymakers, businesspeople, members of community groups, and others with an interest in the potential health effects of toxic chemicals. To access this information, please refer to http://www.oehha.ca.gov/pdf/HRSguide2001.pdf 5
Section 44306 of the California Health & Safety Code defines a health risk assessment as a detailed comprehensive analysis that a polluting facility uses to evaluate and predict the dispersion of hazardous substances in the environment and the potential for exposure of human populations, and to assess and quantify both the individual and population-wide health risks associated with those levels of exposure. 6 AB-2588 (the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act) requires local air districts to prioritize facilities by high, intermediate, and low priority categories to determine which must perform a health risk assessment. Each district is responsible for establishing the prioritization score threshold at which facilities are required to prepare a health risk assessment. In establishing priorities for each facility, local air districts must consider the potency, toxicity, quantity, and volume of hazardous materials released from the facility, the proximity of the facility to potential receptors, and any other factors that the district determines may indicate that the facility may pose a significant risk. All facilities within the highest category must prepare a health risk assessment. In addition, each district may require facilities in the intermediate and low priority categories to also submit a health risk assessment.

Page D-3
Item: 9
1037

APPENDIX D
Table D-1
Local Sources of Air Pollution, Responsible Agencies,
and Associated Regulatory Programs
Source Examples Primary Agency Applicable Regulations
Large
Stationary
Refineries, power
plants, chemical
facilities, certain
manufacturing
plants
Local air districts Operating permit rules
Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Law
(AB 2588)
Local district rules
Air Toxic Control Measures
(ATCMs)*
New Source Review rules
Title V permit rules
Small
Stationary
Dry cleaners, auto
body shops,
welders, chrome
plating facilities,
service stations,
certain
manufacturing
plants
Local air districts Operating permit conditions,
Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Law
(AB 2588)
Local district rules
ATCMs*
New Source Review rules
Mobile (nonfleet) Cars, trucks, buses ARB Emission standards Cleaner-burning fuels
(e.g., unleaded gasoline,
low-sulfur diesel)
Inspection and repair
programs (e.g., Smog
Check)
Mobile
Equipment
Construction
equipment
ARB, U.S. EPA ARB rules
U.S. EPA rules
Mobile (fleet) Truck depots,
school buses, taxi
services
Local air districts,
ARB
Local air district rules
ARB urban bus fleet rule
Areawide Paints and
consumer products
such as hair spray
and spray paint
Local air district,
ARB
ARB rules
Local air district rules
*ARB adopts ATCMs, but local air districts have the responsibility to implement and enforce these measures or more stringent ones.
program are reviewed by OEHHA and approved by the local air district. Risk assessments are available by contacting the local air district.

Enforcement. Local air districts also take enforcement action to ensure compliance with air quality requirements. They enforce air toxic control measures, agricultural and residential burning programs, gasoline vapor control regulations, laws that prohibit air pollution nuisances, visible emission limits, and many other requirements designed to Page D-4
Item: 9
1038

APPENDIX D
clean the air. Local districts use a variety of enforcement tools to ensure compliance.

These include notices of violation, monetary penalties, and abatement orders. Under some circumstances, a permit may be revoked.
„ Environmental Review
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), local air districts also review and comment on proposed land use plans and development projects that can have a significant effect on the environment or public health.7 California Air Resources Board
The ARB is the air pollution control agency at the state level that is responsible for the preparation of air plans required by state and federal law. In this regard, it coordinates the activities of all local air districts to ensure all statutory requirements are met and to reduce air pollution emissions for sources under its jurisdiction.

Motor vehicles are the single largest emissions source category under ARB's jurisdiction as well as the largest overall emissions source statewide. ARB also regulates emissions from other mobile equipment and engines as well as emissions from consumer products such as hair sprays, perfumes, cleaners, and aerosol paints.

Air Toxics Program
Under state law, the ARB has a critical role to play in the identification, prioritization, and control of air toxic emissions. The ARB statewide comprehensive air toxics program was established in the early 1980's. The Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act of 1983 (AB 1807, Tanner 1983) created California's program to reduce exposure to air toxics.8 The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act (Hot Spots program) supplements the AB 1807 program, by requiring a statewide air toxics inventory, notification of people exposed to a significant health risk, and facility plans to reduce these risks.

Under AB 1807, the ARB is required to use certain criteria to prioritize the identification and control of air toxics. In selecting substances for review, the ARB must consider criteria relating to emissions, exposure, and health risk, as well as persistence in the atmosphere, and ambient concentrations in the community. AB 1807 also requires the ARB to use available information gathered from the Hot Spots program when prioritizing compounds.

The ARB identifies pollutants as toxic air contaminants and adopts statewide air toxic control measures (ATCMs). Once ARB adopts an ATCM, local air districts must

7 Section 4 of this Handbook contains more information on the CEQA process. 8 For a general background on California’s air toxics program, the reader should refer to ARB’s website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/tac/appendxb.htm.

Page D-5
Item: 9
1039

APPENDIX D
implement the measure, or adopt and implement district-specific measures that are at least as stringent as the state standard. Taken in the aggregate, these ARB programs will continue to further reduce emissions, exposure, and health risk statewide.

With regard to the land use decision-making process, ARB, in conjunction with local air districts, plays an advisory role by providing technical information on land use-related air issues.

Other Agencies
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
In addition to serving as the Governor’s advisor on land use planning, research, and liaison with local government, OPR develops and implements the state’s policy on land use planning and coordinates the state’s environmental justice programs. OPR updated its General Plan Guidelines in 2003 to highlight the importance of sustainable development and environmental justice policies in the planning process. OPR also advises project proponents and government agencies on CEQA provisions and operates the State Clearinghouse for environmental and federal grant documents.

California Department of Housing and Community Development The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) administers a variety of state laws, programs and policies to preserve and expand housing opportunities, including the development of affordable housing. All local jurisdictions must update their housing elements according to a staggered statutory schedule, and are subject to certification by HCD. In their housing elements, cities and counties are required to include a land inventory which identifies and zones sites for future residential development to accommodate a mix of housing types, and to remove barriers to the development of housing.

An objective of state housing element law is to increase the overall supply and affordability of housing. Other fundamental goals include conserving existing affordable housing, improving the condition of the existing housing stock, removing regulatory barriers to housing production, expanding equal housing opportunities, and addressing the special housing needs of the state’s most vulnerable residents (frail elderly, disabled, large families with children, farmworkers, and the homeless).

Transportation Agencies
Transportation agencies can also influence mobile source-related emissions in the land use decision-making process. Local transportation agencies work with land use agencies to develop a transportation (circulation) element for the General Plan. These local government agencies then work with other transportation-related agencies, such as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA), Metropolitan Planning Organization Page D-6
Item: 9
1040

APPENDIX D
(MPO), Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and Caltrans to develop long and short range transportation plans and projects.

Caltrans is the agency responsible for setting state transportation goals and for state transportation planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance activities.

Caltrans is also responsible for delivering California’s multibillion-dollar state Transportation Improvement Program, a list of transportation projects that are approved for funding by the California Transportation Commission in a 4-year cycle.

When safety hazards or traffic circulation problems are identified in the existing road system, or when land use changes are proposed such as a new residential subdivision, shopping mall or manufacturing center, Caltrans and/or the local transportation agency ensure the projects meet applicable state, regional, and local goals and objectives.

Caltrans also evaluates transportation-related projects for regional air quality impacts, from the perspective of travel-related emissions as well as road congestion and increases in road capacity (new lanes).

California Energy Commission (CEC)
The CEC is the state’s CEQA lead agency for permitting large thermal power plants (50 megawatts or greater). The CEC works closely with local air districts and other federal, state and local agencies to ensure compliance with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and standards in the permitting, construction, operation and closure of such plants. The CEC uses an open and public review process that provides communities with outreach and multiple opportunities to participate and be heard. In addition to its comprehensive environmental impact and engineering design assessment process, the CEC also conducts an environmental justice evaluation. This evaluation involves an initial demographic screening to determine if a qualifying minority or low-income population exists in the vicinity of the proposed project. If such a population is present, staff considers possible environmental justice impacts including from associated project emissions in its technical assessments.9

Department of Pesticides Regulation (DPR)
Pesticides are industrial chemicals produced specifically for their toxicity to a target pest. They must be released into the environment to do their job. Therefore, regulation of pesticides focuses on using toxicity and other information to ensure that when pesticides are used according to their label directions, potential for harm to people and the environment is minimized. DPR imposes strict controls on use, beginning before pesticide products can be sold in California, with an extensive scientific program to ensure they can be used safely. DPR and county enforcement staff tracks the use of pesticides to ensure that pesticides are used properly. DPR collects periodic

9 See California Energy Commission, “Environmental Performance Report,” July 2001 at http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2001-11-20_700-01-001.PDF Page D-7
Item: 9
1041

APPENDIX D
measurements of any remaining amounts of pesticides in water, air, and on fresh produce. If unsafe levels are found, DPR requires changes in how pesticides are used, to reduce the possibility of harm. If this cannot be done - that is, if a pesticide cannot be used safely - use of the pesticide will be banned in California.10 Federal Agencies
Federal agencies have permit authority over activities on federal lands and certain resources, which have been the subject of congressional legislation, such as air, water quality, wildlife, and navigable waters. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency generally oversees implementation of the federal Clean Air Act, and has broad authority for regulating certain activities such as mobile sources, air toxics sources, the disposal of toxic wastes, and the use of pesticides. The responsibility for implementing some federal regulatory programs such as those for air and water quality and toxics is delegated by management to specific state and local agencies. Although federal agencies are not subject to CEQA they must follow their own environmental process established under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

10 For more information, the reader is encouraged to visit the Department of Pesticide Regulation web site at www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/empm/pubs/tacmenu.htm.

Page D-8
Item: 9
1042

APPENDIX E

SPECIAL PROCESSES THAT APPLY TO SCHOOL SITING
The California Education Code and the California Public Resources Code place primary authority for siting public schools with the local school district, which is the ‘lead agency’ for purposes of CEQA. The California Education Code requires public school districts to notify the local planning agency about siting a new public school or expanding an existing school. The planning agency then reports back to the school district regarding a project’s conformity with the adopted General Plan. However, school districts can overrule local zoning and land use designations for schools if they follow specified procedures. In addition, all school districts must evaluate new school sites using site selection standards established in Section 14010 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations. Districts seeking state funding for school site acquisition must also obtain site approval from the California Department of Education.

Before making a final decision on a school site acquisition, a school district must comply with CEQA and evaluate the proposed site acquisition/new school project for air emissions and health risks by preparing and certifying an environmental impact report or negative declaration. Both the California Education Code section 17213 and the California Public Resources Code section 21151.8 require school districts to consult with administering agencies and local air districts when preparing the environmental assessment. Such consultation is required to identify both permitted and non-permitted “facilities” that might significantly affect health at the new site. These facilities include, but are not limited to, freeways and other busy traffic corridors, large agricultural operations, and rail yards that are within one-quarter mile of the proposed school site, and that might emit hazardous air emissions, or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste.

As part of the CEQA process and before approving a school site, the school district must make a finding that either it found none of the facilities or significant air pollution sources, or alternatively, if the school district finds that there are such facilities or sources, it must determine either that they pose no significant health risks, or that corrective actions by another governmental entity would be taken so that there would be no actual or potential endangerment to students or school workers.

In addition, if the proposed school site boundary is within 500 feet of the edge of the closest traffic lane of a freeway or traffic corridor that has specified minimum average daily traffic counts, the school district is required to determine through specified risk assessment and air dispersion modeling that neither short-term nor long term exposure poses significant heath risks to pupils.

State law changes effective January 1, 2004 (SB352, Escutia 2003, amending Education Code section 17213 and Public Resources Code section 21151.8) also provides for cases in which the school district cannot make either of those two findings and cannot find a suitable alternative site. When this occurs, the school district must adopt a statement of over-riding considerations, as part of an environmental impact Page E-1
Item: 9
1043

APPENDIX E
report, that the project should be approved based on the ultimate balancing of the merits.

Some school districts use a standardized assessment process to determine the environmental impacts of a proposed school site. In the assessment process, school districts can use maps and other available information to evaluate risk, including a local air district’s database of permitted source emissions. School districts can also perform field surveys and record searches to identify and calculate emissions from nonpermitted sources within one-quarter mile radius of a proposed site. Traffic count data and vehicular emissions data can also be obtained from Caltrans for major roadways and freeways in proximity to the proposed site to model potential emissions impacts to students and school employees. This information is available from the local COG, Caltrans, or local cities and counties for non-state maintained roads.

Page E-2
Item: 9
1044

APPENDIX F

GENERAL PROCESSES USED BY LAND USE AGENCIES

TO ADDRESS AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS
There are several separate but related processes for addressing the air pollution impacts of land use projects. One takes place as part of the planning and zoning function. This consists of preparing and implementing goals and policies contained in county or city General Plans, community or area plans, and specific plans governing land uses such as residential, educational, commercial, industrial, and recreational activities. It also includes recommending locations for thoroughfares, parks and other public improvements.

Land use agencies also have a permitting function that includes performing environmental reviews and mitigation when projects may pose a significant environmental impact. They conduct inspections for zoning permits issued, enforce the zoning regulations and issue violations as necessary, issue zoning certificates of compliance, and check compliance when approving certificates of occupancy.

Planning
„ General Plan1
The General Plan is a local government “blueprint” of existing and future anticipated land uses for long-term future development. It is composed of the goals, policies, and general elements upon which land use decisions are based. Because the General Plan is the foundation for all local planning and development, it is an important tool for implementing policies and programs beneficial to air quality. Local governments may choose to adopt a separate air quality element into their General Plan or to integrate air quality-beneficial objectives, policies, and strategies in other elements of the Plan, such as the land use, circulation, conservation, and community design elements.

More information on General Plan elements is contained in Appendix D. „ Community Plans
Community or area plans are terms for plans that focus on a particular region or community within the overall general plan area. It refines the policies of the general plan as they apply to a smaller geographic area and is implemented by ordinances and other discretionary actions, such as zoning.

1 In October 2003, OPR revised its General Plan Guidelines. An entire chapter is now devoted to a discussion of how sustainable development and environmental justice goals can be incorporated into the land use planning process. For further information, the reader is encouraged to obtain a copy of OPR’s General Plan Guidelines, or refer to their website at:
http://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/PDFs/General_Plan_Guidelines_2003.pdf Page F-1
Item: 9
1045

APPENDIX F
„ Specific Plan
A specific plan is a hybrid that can combine policies with development regulations or zoning requirements. It is often used to address the development requirements for a single project such as urban infill or a planned community. As a result, its emphasis is on concrete standards and development criteria.

„ Zoning
Zoning is the public regulation of the use of land. It involves the adoption of ordinances that divide a community into various districts or zones. For instance, zoning ordinances designate what projects and activities can be sited in particular locations. Each zone designates allowable uses of land within that zone, such as residential, commercial, or industrial. Zoning ordinances can address building development standards, e.g., minimum lot size, maximum building height, minimum building setback, parking, signage, density, and other allowable uses.

Land Use Permitting
In addition to the planning and zoning function, land use agencies issue building and business permits, and evaluate the potential environmental impacts of projects. To be approved, projects must be located in a designated zone and comply with applicable ordinances and zoning requirements.

Even if a project is sited properly in a designated zone, a land use agency may require a new source to mitigate potential localized environmental impacts to the surrounding community below what would be required by the local air district. In this case, the land use agency could condition the permit by limiting or prescribing allowable uses including operating hour restrictions, building standards and codes, property setbacks between the business property and the street or other structures, vehicle idling restrictions, or traffic diversion.

Land use agencies also evaluate the environmental impacts of proposed land use projects or activities. If a project or activity falls under CEQA, the land use agency requires an environmental review before issuing a permit to determine if there is the potential for a significant impact, and if so, to mitigate the impact or possibly deny the project.
„ Land Use Permitting Process
In California, the authority to regulate land use is delegated to city and county governments. The local land use planning agency is the local government administrative body that typically provides information and coordinates the review of development project applications. Conditional Use Permits (CUP) typically fall within a land use agency’s discretionary authority and therefore are subject to CEQA. CUPs are Page F-2
Item: 9
1046

APPENDIX F
What is a “Lead Agency”?
A lead agency is the public agency that has
the principal responsibility for carrying out or
approving a project that is subject to CEQA.

In general, the land use agency is the
preferred public agency serving as lead
agency because it has jurisdiction over
general land uses. The lead agency is
responsible for determining the appropriate
environmental document, as well as its
preparation.

What is a “Responsible Agency”?
A responsible agency is a public agency with
discretionary approval authority over a
portion of a CEQA project (e.g., projects
requiring a permit). As a responsible agency,
the agency is available to the lead agency
and project proponent for early consultation
on a project to apprise them of applicabl
rules and regulations, potential adverse
impacts, alternatives, and mitigation
measures, and provide guidance as needed
on applicable methodologies or other rela
e
ted
issues.

What is a “Commenting Agency”?
A commenting agency is any public agency
that comments on a CEQA document, bu
neither a lead agency nor a responsible
agency. For example, a local air distr
the agency with the responsibility for
comprehensive air pollution control, co
review and comment on an air quality
analysis in a CEQA document for a propose
distribution center, even though the project
was not subject to a pe
t is
ict, as
uld
d
rmit or other pollution
control requirements.
intended to provide an opportunity to review the location, design, and manner of development of land uses prior to project approval. A traditional purpose of the CUP is to enable a municipality to control certain uses that could have detrimental environmental effects on the
community.

The process for permitting new
discretionary projects is quite
elaborate, but can be broken down
into five fundamental components:
„ Project application
„ Environmental assessment
„ Consultation
„ Public comment
„ Public hearing and decision
Project Application
The permit process begins when the
land use agency receives a project
application, with a detailed project
description, and support
documentation. During this phase,
the agency reviews the submitted
application for completeness. When
the agency deems the application to
be complete, the permit process
moves into the environmental review
phase.

Environmental Assessment
If the project is discretionary and the
application is accepted as complete,
the project proposal or activity must
undergo an environmental clearance
process under CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines adopted by the California
Resources Agency.2 The purpose of the CEQA process is to inform decision-makers and the public of the potential significant environmental impacts of a project or activity, to identify measures to minimize or eliminate those impacts to the point they are no longer significant, and to discuss alternatives that will accomplish the project goals and objectives in a less environmentally harmful manner.

2 Projects and activities that may have a significant adverse impact on the environment are evaluated under CEQA Guidelines set forth in title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, sections 15000 et seq.

Page F-3
Item: 9
1047

APPENDIX F
To assist the lead agency in determining whether the project or activity may have a significant effect that would require the preparation of an EIR, the land use agency may consider criteria, or thresholds of significance, to assess the potential impacts of the project, including its air quality impacts. The land use agency must consider any credible evidence in addition to the thresholds, however, in determining whether the project or activity may have a significant effect that would trigger the preparation of an EIR.

The screening criteria to determine significance is based on a variety of factors, including local, state, and federal regulations, administrative practices of other public agencies, and commonly accepted professional standards. However, the final determination of significance for individual projects is the responsibility of the lead agency. In the case of land use projects, the lead agency would be the City Council or County Board of Supervisors.

A new land use plan or project can also trigger an environmental assessment under CEQA if, among other things, it will expose sensitive sites such as schools, day care centers, hospitals, retirement homes, convalescence facilities, and residences to substantial pollutant concentrations.3

CEQA only applies to “discretionary projects.” Discretionary means the public agency must exercise judgment and deliberation when deciding to approve or disapprove a particular project or activity, and may append specific conditions to its approval.

Examples of discretionary projects include the issuance of a CUP, re-zoning a property, or widening of a public road. Projects that are not subject to the exercise of agency discretion, and can therefore be approved administratively through the application of set standards are referred to as ministerial projects. CEQA does not apply to ministerial projects.4
Examples of typical ministerial projects include the issuance of most building permits or a business license.

Once a potential environmental impact associated with a project is identified through an environmental assessment, mitigation must be considered. A land use agency should incorporate mitigation measures that are suggested by the local air district as part of the project review process.

Consultation
Application materials are provided to various departments and agencies that may have an interest in the project (e.g., air pollution, building, police, fire, water agency, Fish and Game, etc.) for consultation and input.

3 Readers interested in learning more about CEQA should contact OPR or visit their website at http://www.opr.ca.gov/. 4
See California Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(1).

Page F-4
Item: 9
1048

APPENDIX F
Public Comment
Following the environmental review process, the Planning Commission reviews application along with the staff’s report on the project assessment and a public comment period is set and input is solicited.

Public Hearing and Decision
Permit rules vary depending on the particular permit authority in question, but the process generally involves comparing the proposed project with the land use agency standards or policies. The procedure usually leads to a public hearing, which is followed by a written decision by the agency or its designated officer. Typically, a project is approved, denied, or approved subject to specified conditions.

Page F-5
Item: 9
1049

APPENDIX F
USE PERMIT (DISCRETIONARY ACTION) REVIEW PROCESS*
n
y
Consult with local air district on potential for air pollution impacts, and if project will require, or has obtained, an air permit.

Notification to local air district
Obtain local air district comments on potential air pollution impacts The example given of air district participation in the land use decision-making process is for illustrative purposes only. In reality, the land use siting process involves the ongoing participation of multiple affected agencies and stakeholders throughout the process.

Public Participation
Air District
Notification to the affected public
Notify affected community of proposed project, the process for public review, andstaff determinatioof CEQA eligibilit Commission decision appealed
Project denied
ND or EIR
process
Negative declaration or EIR required
Additional
information required
Application
incomplete
Project approval recommendation forwarded to Council or Board of Supervisors
Staff finds project is exempt from CEQA
Final decision with findings adopted
Council or Board of Supervisors Public Hearing
Planning Commission’s public hearing
Project review by staff
Application
complete
Preliminary review by city or county staff
Project applicationsubmitted
Public outreach to affected community (i.e., workshops, evening meetings, fliers, etc.) Page F-6
1050

APPENDIX G

GLOSSARY OF KEY AIR POLLUTION TERMS
Air Pollution Control Board or Air Quality Management Board: Serves as the governing board for local air districts. It consists of appointed or elected members from the public or private sector. It conducts public hearings to adopt local air pollution regulations.

Air Pollution Control Districts or Air Quality Management Districts (local air district): A county or regional agency with authority to regulate stationary and area sources of air pollution within a given county or region. Governed by a district air pollution control board.

Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO): Head of a local air pollution control or air quality management district.

Air Toxic Control Measures (ATCM): A control measure adopted by the ARB (Health and Safety Code section 39666 et seq.), which reduces emissions of toxic air contaminants.

Ambient Air Quality Standards: An air quality standard defines the maximum amount of a pollutant that can be present in the outdoor air during a specific time period without harming the public’s health. Only U.S. EPA and the ARB may establish air quality standards. No other state has this authority. Air quality standards are a measure of clean air. More specifically, an air quality standard establishes the concentration at which a pollutant is known to cause adverse health effects to sensitive groups within the population, such as children and the elderly. Federal standards are referred to as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); state standards are referred to as California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS).

Area-wide Sources: Sources of air pollution that individually emit small amounts of pollution, but together add up to significant quantities of pollution. Examples include consumer products, fireplaces, road dust, and farming operations.

Attainment vs. Nonattainment Area: An attainment area is a geographic area that meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the criteria pollutants and a nonattainment area is a geographic area that doesn’t meet the NAAQS for criteria pollutants.

Attainment Plan: Attainment plans lay out measures and strategies to attain one or more air quality standards by a specified date.

California Clean Air Act (CCAA): A California law passed in 1988, which provides the basis for air quality planning and regulation independent of federal regulations. A major element of the Act is the requirement that local air districts in violation of the CAAQS Page G-1
Item: 9
1051

APPENDIX G
must prepare attainment plans which identify air quality problems, causes, trends, and actions to be taken to attain and maintain California's air quality standards by the earliest practicable date.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A California law that sets forth a process for public agencies to make informed decisions on discretionary project approvals. The process helps decision-makers determine whether any potential, significant, adverse environmental impacts are associated with a proposed project and to identify alternatives and mitigation measures that will eliminate or reduce such adverse impacts.1
California Health and Safety Code: A compilation of California laws, including state air pollution laws, enacted by the Legislature to protect the health and safety of people in California. Government agencies adopt regulations to implement specific provisions of the California Health and Safety Code.

Clean Air Act (CAA): The federal Clean Air Act was adopted by the United States Congress and sets forth standards, procedures, and requirements to be implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to protect air quality in the United States.

Councils of Government (COGs): There are 25 COGs in California made up of city and county elected officials. COGs are regional agencies concerned primarily with transportation planning and housing; they do not directly regulate land use.

Criteria Air Pollutant: An air pollutant for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which an ambient air quality standard has been set. Examples include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and PM10 and PM2.5.

The term "criteria air pollutants" derives from the requirement that the U.S. EPA and ARB must describe the characteristics and potential health and welfare effects of these pollutants. The U.S. EPA and ARB periodically review new scientific data and may propose revisions to the standards as a result.

District Hearing Board: Hears local air district permit appeals and issues variances and abatement orders. The local air district board appoints the members of the hearing board.

Emission Inventory: An estimate of the amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere from mobile, stationary, area-wide, and natural source categories over a specific period of time such as a day or a year.

Environmental Impact Report (EIR): The public document used by a governmental agency to analyze the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, to identify

1 To track the submittal of CEQA documents to the State Clearinghouse within the Office of Planning and Research, the reader can refer to CEQAnet at http://www.ceqanet.ca.gov.

Page G-2
Item: 9
1052

APPENDIX G
alternatives, and to disclose possible ways to reduce or avoid the possible negative environmental impacts.

Environmental Justice: California law defines environmental justice as the fair treatment of people of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies (California Government Code sec.65040.12(c)).

General Plans: A statement of policies developed by local governments, including text and diagrams setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals for the future physical development of the city or county.

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs): An air pollutant listed under section 112 (b) of the federal Clean Air Act as particularly hazardous to health. U.S. EPA identifies emission sources of hazardous air pollutants, and emission standards are set accordingly. In California, HAPs are referred to as toxic air contaminants.

Land Use Agency: Local government agency that performs functions associated with the review, approval, and enforcement of general plans and plan elements, zoning, and land use permitting. For purposes of this Handbook, a land use agency is typically a local planning department.

Mobile Source: Sources of air pollution such as automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, offroad vehicles, boats, and airplanes.

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS): A limit on the level of an outdoor air pollutant established by the US EPA pursuant to the Clean Air Act. There are two types of NAAQS. Primary standards set limits to protect public health and secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare.

Negative Declaration (ND): When the lead agency (the agency responsible for preparing the EIR or ND) under CEQA, finds that there is no substantial evidence that a project may have a significant environmental effect, the agency will prepare a "negative declaration" instead of an EIR.

New Source Review (NSR): A federal Clean Air Act requirement that state implementation plans must include a permit review process, which applies to the construction and operation of new or modified stationary sources in nonattainment areas. Two major elements of NSR to reduce emissions are best available control technology requirements and emission offsets.

Office of Planning and Research (OPR): OPR is part of the Governor's office. OPR has a variety of functions related to local land-use planning and environmental programs. It provides General Plan Guidelines for city and county planners, and coordinates the state clearinghouse for Environmental Impact Reports.

Page G-3
Item: 9
1053

APPENDIX G
Ordinance: A law adopted by a City Council or County Board of Supervisors.

Ordinances usually amend, repeal or supplement the municipal code; provide zoning specifications; or appropriate money for specific purposes.

Overriding Considerations: A ruling made by the lead agency in the CEQA process when the lead agency finds the importance of the project to the community outweighs potential adverse environmental impacts.

Public Comment: An opportunity for the general public to comment on regulations and other proposals made by government agencies. You can submit written or oral comments at the public meeting or send your written comments to the agency.

Public Hearing: A public hearing is an opportunity to testify on a proposed action by a governing board at a public meeting. The public and the media are welcome to attend the hearing and listen to, or participate in, the proceedings.

Public Notice: A public notice identifies the person, business, or local government seeking approval of a specific course of action (such as a regulation). It describes the activity for which approval is being sought, and describes the location where the proposed activity or public meeting will take place.

Public Nuisance: A public nuisance, for the purposes of air pollution regulations, is defined as a discharge from any source whatsoever of such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. (Health and Safety Code section 41700).

Property Setback: In zoning parlance, a setback is the minimum amount of space required between a lot line and a building line.

Risk: 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).

Sensitive Individuals: Refers 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).

Sensitive Sites or Sensitive Land Uses: Land uses where sensitive individuals are most likely to spend time, including schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities.

Setback: An area of land separating one parcel of land from another that acts to soften or mitigate the effects of one land use on the other.

Page G-4
Item: 9
1054

APPENDIX G
State Implementation Plan (SIP): A plan prepared by state and local agencies and submitted to U.S. EPA describing how each area will attain and maintain national ambient air quality standards. SIPs include the technical information about emission inventories, air quality monitoring, control measures and strategies, and enforcement mechanisms. A SIP is composed of local air quality management plans and state air quality regulations.

Stationary Sources: Non-mobile sources such as power plants, refineries, and manufacturing facilities.

Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC): An air pollutant, identified in regulation by the ARB, which may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs are considered under a different regulatory process (California Health and Safety Code section 39650 et seq.) than pollutants subject to State Ambient Air Quality Standards. Health effects associated with TACs may occur at extremely low levels. It is often difficult to identify safe levels of exposure, which produce no adverse health effects.

Urban Background: The term is used in this Handbook to represent the ubiquitous, elevated, regional air pollution levels observed in large urban areas in California.

Zoning ordinances: City councils and county boards of supervisors adopts zoning ordinances that set forth land use classifications, divides the county or city into land use zones as delineated on the official zoning, maps, and set enforceable standards for future develop
Page G-5
Item: 9
1055

Item: 9
1056
Concept Paper for the
Freight Handbook
Release date: December 12, 2019
Comments due: February 28, 2020
Disclaimer
This Concept Paper has been prepared by the staff of the California Air Resources Board. Publication does not signify that the contents reflect the views and policies of the California Air Resources Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Item: 9
1057
This page deliberately left blank.

Item: 9
1058
Concept Paper for the
Freight Handbook
Document Availability
Electronic copies of this document and related materials can be found at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainable-freight-transport.

Alternatively, paper copies may be obtained from our Public Information Office, 1001 I Street, 1st Floor, Visitors and Environmental Services Center, Sacramento, California, 95814, (916) 322-2990.

Versiones en Español de este documento y materiales relacionados estarán disponibles en: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainable-freighttransport Special Accommodation Request
If you need this document in an alternative format (i.e. Braille, large print) or another language, please contact Christopher Garcia at (916) 322-8382, or [email protected] Para solicitar estas comodidades especiales o necesidades de otro idioma, favor de contactar a Stephen Cutts al (916) 323-1603 o [email protected].

Contacts
To receive electronic notices of meetings and available materials, please sign up for the Sustainable Freight Transport Initiative list serve at: Sustainable Freight Transport Initiative List Serve
For questions, please contact: Mr. Andre Freeman, Manager Freight Policy Section
Freight Transportation Branch
Transportation and Toxics Division
(916) 322-8382
Comments
We welcome written comments sent to: [email protected]. Please provide any written comments on this Concept Paper by February 28, 2020.

Item: 9
1059
This page deliberately left blank
Item: 9
1060

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. I CONCEPTS FOR THE FREIGHT HANDBOOK................................................................ 1 I. CONTEXT FOR ACTION ............................................................................................. 1 A. Roles and Responsibilities............................................................................... 2 B. Need to Accelerate Air Quality Progress........................................................ 3

1. Near-Source Health Risks .............................................................................. 5

2. More Protective Air Quality Standards.......................................................... 5

3. Ambitious Climate Change Targets .............................................................. 6 C. State Vision for Sustainable Freight................................................................ 6 II. HOW THE FREIGHT HANDBOOK CAN INFORM LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS.............................................................................................................. 7 III. ADDRESSING THREE LAND USE SCENARIOS FOR FREIGHT FACILITIES .............................. 7 A. New and Expanding Freight Facilities near Existing Residences, Schools, Health Care Facilities, and Other Sensitive Receptors......................................... 7

1. Preliminary Distances for Establishing Transition Zones ............................... 9

2. Proposed Approach for Determining Transition Zone Distances................ 10 B. Existing Freight Facilities near Existing Residences, Schools, Health Care Facilities, and Other Sensitive Receptors........................................................... 14 C. New Residences, Schools, Health Care Facilities, and Other Sensitive Receptors near Existing Freight Facilities .......................................................... 15 IV. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL PRACTICES ....................................................................... 15 A. Broad-Based Practices .................................................................................. 16 B. Priority Project-Specific Practices ................................................................. 16 C. Additional Practices and Mitigation.............................................................. 16 D. Resources for Development of Potential Practices....................................... 16 CONCEPTS FOR WAREHOUSE FACILITIES................................................................. 31 LIST OF RESOURCE DOCUMENTS .............................................................................. 48 Item: 9
1061

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Potential Practices for Siting New or Expanded Freight Facilities near Existing Residences, Schools, Health Care Facilities, and Other Sensitive Receptors ... 8 Table 2. Illustration of Transition Zone Distances Around New or Expanded Freight Facilities .......................................................................................................... 11 Table 3. CARB Activities Supporting California’s Efforts to Reduce Impacts from Existing Freight Facilities Near Existing Residences, Schools, Health Care Facilities, and Other Sensitive Receptors........................................................ 14 Table 4. Potential Practices for New Residences, Schools, Health Care Facilities, and Other Sensitive Receptors Near Existing Freight Facilities............................. 15 Table 5. Summary of Potential Practices to Minimize Community Health Impacts from Freight Facilities.............................................................................................. 19 Table 6. Summary of Potential Practices at Warehouses and Distribution Centers ..... 33

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Freight Emission Inventory Statewide for 2000 and 2035.............................. 4 Figure 2. Normalized Downwind Diesel PM Concentration and Associated 30-Year Cancer Risk by Distance................................................................................ 13 Item: 9
1062
i

INTRODUCTION
To support public review, discussion, and feedback, this Concept Paper shares the California Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) staff’s preliminary thoughts for the Freight Handbook. CARB is developing a Freight Handbook as an informational resource for community advocates, local decision makers, and freight facility developers, owners, and operators. The document will frame efforts to address air pollution impacts as “practices” which may apply to the siting, design, construction, and operation of freight facilities to minimize health impacts on nearby communities.

In recognition that specific communities in California are heavily impacted by air pollution, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 617 (AB 617) to reduce emissions directly from sources contributing to cumulative exposure burdens within and directly surrounding such communities. To implement AB 617, CARB established the Community Air Protection Program. In September 2018, the Board selected a set of initial communities to create Community Emissions Reduction Plans (CERPs), and will annually consider the selection of additional impacted communities. Freight facilities are one of the primary areas of concern in a number of communities currently developing CERPs. New actions proposed by these communities include increased engagement with local land use and transportation agencies to help minimize impacts from freight activities. Many of the actions and ideas summarized in this Concept Paper build off and support these AB 617 activities.

Prior to engaging in the AB 617 process, CARB initiated additional work on freight activities, through increased reviews of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents for proposed facilities, creation of the Sustainable Freight: Pathways to Zero and Near-Zero Emissions (April 2015) document, and development of the multiagency California Sustainable Freight Action Plan (July 2016). Also, CARB staff have met frequently with residents and advocates for communities impacted by air pollution from freight operations and heard a consistent request for guidance that identifies possible local actions that could minimize freight facility emissions and related community exposure to air pollution.

The Governor’s 2019 Executive Order N-19-19 furthered the State’s commitment to transition towards a healthier, sustainable, and more inclusive economy. This includes addressing direct tailpipe emissions from diesel equipment and vehicles through strong public investments. California has prioritized billions of dollars in annual transportation spending for the construction, operation, and maintenance of infrastructure to help reverse the trend of increased fuel consumption and decrease vehicle miles traveled. The State also continues its effort to accelerate zero-emission vehicle sales through incentive programs, grants, and regulatory actions.

This Concept Paper supports the relevant freight-related actions proposed by communities developing CERPs through the Community Air Protection Program, ideas we’ve heard from communities, the recommendations we’ve included in our CEQA comment letters on proposed freight facilities, and other existing resources. This Concept Paper is intended to aid and encourage public participation to help shape the Freight Handbook. CARB staff will continue to collaborate with communities, Item: 9
1063
ii
agencies, industry and other stakeholders through a public process, and will integrate public feedback into the creation a Freight Handbook that will provide a detailed discussion of the concepts introduced in this Concept Paper. This will include framing how practices may apply in a given scenario and the roles that local government, freight facility developers, owners, and operators, and the public have in land use planning and development review processes.

CARB is seeking robust engagement from community, public, and private industry participants. We encourage you to share your thoughts and expertise in this effort. In addition to any comments you would like to provide, CARB staff can greatly benefit from focused comments that:
• Suggest other land use scenarios that should be highlighted; • Identify implementation challenges for practices listed in Tables 5 and 6; • Propose other practices that can be undertaken to support the goals of the Freight Handbook;
• Clearly identify the specific issues on which you are commenting and provide a citation;
• Explain why you agree or disagree with a proposed practice. Where you disagree, please suggest an alternative and consider potential trade-offs as well as opposing views;
• Describe your assumptions and support assertions with factual information by providing technical data, or specific examples, where possible.

Item: 9
1064
1 CONCEPTS FOR THE FREIGHT HANDBOOK
I. Context for Action
This Concept Paper introduces preliminary thoughts for a Freight Handbook. This Concept Paper serves as a starting point for local, regional, and State discussions about freight facility siting, design, construction, and operational decisions that can minimize near-source exposure to air pollution from new, existing, and expanding freight facilities, and promote clean, healthy air for existing and future Californians and its millions of annual visitors. CARB’s intent is to encourage land use planners and local officials, community advocates, and freight facility developers, owners, and operators to integrate emission reduction practices and information about freight facilities into local plans and ordinances, facility-based decisions, and community advocacy.

California’s freight transport system is vital to our State economy. California is the nation’s largest gateway for international trade and domestic commerce, with an interconnected system of ports, railroads, highways, and roads that allow freight from around the world to move throughout the State and nation. This system is responsible for approximately one-third of the State's economic production, with jobs from freight-dependent industries accounting for over $700 billion in revenue and over 5 million jobs. California’s vast transportation system connects the estimated nearly 40 million residents and supports a vibrant economy with nearly $3 trillion in annual gross domestic product. The trucks and equipment that congregate at freight facilities are essential components of the statewide freight system which transports and delivers food, household products, electronics, vehicles, toys, and medicines to the consumer market, both in California and the country. Traditional routes of moving freight face increasing competition from across the globe, and California’s system must anticipate and stay ahead of these changes. As California’s freight transport system continues to grow under pressure to serve our growing population and satisfy dynamic market demands, other locations in the United States and across the world are competing for this economic activity.

Although the freight system plays an important role in everyday life, communities near freight facilities are burdened by air pollution––specifically toxic air contaminants like diesel particulate matter in the form of exhaust––from the construction and operational activities at freight facilities. Where freight movement increases from new and existing facilities over time, communities may experience increased exposure to higher emissions of toxic and criteria air pollutants. Increased exposure to these emissions have public health implications such as increased risk of premature death, lung cancer, heart and lung diseases, and asthma.

To achieve its air quality, climate, efficiency and economic competitiveness goals, California must transition to a more efficient, zero-emission transportation system for both passenger and freight movement. This is a complex and challenging undertaking. Meeting the State’s goals will require the combined efforts of public and Item: 9
1065
2 private stakeholders taking action and investing resources across a wide range of sectors that include: energy and fuels, advanced technology, housing and land use, infrastructure, health, the environment, and the economy. Industries operating in California have already made substantial investments in cleaner diesel fuels, vehicles and equipment, reducing diesel particulate matter and other pollutants. Progress is being made in many of these sectors in the form of State regulation, policy and funding, local actions, private innovation, investments supporting communities and exploring new technologies, and more.

The Concept Paper for the Freight Handbook will initiate a new dialogue to identify a set of practices that can be implemented to support flexibility, efficiency, and business practices through policies and programs that support the economy, while working with industry to mitigate the environmental and health inequities certain communities experience due to emissions from freight activities.

A. Roles and Responsibilities
A more efficient, zero and near-zero emission modern freight system will demand not only new vehicles, equipment, and fuels, but also new transportation infrastructure, communications, and industry operating practices. California will need workers trained to build, maintain, and operate this advanced equipment and communications systems. To help fund these efforts, California’s logistics industry must remain profitable in the face of increasing competition from other North American seaports and supply chains. The ability to readily adapt to changing trends and expand operations is key to improving the competitiveness of the system. Community acceptance of industry expansion often depends on the prospects for new local jobs, clean air, and safe operations.

The transition to this modern freight system relies on public and private funds invested in infrastructure projects, vehicle and equipment purchases, technological applications, and system management approaches. It also requires the new regulatory and incentive programs underway to spur zero-emission and other clean technology development and deployment. To ensure effective implementation of these actions, many groups must come together to successfully achieve the needs of California’s communities from public health, economic, and environmental standpoints.

Local governments that make land use decisions related to freight facilities are on the forefront of the transition to zero-emission operations. They must carefully consider a range of sometimes competing priorities for economic development and jobs, the critical need for affordable housing and infill development, public health, and quality of life for community residents. The owners and operators of new or expanded freight facilities play key roles in leading this transition and are positioned to make costeffective investments in infrastructure while designing and building projects.

Community residents and their advocates need a greater voice in freight facility siting, design, construction, and operation choices so the end result supports or enhances their environment, safety, and opportunities for employment.

Item: 9
1066
3 B. Need to Accelerate Air Quality Progress
To control and reduce emissions, CARB gathers and analyzes data for updating its mobile source emissions inventories.1
The inventories assess population, activities,
and emissions from mobile sources operating in and around the State. Periodically, these inventories are updated to support the latest air quality plans and regulations.

CARB compiles emissions data for on- and off-road mobile sources including off-shore emissions to prepare a statewide freight inventory.

The emissions from the heavy equipment that transports freight in California contributes to elevated ambient levels of criteria pollutants such as fine particulate matter and ozone, as well as localized health impacts near freight facilities. Freight transport accounts for about half of toxic diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) and emissions of nitrogen oxides that form ozone and fine particulate matter in the atmosphere, and six percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in California. These numbers include emissions from trucks, ships, locomotives, aircraft (cargo portion), harbor craft, and all types of equipment used to move freight across the State.

Figure 1 summarizes freight emissions statewide from CARB 2000 inventories projected to 2035. As illustrated in the graphs, CARB strategies for reducing criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions have been effective. However, the State must continue to implement programs and develop new strategies to achieve its air quality goals.

1 CARB. See, Mobile Source Emissions Inventory.

Item: 9
1067
4 Figure 1. Freight Emission Inventory Statewide for 2000 and 2035 Source: CARB
Together with our local, regional, and state government partners, we have accelerated extensive changes towards cleaner technologies across the State. Truck owners, ocean carriers, terminal operators, and railroads have made substantial investments to transition their diesel freight equipment to cleaner models, while refineries retooled to produce cleaner diesel fuels. We are seeing the real-world benefits of those investments resulting in measurably cleaner air in communities near seaports and rail yards over the last decade. For example, these combined actions have cut toxic diesel PM at the State’s largest seaports by more than 80 percent over the last decade.

However, California must accelerate implementation of air quality programs for the protection of public health. The State must continue to develop policies and make investments in technologies that result in greater emission reductions to achieve its air quality and public health goals. To that end, California is pursuing both incentive and regulatory approaches to reduce the high near-source cancer risk from freight facilities to community members, increase the sustainability of the freight system to meet targets in the State Implementation Plan, and reshape the freight system to achieve our long-term climate goals.

This need is especially acute in specific communities that are exposed to high cumulative levels of air pollution. To reduce this burden, and in response to Assembly Bill 617 (C. Garcia, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017), CARB established the Community Air Protection Program. Through this program, the Board annually considers for selection impacted communities to collaborate with to develop and implement new locally-focused Community Emissions Reduction Plans (CERPs). Freight facilities are Item: 9
1068
5 one of the primary areas of concern in a number of communities currently developing CERPs due to their substantial toxic and criteria air pollution emissions. CARB staff have already begun working closely with local air districts, community groups, community members, environmental organizations, and regulated industries to identify emission reduction practices for freight facilities within the affected communities.

1. Near-Source Health Risks
Despite substantial progress over the last decade, the ongoing use of diesel-fueled trucks and equipment continue to impact communities near major freight facilities.

The diesel-fueled equipment operating in and around freight facilities is the most significant source of diesel PM, a toxic air contaminant that can substantially increase the risk of developing cancer and other health problems such as increased respiratory illnesses, risk of heart disease, and premature death. Exposure to diesel PM is a health hazard to people of all ages, but particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly, who may have other serious health problems. The diesel PM emissions from freight facilities impact communities located adjacent to those operations, as well as people living and working miles away.

In the last decade, advances in science have shown that early-life exposures to air toxics contribute to an increased lifetime risk of developing cancer, or other adverse health effects, compared to exposures that occur in adulthood. This research has shown that children and infants are more sensitive to the harmful effects of exposure to air toxics, like those emitted from freight equipment, than we previously understood.

In March 2015, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment released an update to its recommended methodology for conducting health risk assessments in California. The methodology addresses this greater sensitivity and incorporates the most recent data on childhood and adult exposure to air toxics.

Health risk assessments conducted by or available to CARB staff show the potential for elevated exposures to diesel PM in communities near freight facilities.

2. More Protective Air Quality Standards
Current control programs are reducing emissions, but the State Implementation Plans required by federal law to demonstrate our path to attain ozone and fine particle ambient air quality standards compel significant additional emission reductions in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley. At the same time, these two regions, and the San Francisco Bay Area, are experiencing tremendous growth in warehousing and distribution facilities due to e-commerce. The growth in the development of these facilities may increase air pollution from construction and their day-to-day operational activities.

Item: 9
1069
6 3. Ambitious Climate Change Targets
New efforts in response to climate change are ramping up the pressure for further progress in the 2030 and 2050 timeframes to reduce greenhouse gases and shortlived climate pollutants, like black carbon from diesel-fueled equipment. California has set aggressive targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and then 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. California also committed to achieve zero-carbon electricity by 2045. Without action, greenhouse gases from the freight sector are projected to grow, driven by increases from freight movement. To curb emissions, the freight industry should accelerate efforts to integrate zero-emission, renewable energy technologies into facility operations to cut petroleum use.

C. State Vision for Sustainable Freight
In 2016, six State agencies, departments, and offices developed the California Sustainable Freight Action Plan. The plan identified State policies, programs, and investments to ensure progress toward a sustainable freight system.

Vision for a Sustainable Freight Transport System
Utilize a partnership of federal, State, regional, local, community, and industry stakeholders to move freight
in California on a modern, safe, integrated, and
resilient system that continues to support California’s economy, jobs, and healthy, livable communities.

Transporting freight reliably and efficiently by zeroemission equipment everywhere feasible, and nearzero emission equipment powered by clean, lowcarbon renewable fuels everywhere else.

As part of that work, the State is dedicating considerable resources to modernize the freight transport system with a priority to integrate zero and near-zero emission technologies. These and other technologies have the potential to greatly reduce impacts from freight activities on nearby communities and regional air quality, as well as climate change. The benefits of reducing diesel PM emissions and near-source exposure, protecting public health, and achieving systematic reductions in climate pollution cannot be overstated.

Item: 9
1070
7 II. How the Freight Handbook Can Inform Land Use Planning and Development Decisions
The Freight Handbook will describe practices that reduce diesel PM emissions and near-source exposure, nitrogen oxides, greenhouses gases, and black carbon. We identified potential practices for inclusion in this Concept Paper because they have the potential to increase community participation and minimize community air pollution impacts from freight facilities.

III. Addressing Three Land Use Scenarios for Freight Facilities This section provides an overview of staff’s approach to frame the Freight Handbook.

For each of the three land use scenarios, we identify potential practices that local government, freight facility developers, owners, and operators could implement with greater community involvement.

The scenarios are:

A. New and expanding freight facilities near existing residences, schools, health care facilities, and other sensitive receptors
B. Existing freight facilities near existing residences, schools, health care facilities, and other sensitive receptors
C. New residences, schools, health care facilities, and other sensitive receptors near existing freight facilities
A. New and Expanding Freight Facilities near Existing Residences, Schools, Health Care Facilities, and Other Sensitive Receptors In response to changing market demands, new freight facilities are being built and many existing freight facilities are expanding physical footprints or increasing operational activities, particularly in the warehousing and distribution center sector.

As more freight facilities are built, air pollutant emissions may increase from construction and operational activities over the baseline conditions on a development site. The Freight Handbook will describe practices that can minimize air pollutant emissions and community exposure. Table 1 summarizes some key potential practices for siting new or expanded freight facilities near existing residences, schools, health care facilities, and other sensitive receptors.

Item: 9
1071
8 Table 1. Potential Practices for Siting New or Expanded Freight Facilities near Existing Residences, Schools, Health Care Facilities, and Other Sensitive Receptors

1. Maximize operation of zero-emission trucks and equipment

2. Provide a “transition zone” between new or expanded freight facility and existing residences, schools, health care facilities, and other sensitive receptors

3. Identify and implement exposure reduction approaches (air filters, trees, and walls)

4. Develop and implement truck routes and safety programs Staff is also identifying potential practices for local governments to consider when preparing or updating land use documents and zoning codes. These include planning documents that identify impacted areas and zoning that supports practices that new and expanding freight facility projects can implement.

Practices for freight facility developers could include use of the lowest emitting construction equipment, routing truck hauling and delivery activities away from neighbors, and locating on-site operations to minimize the air pollution, safety, and nuisance impacts on neighbors. Once built, freight facility owners and operators can utilize zero-emission trucks and equipment on-site. Where zero-emission operations are not yet feasible, owners and operators can use and allow on site near-zero emission technologies utilizing renewable energy, with a plan for transitioning to zero in the future. Owners and operators can also install vegetated barriers, contribute to funding programs for installing and maintaining adequate air filtration on buildings that house sensitive receptors, designate truck delivery routes, and appropriately locate truck access points and loading areas.

Potential community advocacy practices include engagement in land use planning and development review processes, monitoring facility activities, and reporting any concerns. This may include attending community workshops, public events and hearings, and monitoring implementation efforts.

Item: 9
1072
9 1. Preliminary Distances for Establishing Transition Zones As described in prior CARB documents,
studies show that public exposure to air
pollution can be substantially elevated near
freight facilities with diesel-fueled vehicles
and equipment. And that same pollution
decreases sharply with distance from the
source because of how particles move and
deposit on surfaces. For that reason, CARB
will continue to encourage space that
separates new or expanded freight facilities
served by diesel and other combustion
vehicles and equipment from sensitive
receptors.

CARB’s 2005 Air Quality and Land Use
Handbook discussed siting new sensitive
receptors a minimum distance away from
existing air pollution sources of all types. This
Concept Paper discusses siting new or
expanded freight facilities away from existing
residences, schools, health care facilities, and
other sensitive receptors.

In this Concept Paper, we refer to this space as a “transition zone” to separate land use zones for new or expanded freight facilities away from sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, health care facilities, and other sensitive receptors. Transition zones are important because increasing the distance between an emission source and sensitive receptor is a particularly effective means of protecting vulnerable people (children, the elderly, and medically compromised individuals) from exposure to air pollution from freight facilities. Transition zones might contain green space, or revenue-producing uses like commercial office buildings or retail. The key is to find uses that would naturally limit the duration of time that people are exposed to air pollution from the nearby freight facility.

We plan to identify minimum transition zone distances for new and expanded freight facilities to protect the health of communities near these facilities. Through a collaborative public process, CARB will work with community advocates, local decision makers, and freight facility owners, operators, and developers to design and evaluate the technical analysis needed to determine appropriate distances. We encourage you to share your thoughts and expertise in this effort.

Transition zone recommendations in the Freight Handbook will be intended to provide non-binding guidance to local land use decision makers regarding zoning, permitting, Item: 9
1073
10 and project approval actions for new or expanded freight facilities. They should not be used as a substitute for site-specific assessments of emissions and health impacts for proposed freight facilities, including those analyses required or recommended as part of federal or State environmental review processes. Additionally, they should not be used as an indicator of a safe level of exposure to emissions from freight facilities, as health risks may exist beyond distances identified.

Freight facilities are often strategically placed in response to the logistic chain or purpose they serve; therefore, each freight facility often has its own activity profile and configuration. Community exposure to diesel PM can vary depending on the proximity to, and the geographic location of, a freight facility.

Regardless of the size of a new freight facility or its operational characteristics, we strongly recommend that new freight facilities be designed and built for eventual full zero-emission operation. Multiple types and models of zero-emission or near zero-emission operation freight vehicles and equipment are available today. Many others are in development or demonstration phases. To support the goal of a zeroemission freight system, CARB is pursuing an ambitious agenda to require vehicles, equipment, and facilities to make the transition to zero-emission options. Building a new freight facility with the infrastructure to power this equipment is more cost effective and less disruptive to operations than retrofitting a facility later.

Even if a new or expanded freight facility is sited consistent with an identified transition zone, the facility should still reduce its air pollutant emissions and mitigate impacts to the maximum extent possible. This is critical to continue California’s progress to reduce local air toxics emissions and near-source exposure, achieving and maintaining regional air quality goals, and combatting climate change.

Lastly, a facility would be subject to local ordinances that address other potential impacts such as noise, vibration, light pollution, and water pollution. The local agency would review a proposed freight facility to ensure compliance with applicable standards, rules, and regulations including adequate distances to avoid or reduce an impact.

2. Proposed Approach for Determining Transition Zone Distances The practices to be provided in the Freight Handbook are intended to reduce air pollution at freight facilities. But the transition zone concept specifically focuses on the proximity of new diesel vehicles and equipment to people, and the associated near-source cancer risks to community members. This section discusses the data and an approach that could be used to develop the distances for the transition zones.

The transition zone distances for new or expanded freight facilities with diesel vehicles or equipment would be based on both technical analysis and discussions within a collaborative public process. The intent of the analysis would be to evaluate the Item: 9
1074
11 general diesel PM-related exposure trends for freight facilities based on current practices and pollution control technology. The public discussions would help inform the selection of distances, based on a review of the technical analysis. The technical analysis and discussion would not be intended to identify a distance that should be interpreted to correspond to a safe level of exposure to diesel PM. For all facility types using diesel equipment that we have previously evaluated, the analysis shows that excess cancer risk remains unless zero-emission technology is used. This is important because there is currently no safe level identified for exposure to diesel exhaust.

A freight facility with zero on-site emissions does not present the same issues with near-source cancer risk or other localized health impacts to sensitive receptors as a facility with combustion-related air pollution. However, we are aware that there may be concerns from residents about other factors (e.g. noise, vibration, odor, glare, etc.) associated with freight operations that support a transition zone even around a zero-emission facility. Here, we suggest 500 feet from existing residences, schools, health care facilities, or other sensitive receptors as a potential distance.

We do not propose 500 feet is appropriate distance for a zero-emission freight facility in every instance. Rather, we suggest 500 feet in order to avoid implying zero-emission facilities would not result in any potential impact. We are seeking input to determine an appropriate transition zone for freight facilities with zero on-site emissions.

Table 2 serves to illustrate how CARB staff proposes to display minimum transition zone distances for new and expanded freight facilities. The top value of each range (X and Y) will be the minimum transition zone distance for freight facilities with diesel vehicles and equipment on site, while the 500 foot transition zone assumes zero onsite emissions.

Table 2. Illustration of Transition Zone Distances Around New or Expanded Freight Facilities
Facility Type Preliminary Distance from Facility
Warehouse/
Distribution Centers
> [TBD] square feet
500 feet to X
Cold Storage Warehouses 500 feet to Y
Source: CARB
Item: 9
1075
12 a. Analytical Approach
An analytical approach could focus on evaluating dispersion modeling results from published Health Risk Assessment (HRA) studies or modeling of a representative facility and the associated cancer risk estimates2
. Through a collaborative public
process, we could identify representative facility characteristics or a representative study for a high-activity freight facility that includes all diesel vehicles and equipment typically operating at that freight facility. This approach would provide the most appropriate and health-protective analysis for this purpose.

The projected ground-level concentrations of diesel PM in the downwind direction for each selected freight facility study could be extracted, with adjustments if needed based on emission changes, and updated estimates of the associated potential excess cancer risks would be generated.
b. Emissions, Exposure, and Cancer Risk
Generally, emissions from a facility depend on the emission level of the equipment, and the number and activity level of the equipment. Since existing studies focus on facility operations and emissions from different years, the facility emissions from different HRAs could be updated to the same reference year, without changing the original activity levels to develop a consistent baseline for a transition zone. We could also assume that the physical location of emission sources would not change from the original analyses. The intent of such an analysis would be to provide a series of reference points that illustrate the relationship between cancer risks, air pollutant concentrations, and distance.

The result of such an analysis would be a series of graphs that would include reference points where the diesel PM concentration and cancer risk decrease, compared to the highest near-source risk level to community members (i.e. the “maximum exposed individual”).

For example, Figure 2 illustrates a preliminary analysis of normalized diesel PM concentrations for a high-activity cold-storage warehouse. The red lines in the graph represent the distances downwind from the highest off-site risk value where the diesel PM concentration (left axis) and the associated cancer risks (right axis) are reduced by 80, 85, 90, and 95 percent.

2 Using the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hotspots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA Guidance) Item: 9
1076
13 Figure 2. Normalized Downwind Diesel PM Concentration and Associated 30- Year Cancer Risk by Distance
c. Factors in Identifying Distances
To identify a health-protective distance for the transition zones, CARB staff could provide modeling expertise and scientific judgement, and would work with stakeholders to consider the most relevant factors. Since CARB’s 2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook recommended distances based on reducing exposure and cancer risk by 80 percent, we could start with that approach. However, in most cases an 80 percent reduction in cancer risk would still result in high residual cancer risks for most facility types, based on the latest health science and health risk assessments in development applications CARB has reviewed. Staff therefore suggests examining, at minimum, the distances needed to achieve an 85, 90, and 95 percent reduction in concentration and cancer risk.

In discussions and further analysis, CARB proposes that all of these factors should be considered to develop reasonable transition zone distances for local land use planners to consider when making zoning and project approval decisions for new and expanded freight facilities. We expect and welcome public feedback on these concepts.

Item: 9
1077
14 B. Existing Freight Facilities near Existing Residences, Schools, Health Care Facilities, and Other Sensitive Receptors
In many communities, existing freight facilities are located in proximity to existing residencies, schools, health care facilities, and other sensitive receptors. To address health impacts related to emissions from freight facilities, a collective effort among State, regional, and local officials is needed. Table 3 summarizes some of CARB’s activities to support efforts that reduce air quality impacts from freight facilities. CARB and air districts continue working to reduce air pollution through regulations and permitting while local agencies primarily address truck routing and parking issues.

Together, the combination of actions can minimize air pollution and reduce negative health impacts from existing freight facilities.

Table 3. CARB Activities Supporting California’s Efforts to Reduce Impacts from Existing Freight Facilities Near Existing Residences, Schools, Health Care Facilities, and Other Sensitive Receptors

1. Strengthen CARB statewide regulations for new and in-use diesel-fueled equipment, plus charging/fueling infrastructure at freight facilities

2. Petition the federal government for stricter emission standards

3. Use incentives to demonstrate and deploy zero-emission technology and install freight infrastructure, with a focus on communities near freight facilities

4. Support air district Indirect Source Review rules at freight facilities

5. Encourage cities to develop/enforce local truck routing, idling limits, and parking requirements

6. Encourage Caltrans, other government agencies, and industry stakeholders to expand safe and clean truck parking, and reduce truck idling.

Existing and new CARB regulations in development will further reduce air pollution from trucks and equipment. CARB staff plans to propose regulations that strengthen regulations for new and in-use diesel equipment, zero and near-zero emission equipment and charging/fueling infrastructure at freight facilities. CARB currently provides incentives to support demonstration projects that deploy zero-emission technologies, with a focus on communities near freight facilities.

We also advocate with other agencies at all levels for stricter national and international emission standards, zero-emission requirements, new air district rules for freight facilities, and methods to reduce truck impacts. Local governments can designate truck routes and restrict parking near sensitive land uses. Local air districts continue to develop methods for quantifying emissions, new rules to control emissions, and offer an array of financial incentives. State agencies continue to implement and update the California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, with commitments from Caltrans, the Energy Commission, CARB, and others to develop regulations, funding opportunities, and demonstration projects targeted at improving the statewide freight system.

Item: 9
1078
15 C. New Residences, Schools, Health Care Facilities, and Other Sensitive Receptors near Existing Freight Facilities
The State recognizes the critical need for affordable housing, infill development, and greenhouse gas reductions. The Freight Handbook will describe practices that could be implemented through land use policies and permitting to support development while minimizing pollution. Table 4 lists some examples of positive steps that development projects placing sensitive receptors near existing freight facilities can take.

Table 4. Potential Practices for New Residences, Schools, Health Care Facilities, and Other Sensitive Receptors Near Existing Freight Facilities

1. Health impact disclosures to prospective occupants within transition zone

2. Exposure reduction strategies (air filters, trees, and walls)

3. Developer installation and replacement of air filtration devices through covenants, conditions, and restrictions recorded against the developed property to ensure existing and future owners comply with air filtration requirements throughout the life of the structure

4. Initiate a public process to address and implement truck routing, idling, parking and safety programs
Development proposals can incorporate strategies to reduce exposure like maintaining vegetated walls and barriers between the project site and freight facilities.

New freight projects can be designed to minimize community exposure to diesel exhaust along truck routes. Developers can disclose the potential health impacts to prospective occupants within transition zones, install and maintain air filters, and contribute to local investments that reduce emissions from nearby freight facilities.

Freight facility owners and operators can collaborate with local agencies on ways to minimize air pollution from existing operations. This may include upgrading diesel or other combustion equipment and providing operational data to inform land use decisions. Community residents can participate in land use planning and development review processes. To strengthen that participation, community members may wish to organize and engage local officials through advisory committees on solutions to address neighborhood concerns.

IV. Summary of Potential Practices
In the Freight Handbook, CARB staff will describe practices that may apply to one or more of the three land use scenarios. This Concept Paper introduces our approaches in several categories: broad-based, priority project-specific, and additional practices and mitigation. Tables 5 and 6 summarize the potential practices for implementing Item: 9
1079
16 entities: local government and air districts; freight facility developers, owners, and operators; and the public.

A. Broad-Based Practices
Local governments can address air pollution from freight facilities on a project-byproject basis and through a broader planning approach. The Freight Handbook will discuss broad-based practices that we are developing from a review of land use documents, ordinances, and conditions of approval as well as relevant land use planning policies and local implementation programs. Broad-based practices aim to help local governments address air pollution through land use documents. The Freight Handbook will encourage local officials to collaborate with air districts and community-based organizations on the development of land use policies.

B. Priority Project-Specific Practices
CARB has established a variety of programs, regulations, incentives, and policies designed to support the State’s transformation toward a more sustainable freight system. These include a range of actions to minimize the community health impacts from freight facilities. The Freight Handbook will identify project-specific practices that local governments and freight facility developers, owners, and operators can implement. Community members and organizations are encouraged to provide early input to ensure goals are set that meet community expectations, monitor implementation and report any ongoing concerns.

C. Additional Practices and Mitigation
Freight facilities can deploy additional practices that accelerate the transition to zeroemission operations, reduce the exposure of communities to air pollution, and minimize emissions from their activity and workforce commuting. Potential practices and mitigation include: vegetative walls and other solid barriers, air filtration devices, development programs, and lease agreements.

D. Resources for Development of Potential Practices
CARB staff routinely review and comment on environmental analyses prepared for individual freight facility projects pursuant to CEQA. Comments generally focus on the need for accurate characterization of a project’s air pollutant emissions, appropriate modeling assumptions and results, health risk analysis, and mitigation to reduce air quality impacts. We post these comment letters on our website and encourage local governments, freight facility developers and owners, and the public to periodically check for updates to influence project design or mitigation.3 3 California Air Resources Board, California Environmental Quality Act Comment Letters on Freight Facility Projects.

Item: 9
1080
17 We drew from these letters, staff technology assessments and regulatory requirements, public comments at prior community meetings, and more than 50 documents prepared by other government agencies and advocacy organizations to identify potential practices, as summarized in this Concept Paper and being considered for the Freight Handbook. Many of the identified practices describe existing local government practices while others encourage collaboration between local agencies, freight facilities owners and operators, and the public. Land use planning and decision-making is a complex process. While the authority to regulate land use is primarily vested in local governments, air districts account for, and depend upon, local land use decisions when preparing air quality planning documents and conducting rule-making processes. For that reason, local governments and air districts should consider the identified practices when updating and implementing their planning efforts.

Table 5 presents a list of potential practices to minimize community health impacts from freight facilities. We are sharing this list to signal the range of practices we are considering for inclusion in the Freight Handbook. A refined list of potential practices specific to warehouses, distribution centers, and cold-storage facilities is summarized in Table 6. We are seeking input on the general substance of all potential practices as well as what level the Freight Handbook should describe practices and appropriate methods to implement a practice.

Item: 9
1081
18 This page deliberately left blank.

Item: 9
1082
19 Table 5. Summary of Potential Practices to Minimize Community Health Impacts from Freight Facilities Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public

BROAD-BASED
Local Freight
Committee
Convene a local freight
committee comprised of
community members and
freight representatives to
solicit input on land use
policies that provide a
framework for assessing air
quality impacts and
addressing community
exposure from freight
facility projects.

Facility or industry
representatives participate on a
local freight committee to
incorporate community
suggestions, gather or provide
information, and consider
feedback to inform the siting
and design of freight facility
projects before submitting
permit applications.

Form or participate in a freight
committee, to help organize
and advocate for changes to
planning processes and
permitting of freight facility
projects.

Economic
Development
Coalition
Establish a coalition of
community members,
industry stakeholders, and
local economic
development entities to
identify approaches to
providing economic and
public health benefits to
communities near freight
facilities.

Facility or industry
representatives participate in the
coalition to provide operations
information and inform cost
effectiveness discussions
supporting an efficient and
strategic deployment of cleaner
freight vehicles and equipment.

Building off existing
community air protection
efforts, participate in the
coalition and identify
community-specific priorities
that determine the balance of
economic and public health
considerations.

Item: 9
1083
20 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Land Use Policies Develop land use policies
for addressing and
minimizing community
exposure to air pollution
from increased
development of freightrelated projects when
updating land use planning
documents.

Design freight facility projects
that are consistent with land use
policies intended for addressing
community exposure prior to
submitting permit applications.

Participate in local processes
to update land use documents
by advocating and proposing
land use policies.

Local Ordinances Update ordinances (i.e., site
design standards and
operational standards in
zoning ordinances) and
associated permitting
conditions consistent with
updated ordinance
standards that require
freight projects to achieve
zero-emission operations.

Integrate zero-emission
technologies to the maximum
extent feasible and incorporate
project design features that
minimize community exposure
prior to submitting permit
applications.

Engage local agencies during
the development of ordinances
and permitting conditions.

Item: 9
1084
21 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Rezone and Remove
Nonconforming
Uses
Update or adopt an
ordinance to phase out
freight facilities or
operations in close
proximity to sensitive
receptors when updating
the General Plan and
zoning code.

Phase out freight facility
operations adjacent to sensitive
receptors or phase out older
equipment and, where possible,
avoid siting new and expanding
freight facilities in proximity to
sensitive receptors.

Advocate and support local
officials in adopting or
updating ordinances that
restrict or phase out freight
operations in areas of the
community impacted by
existing freight facilities.

Improvement and
Financing Districts
Create improvement and/or
financing districts to
generate revenue for
infrastructure that supports
zero-emission technologies
at freight facilities.

Collaborate with local agencies
to identify financing needs for
supporting needed
infrastructure improvements at
freight facilities; commit to
investments that achieve zeroemission operations.

Participate in processes to
form financing districts that link
investments in fully zeroemission operations with
benefits to the community.

Item: 9
1085
22 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Development
Programs and
Agreements
Require freight facilities to
establish or contribute
towards publically
administered Development
Programs that help fund
projects for reducing
community exposure to air
pollution from freight.

Negotiate with local agencies
and community organizations to
establish or contribute towards
publically administered
development programs that
reduce community exposure to
air pollution.

Participate in processes to
establish or administer
development programs in
support of activities that fund
appropriate projects that
reduce community air pollutant
exposure.

Cumulative Analysis
Criteria
Establish screening criteria
to evaluate a freight
facility's contribution to a
cumulatively considerable
air quality impact including
but not limited to
identifying impacted areas,
adopting local thresholds of
significance, and
developing standardized
modeling parameters.

Consider a freight facility's
surrounding air quality
conditions to inform siting
decisions and implementing all
feasible practices for reducing
air pollution and community
exposure before submitting
permit applications.

Advocate for planning
agencies to collaborate with air
districts when developing
cumulative thresholds, impact
significance criteria, and
mitigation to address
cumulative impacts from
freight facilities.

Item: 9
1086
23 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
PRIORITY PROJECTSPECIFIC
Health Protective
Siting
Zone freight activities with
consideration of avoiding
health impacts to sensitive
receptors when updating
the General Plan and
zoning code.

Prioritize development at
properties with adequate
distances from sensitive
receptors and design projects to
minimize community exposure.

Inform zoning and permitting
decisions to ensure adequate
distances are provided for
protecting nearby sensitive
receptors.

Zero-Emission
Technology
Adopt or update site
design and operational
standards, consistent with
updated standards and
associated conditions of
approval, that require
freight facility projects to
operate fully with zeroemissions everywhere
feasible, and near-zero
emission equipment
powered by renewable
energy everywhere else.

Commit to fully operate with
zero-emissions and invest in
infrastructure to support zeroemission equipment everywhere feasible, and near-zero emission
equipment powered by
renewable energy everywhere
else, when designing or
updating a freight facility.

Inform local processes to
develop conditions of
approval, monitor
implementation and report any
ongoing concerns.

Item: 9
1087
24 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Zero-Emission
Infrastructure
Adopt or update site
design and operational
standards, consistent with
updated ordinance
standards, and associated
conditions of approval to
require infrastructure for
freight projects that
support full zero-emission
operation at the facility.

Commit to investments in zeroemission technologies and infrastructure for all facility
operations and service
providers, and coordinate with
utility companies to provide
zero-emission infrastructure
when developing site design.

Advocate for land use
decisions that help expedite
the development of the
zero-emission charging/
fueling infrastructure in
California.

Clean Heavy-Duty
Truck Parking
Establish a heavy-duty truck
parking program that
provides clean, safe, and
affordable truck parking
with support for zeroemission technologies.

Reserve land for clean heavyduty truck parking and install zero-emission infrastructure to
eliminate truck and TRU
emissions while parked.

Inform land use decisions to
identify heavy-duty truck
parking, monitor
implementation and report any
ongoing concerns.

Truck Routing Designate all truck routes,
within community input,
that service freight facilities
to avoid sensitive receptors
when updating land use
planning documents and
permitting conditions.

Inform local agencies and
community members to design
truck routes to serve freight
facility needs and minimize
exposure to air pollution.

Inform land use decisions to
designate truck routes, and
monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Item: 9
1088
25 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Residential Project
Design
Update or adopt
ordinances that require site
design and operational
standards and associated
conditions of approval for
buildings with sensitive
receptors located
downwind of freight
facilities to require
practices that reduce
sensitive receptors’
exposure to the freight
facility’s emissions when
permitting new
development.

Coordinate with local agencies
to identify financial tools that
accelerate or support
investments in zero-emission
technology.

Support land use decisions
that ensure local agencies
consider all applicable
practices and permitting
conditions that will result in
reductions in exposure.

Freight Facility
Design
Update or adopt
ordinances that require site
design and operational
standards and associated
conditions of approval that
require site design features
for reducing air pollution
and minimizing community
exposure during
development review.

Design freight facility access
points and operational activities
to minimize community
exposure prior to submitting
permit applications.

Support land use decision
processes that ensure local
agencies consider all
applicable practices and
permitting conditions that will
support reductions in exposure
to local communities.

Item: 9
1089
26 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public

ADDITIONAL

PRACTICES AND

MITIGATION
Vegetation and
Other Barriers
Establish a program that
requires freight facility
owners to maintain
vegetated walls or other
appropriate barriers that
separate facility operations
from sensitive receptors
when permitting freight
facilities.

Dedicate land and resources to
construct and maintain
vegetated barriers or other
appropriate tools to cut
exposure when designing freight
facilities.

Support land use decisions
that ensure local agencies
require freight facilities to
construct and maintain
vegetated walls or other
barriers, where appropriate.

Air Filtration
Devices
Partner with regional
planning agencies and air
districts to develop a
program for installing and
maintaining high-efficiency
air filtration devices in
existing and new sensitive
receptors in proximity to
freight facilities.

Support programs to install and
maintain high efficiency air filters
in existing buildings with
sensitive receptors in proximity
of freight facilities.

Collaborate with residential
property owners and
management organizations to
promote the deployment,
maintenance, and repair of air
filtration systems through
covenants, conditions, and
restrictions.

Item: 9
1090
27 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Implement Required
Clean Technology
Early
Collaborate with CARB or
the local air district on local
actions to accelerate
implementation of cleaner
technologies required by
State or district regulation
at new freight facilities.

Commit to fund and develop a
schedule for early compliance
with CARB or district
regulations.

Monitor implementation of
clean technology programs
and report any ongoing
concerns.

Rate Structures Adopt or update conditions
of approval that require a
rate structure that
incentivizes freight facilities
to contract with trucking,
rail, and marine companies
that utilize the lowest
emitting transport
technologies.

Implement a rate structure and
charge more for access by
higher emitting trucks,
locomotives, or other
equipment, and include a fee
rate for zero-emission
technologies.

Support the development and
adoption of rate structures that
support the accelerated
deployment of zero-emission
equipment.

Community Benefit
Agreements
Support or administer
community benefit
agreements to address air
quality impacts from freight
facility projects and
community exposure to air
pollution.

Establish or support community
benefit agreements to
implement practices that
provide air pollutant reductions
at facilities and provide local
benefits to impacted
communities.

Negotiate with local agencies
and developers to establish
and implement community
benefit agreements that
address community air
pollutant exposure from freight
activities; monitor
implementation and report any
ongoing concerns.

Item: 9
1091
28 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Lease Agreements Adopt or update conditions
of approval for permitting
that require freight facilities
to use the cleanest
commercially available
technologies.

Include contractual language in
lease agreements that requires
zero-emission technologies
everywhere feasible, and nearzero emission equipment
powered by renewable energy
everywhere else.

Advocate for the development
of freight facility agreements
that incorporate commitments
for deployment of clean
technologies.

Advanced
Technologies
Require freight facilities to
conduct periodic reviews of
operations to identify
opportunities to upgrade or
phase out older equipment,
as part of Development
Agreements.

Conduct periodic reviews and
commit to purchase, or require
tenants to utilize zero-emission
technologies or near zeroemission technologies if zero is not yet feasible.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Mitigation
Monitoring
Reporting Program
Develop mitigation
monitoring and reporting
programs (MMRPs) to
require periodic data and
operational information to
demonstrate compliance.

Post MMRPs and supporting
documentation for public review
with periodic updates that
describe efforts to implement
applicable practices.

Participate in development of
MMRPs, follow
implementation and report any
ongoing concerns.

Item: 9
1092
29 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Public Contracting Include requirements in
public contracting
document (i.e., Request for
Proposals and Request for
Qualifications) to specify
that bidders implement
practices that reduce air
quality impacts and address
community exposure to air
pollution.

Submit proposals that meet or
exceed the minimum set criteria
for bidders to implement
practices that reduce air quality
impacts and address community
exposure to air pollution.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Employee
Commuting
Establish or update
program guidelines with
sufficient resources to
support alternative
commute modes for freight
facilities with more than 50
employees.

Commit to fund transit pass
subsidies and support incentive
programs for other forms of
commuting; provide travel data
to inform future program
updates.

Participate in commuter
programs, monitor
implementation, and report
any ongoing concerns.

Item: 9
1093
30 This page deliberately left blank.

Item: 9
1094
31 CONCEPTS FOR WAREHOUSE FACILITIES
The Freight Handbook will include practices for the siting, design, construction, and operations of warehouse facilities. Warehouses and other facilities (distribution centers, cold storage, etc., referred to collectively as “warehouse facilities”) operate under similar conditions with primarily combustion-powered vehicles and equipment.

As of 2019, most freight vehicles and equipment at warehouses run on diesel fuel.

In many communities, warehouse facilities are sited near existing transportation networks to access regional markets. Siting new warehouse facilities within or in close proximity to a neighborhood can compound air quality impacts from other air pollutant sources such as high-volume roadways and existing freight facilities nearby.

We are developing warehouse practices to serve as an informational resource to help communities, decision-makers, and warehouse facility developers, owners, and operators identify and implement practices to minimize community exposure to air pollution from these facilities. As described in CEQA comment letters, CARB staff continues to support building these facilities to achieve full zero-emission operation, implementing zero-emission technologies everywhere feasible, and near-zero emission equipment powered by renewable energy everywhere else.

Table 6 lists potential practices at warehouse facilities. The potential practices below compliment or expand upon potential practices listed in Table 5. As discussed above, local governments and air districts should consider these potential practices when permitting projects and when updating and implementing planning efforts. We are seeking input on the substance of potential practices as well as what level CARB should describe practices and appropriate methods to implement practices for warehouse facilities.

Item: 9
1095
32 This page deliberately left blank.

Item: 9
1096
33 Table 6. Summary of Potential Practices at Warehouses and Distribution Centers Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public

PLANNING,

REVIEW, AND

PERMITTING

Update Zoning Review and update, or
adopt, a zoning ordinance
(site design and operational
standards) to ensure
warehousing activities are
permitted in areas based
on health risks from the
warehouse’s operational air
pollution emissions, an
appropriate distance from
sensitive receptors.

Identify development
opportunities that allow facility
operations, or design facility
projects, at appropriate
distances; utilize air dispersion
modeling, as necessary, to
estimate exposure risk and
inform design-level decisions
prior to identifying air pollutant
mitigation.

Engage local agencies and
participate in review and
updates to zoning ordinances
for minimizing community
exposure to air pollutant
emissions.

Zero-Emission
Operations: Land
Use Policies and
Standard Permitting
Conditions of
Approval
During permit review
process, and through
standard permitting
conditions, to require
freight facilities fully
operate with zero-emissions
equipment everywhere
feasible, and near-zero
emission equipment
powered by renewable
energy everywhere else.

Design projects to integrate
zero-emission technologies to
the extent feasible prior to
submitting permit applications;
commit to contractual
obligations that fully require
tenants to zero-emission
equipment operations
everywhere feasible, and nearzero emission equipment
powered by renewable energy
everywhere else.

Support local agencies’
adoption of land use policies
and standard permitting
conditions that will result in the
deployment of cleaner
technologies.

Item: 9
1097
34 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Zero-Emission
Infrastructure: Land
Use Policies and
Standard Permitting
Conditions of
Approval
Adopt or update
ordinances that require site
design and operational
standards and associated
standard permitting
conditions to provide
needed infrastructure for
zero-emission operation.

Commit to investments in zeroemission infrastructure at the project-design stage; deploy
zero-emission technologies and
incorporate contractual
language requiring tenants to
utilize zero-emission
technologies to the maximum
extent possible.

Review and provide input into
project designs and monitor
implementation and report any
ongoing concerns.

Zero-Emission
Infrastructure:

Investment Plan
Update or adopt permit
conditions that require
facility developers and
owners to establish an
investment plan supporting
zero-emission
infrastructure.

Establish an investment plan and
adopt a timeline for making
investments in zero-emission
technologies; and anticipate
emerging technologies
becoming commercially
available.

Review and assess project
designs, monitor
implementation and report any
ongoing concerns.

Regulatory
Compliance, Idling
Limits and Dock
Electrification
Help enforce mobile and
off-road source regulations
to limit unnecessary idling,
and electrify loading docks
serviced by trucks with
transport refrigeration units
(TRU) or auxiliary power
units (APU).

Commit to implementing zeroemission technologies and
incorporate contractual
language to require tenants
demonstrate compliance with
mobile and off-road source
regulations, limit unnecessary
idling, and electrify loading
docks servicing trucks with TRUs
or APUs.

Review project proposals, and
monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Item: 9
1098
35 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Development
Programs and
Agreements
Require owners and
operators to contribute or
establish Development
Agreements that fund
projects for reducing
community exposure to air
pollution from freight.

Negotiate with local agencies
and community organizations to
establish or contribute towards
publically administered
development programs that
reduces community exposure to
air pollution.

Participate in processes to
establish and administer
development programs that
fund projects that result in a
reduction in community air
pollutant exposure.

ZERO EMISSION

TECHNOLOGY
Zero and Near-Zero
Emission
Technologies for All
Project Phases
Condition permit approval
of warehouse proposals to
integrate zero-emission
technologies during
construction and
operational phases
everywhere feasible, and
near-zero emission
equipment powered by
renewable energy
everywhere else.

Incorporate zero-emission
technologies into business
decisions, financial planning, and
contractual language for
construction phases, operational
activities, and tenant lease
agreements.

Collaborate with freight facility
developers and owners,
monitor implementation, and
report any ongoing concerns.

Item: 9
1099
36 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Upgrade On-site
Service Equipment
As a permitting condition,
require all on-site service
equipment (cargo handling,
yard hostlers, forklifts,
pallet jacks, etc.) to fully
operate with zeroemissions, where possible.

Install necessary infrastructure to
support zero-emission
technologies and contractually
obligate tenants to deploy
commercially available zeroemission technologies to the maximum extent possible.

Monitor implementation, and
report any ongoing concerns.

Intermodal Facility
Transport Activities
Organize a committee to
collaborate with
warehousing facilities
owners and operators to
maximize cargo transport
efficiency of cargo
handling, and long-haul
truck activities
Integrate operation systems
using cleanest available
technologies; coordinate
management systems to
maximize operational efficiency
for minimizing unnecessary
idling of all diesel engines.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Fueling
Infrastructure for
Zero-Emission
Operations
Condition permit approval
of warehouse facilities to
install fueling infrastructure
(electric charging and
hydrogen fueling stations)
for maximizing on-site zeroemission operations.

Incorporate fueling infrastructure
to support zero-emission
operations into project to the
maximum extent possible;
coordinate construction plans
and activities with utility
providers prior to submitting
permitting applications.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Item: 9
1100
37 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
On-Site Renewable
Energy Generation
Encourage through
adoption of general plan
policies and goals or
through conditioning
permit approval of
warehouse facilities to
incorporate renewable
energy resources into
project designs or exceed
applicable green building
standards for warehouses.

Incorporate on-site renewable
energy production––solar, wind,
etc.––into project design;
coordinate with utility providers
prior to submitting permitting
applications and integrate
necessary infrastructure.

Advocate for local
governments to develop
requirements and incentives
for the usage of renewable
energy at facilities.

On-Site Microgrid
Energy Storage
Coordinate integration of
on-site microgrid energy
deployment between
facilities and utility
providers.

Integrate microgrids into project
designs to help reduce
electricity costs, distribute onsite energy demand across, and increase storage capacities.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

On-Site Energy
Storage
Review permitting practices
for opportunities to
streamline review processes
to encourage on-site
energy storage solutions
for supporting fully zeroemission operations.

Integrate renewable energy
storage to ensure adequate
storage capacities, including
surplus margins, to provide
alternative emergency backup
power.

Advocate for local
governments to develop
efficient permitting processes
that allow for deployment of
energy storage systems.

Item: 9
1101
38 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public

WAREHOUSE

FACILITY DESIGN
Establish Truck
Routes
Design routing programs in
the General Plan to address
congestion, provide
adequate truck parking
capacity, and account for
delivery schedules to avoid
peak commute periods with
a goal of directing trucks
around sensitive receptors.

Inform local agencies and
community members to
establish truck route programs
that service facility needs while
prioritizing routes that minimize
community exposure to air
pollution.

Monitor truck activities,
collaborate with freight facility
owners, and report any
ongoing concerns.

Provide Truck
Parking
Condition permit approval
of warehouse facilities to
provide adequate space for
truck parking, staging, and
loading activities with
incentivizes for zeroemission delivery vehicles.

Collaborate with local agencies
and utility providers to provide
necessary infrastructure for
supporting zero-emission
delivery vehicles.

Monitor truck activities,
collaborate with freight facility
owners, and report any
ongoing concerns.

Adequate Truck
Route Signage
Condition permit approval
of warehouse facilities in
coordination with Caltrans
to install adequate
wayfinding strategies along
truck routes from highways
to facility parking areas.

Provide trainings to inform
employee and tenants on proper
truck routing and parking
programs.

Monitor truck activities,
collaborate with freight facility
owners, and report any
ongoing concerns.

Item: 9
1102
39 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Provide Multimodal
Commuter
Pathways
Condition permit approval
of warehouse projects to
provide or promote
alternative transportation
modes for reducing
vehicular commuter
dependence.

Integrate multimodal design into
and around facility access points
with the existing transportation
infrastructure including
connections to existing and
planned pedestrian and bicycle
pathways.

Review and assess project
proposals, monitor
implementation, and report
any ongoing concerns.

Funding for Freight
Transport
Infrastructure
Apply and match Federal,
State, and local funding
sources to support freight
transport infrastructure that
improves freight facility
connectivity and
maximizing operational
efficiency.

Maximize public funding
opportunities to improve facility
operations through siting,
access, and connectivity to
established freight transport
corridors.

Advocate for project proposals
maximizing public investments
in freight transportation
planning efforts that improve
freight efficiency.

Building Codes for
Zero-Emission
Charging Stations
Update local codes to
require infrastructure for
electrification or fueling
stations, or adopt State
building code for medium
and heavy-duty zeroemission infrastructure, as
available.

Design or modify facilities to
integrate charging station
infrastructure; coordinate with
utility providers to maximize onsite potential for supporting zero-emission vehicles.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Item: 9
1103
40 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Design Guidelines
for Minimizing
Community
Exposure
Update or adopt site
design standards to locate
entrance gates, loading
docks, staging areas, and
parking facilities away from
sensitive receptors.

Incorporate design features that
demonstrably reduce a
community’s exposure from
loading, staging, and parking
activities.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Vegetative and
Other Solid Barriers
Update or adopt site
design standards to
promote vegetative or
other solid barriers for
reducing community
exposure to air pollution
from nearby roadway and
on-site activities.

Identify potential air pollutant
sources on-site and access
routes that may impact nearby
communities for informing the
location of vegetative or solid
barriers, with appropriate design
parameters to reduce particulate
matter.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Design Features to
Maximize On-Site
Truck Maneuvering
Efficiency
Review or adopt site design
standards to encourage
facility designs that
maximize efficiency of onsite trucking and loading
activities including: turning
radii, simultaneous
container loading and
unloading, and connectivity
to site access and
roadways.

Design facilities to maximize
available space for trucking and
loading activities including:
turning radii, simultaneous
container loading and
unloading, and connectivity to
site access and roadways.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Item: 9
1104
41 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Multimodal Facility
Design
Reduce air quality impacts
associated with multimodal
facility projects by
maximizing transiting
efficiencies between
transport modes for
distributing containers and
truck trailers.

Integrate access and loading
operations into existing
intermodal freight systems for
maximizing capacities and
operational efficiency.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

WAREHOUSE

FACILITY

CONSTRUCTION
Construction
Emissions
Minimization Plan
Update or adopt an
ordinance to establish
minimum criteria for
construction emissions
minimization plans that
apply to projects in
impacted communities.

Coordinate with local agencies
to identify projects in impacted
areas and incorporate plan
criteria into contractual language
for minimizing emissions from all
construction-related activities to
the extent feasible.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Item: 9
1105
42 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Electrify Low
Kilowatt Equipment
Update or adopt
ordinances that require site
design and operational
standards and associated
permit conditions to
require electrifying all offroad equipment with a
power rating below 19
kilowatts (e.g., plate
compactors, pressure
washers, etc.) wherever
possible.

Integrate needed electrical
infrastructure and hookups into
construction planning; include
contractual language that
requires all contractors to
electrify low kilowatt equipment
wherever possible.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Accelerate
Regulatory
Compliance
Encourage or condition
permit approvals of
warehouse proposals to
maximize commercially
available clean-engine
technologies for heavy-duty
trucks servicing the site.

Include contractual language
that requires all contractors to
utilize commercially available
clean-engine technologies for
heavy-duty trucks everywhere
possible.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Minimize Engine
Idling
Update or adopt
ordinances that require site
design and operational
standards and associated
permit conditions to
minimize diesel engine
idling for no more than two
minutes.

Inform contractors servicing the
site of diesel engine idling limits
by posting signage at access
points, monitoring delivery
activities, and training
employees to maximize
equipment efficiency.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Item: 9
1106
43 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Utilize Generators
Utilizing Renewable
Fuels
Enforce permit conditions
that require generators
utilizing renewable fuels to
be used, where
electrification is infeasible.

Electrify equipment to the
maximum extent feasible with
connections to the power grid,
utilize renewable fuels
everywhere else.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

WAREHOUSE

FACILITY

OPERATIONS
Minimize
Refrigerants
Condition permit approval
of warehouse proposals
that include cold storage
facilities to use low Global
Warming Potential (GWP)
refrigerants.

Use low GWP refrigerants at
cold storage facilities. (e.g. <150
GWP, ammonia, CO2,
Hydrocarbons).

Support proposals that use low
GWP refrigerants at cold
storage facilities; and monitor
implementation.

Minimum Green
Building Standards
Update or adopt design
guidelines that require
facility operations to
exceed standard green
building criteria for
reducing on-site air
pollution and nearby
community exposure.

Incorporate green building
features that demonstrably
address on-site air pollution
source or minimize nearby
community exposure through
design and modified operational
activities.

Support proposals for
applicable green building
features, monitor
implementation, and report
any ongoing concerns.

Item: 9
1107
44 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Truck Service
Efficiency
Support facility owners and
operators to integrate new
technologies for improving
efficiency of trucking
activities to minimize
queuing and in-terminal
waiting periods.

Coordinate techniques and
methods to improve truck
delivery and loading activities
using available software
packages; train service providers
on methods to group,
streamline, or otherwise
maximize facility efficiency
during heavy delivery periods.

Collaborate with facility owners
and operators to implement
technologies, monitor
implementation, and report
any ongoing concerns.

Container Yard
Management
Efficiency
Support facility owners and
operators to incorporate
technologies for
operational activities or onsite practices that improve equipment management
practices and increase
goods movement
efficiency.

Coordinate yard management
techniques and methods using
available software packages to
virtualize container loading areas
for improving on-site exchanges
between import and export
activities.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Coordinate
Neighboring
Purchasing and
Deliveries
Support facility logistics for
minimizing duplicative
supply deliveries to
minimize daily truck visits.

Coordinate supply needs and
delivery service contacts with
neighboring facilities to
maximize supply receiving and
shipping activities.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Item: 9
1108
45 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Freight Traffic
Information Systems
Collaborate with public
agencies to develop and
implement a "push" freight
traffic information system
through a public platform
for data sharing that
improves logistics planning
and truck delivery
scheduling.

Support development and
implementation of a "push"
freight traffic information system
by providing trucks servicing a
facility with real-time traffic data.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

FINANCING,

GRANTS, AND

INCENTIVES
Grants for ZeroEmission
Infrastructure and
Equipment,
Renewable Fuels,
and Efficiency
Utilize grants for zeroemission vehicles and
equipment, renewable fuel
production, charging, and
hydrogen fueling
infrastructure, and
efficiency improvement
technologies.

Maximize investments to
integrate and deploy zeroemission vehicles and
equipment, produce and store
renewable fuels, provide
charging and fueling
infrastructure, and implement
efficiency improvements.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Item: 9
1109
46 Practice Local Governments and
Air Districts
Warehouse Developers,
Owners, or Operators Public
Funding for ZeroEmission
Technology
Support and fund zeroemission TRU and APU
technology to modernize
existing facilities and
support integrating with
proposals for new facilities.

Maximize investments in zeroemission technologies and
incorporate contractual
language for tenants and service
providers to deploy vehicles with
TRUs or APUs capable of
integrating with electrified
loading docks.

Monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Joint Public and
Private Investment
Opportunities
Identify local opportunity
areas to support cleantechnology investments
through Property and
Business Improvement
Districts (PBID) or Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing
Districts (EIFD).

Collaborate with local agencies
to establish and support PBIDs
or EIFDs; coordinate with
neighboring facilities to
maximize investments in
business opportunities that
support fully zero-emission
operations.

Support local agencies and
facility owners and operators
to establish PBIDs and EIFDs
for financing fully zeroemission operations; monitor
implementation and report any
ongoing concerns.

Projects to
Demonstrate
Emerging
Technologies
Support funding
opportunities for
demonstrating zeroemission technology
technologies for existing
and new freight facilities.

Maximize investment
opportunities and implement
zero-emission demonstration
projects in all applicable facility
operations.

Support local agency and
facility owners and operators
to identify opportunities;
monitor implementation and
report any ongoing concerns.

Item: 9
1110
47 This page deliberately left blank.

Item: 9
1111
48 LIST OF RESOURCE DOCUMENTS
CARB staff reviewed an extensive selection of resource documents to inform development of the Concept Paper for the Freight Handbook and identify practices for the siting, design, construction, and operation of freight facilities to minimize the resulting air pollution impacts on nearby communities. Some of these documents are listed below. In addition to these documents, this Concept Paper reflects public input CARB gathered through developing and implementing state-level programs related to freight. CARB has also considered the feedback received from local workshops to develop community monitoring and emission reduction plans, the Pathways to Zero and Near-Zero Emissions document, and the Sustainable Freight Action Plan, as well as updated information posted on State and local agency websites. • Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (2017).
• BAAQMD. Improving Air Quality & Health in Bay Area Communities: Community Air Risk Evaluation Program Retrospect & Path Forward [2004 - 2013] (2014). • BAAQMD. Planning Healthy Places: A Guidebook for Addressing Local Sources of Air Pollutants in Community Planning (2016).
• BAAQMD. Regulation 11, Rule 18: Reduction of Risk from Air Toxic Emissions at Existing Facilities (2017).
• Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan (2017). • CARB. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005).
• CARB. Let’s Clear the Air: A Public Participation Guide to Air Quality Decision Making in California (2005).
• CARB. Sustainable Freight: Pathways to Zero and Near-Zero Emissions (2015). • CARB. Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High-Volume Roadways (2017).
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California Freight Mobility Plan (2014).
• Caltrans. Mitigating Freight Impacts on Nearby Communities – Preliminary Investigation (2015).
• Caltrans, CARB, et. al. California Sustainable Freight Action Plan (2016). • California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects (2009).
• California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (Cal OPR). State of California General Plan Guidelines (2017).
• Cal OPR. The Planner’s Guide to Specific Plans (2001). • City of Oakland. West Oakland Truck Management Plan (2018). • City of Riverside. Good Neighbor Guidelines for Siting New and/or Modified Warehouse Distribution Facilities (2008).

Item: 9
1112
49 • Biggs, D., Stansbery, S., and Nance, M. American Planning Association. 100 Great Community Engagement Ideas (2018).
• Environmental Defense Fund. Green Freight Handbook (2014). • Institute for Local Government. Effective Public Engagement through Strategic Communication (2015).
• Institute for Local Government. What is Public Engagement and Why Should I Do It? (2016).
• Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Caltrans. Healthy Communities and Healthy Economy (2009).
• MTC, Bay Area Goods Movement Collaborative. Community Collaborative for Sustainable Freight (2014).
• MTC. San Francisco Bay Area Goods Movement Plan (2016). • MTC, et. al. Freight Emissions Reduction Action Plan [for Plan Bay Area 2040] Final Supplemental Report (2017).
• MTC, et. al. Plan Bay Area 2040, Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2016052041) (2017).
• National Center for Sustainable Transportation. Freight Efficiency Whitepapers (2016).
• Natural Resources Defense Council. Clean Cargo: A Guide to Reducing Diesel Air Pollution from the Freight Industry in Your Community (2012). • Natural Resources Defense Council. Defend Your Air (2012). • PolicyLink. The Sustainable Communities Initiative: The Community Engagement Guide for Sustainable Communities (2012).
• Port of Long Beach. “Air Quality Programs” (website 2018). • Port of Long Beach. Port Master Plan, Update 1990 (As amended, 2005). • Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (2017).
• Port of Los Angeles. Port Master Plan (2018).
• Port of Oakland. Growth With Care: Port of Oakland Strategic Business Plan 2018- 2022 (2018).
• San Diego Unified Port District. Port Master Plan (2017). • San Diego Association of Governments. 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2010041061) (2011).
• San Diego Unified Port District. Port Master Plan (2017). • San Joaquin Council of Governments. 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2017032042) (2018).
• San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (2015).
• SJVAPCD. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (2015). • SJVAPCD. Rule 3180: Administrative Fees for Indirect Source Review (Adopted 2005, as amended 2018).

Item: 9
1113
50 • SJVAPCD. Rule 9150: Indirect Source Review (Adopted 2005, as amended 2017). • Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Freight Research Program.

Guidebook for Understanding Goods Movement (2012).
• Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2015031035) (2015).
• SCAG. Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region (2018). • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning (2005). • SCAQMD. Model Air Quality Element (Reviewed, 2019).
• SCAQMD. Rule 1402: Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources (Adopted 1994, as amended 2016).
• Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program.

Guide to Deploying Clean Truck Freight Strategies (2017). • Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Freight Research Program.

Issues Identified and Lessons Learned from NCFRP 24 - Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement (2013).
• Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Freight Research Program.

Background Research Material for Freight Facility Location Selection: A Guide for Public Officials (2011).
• United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

Freight and Air Quality Handbook (2012).
• United Sates Environmental Protection Agency, SmartWay. Vision 2020: A New Era of Freight Sustainability (2015).
• West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project. Clearing the Air: Reducing Diesel Pollution in West Oakland (2003).
• Western Riverside Council of Governments. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program (2019).

Item: 9
1114
ATTACHMENT 3
Item: 9
1115
Item: 9
1116
ATTACHMENT 4
Item: 9
1117
Item: 9
1118
Item: 9
1119
Item: 9
1120
ATTACHMENT 5
Item: 9
1121
Senior
Apartment
The Meadows
Residential
Neighborhood
IPT Enterprise
Business
Center Project
Western
Realco
Projects
<230ft <100ft
Item: 9
1122
1 ATTACHMENT 9
Item: 9
1123
2 Table of Written Responses to Notice of Appeal
Appeal Issue Response
Air Quality
• The EIR fails to recognize national
and state ambient air quality
standards as thresholds of
significance
This allegation is false. Section 4.3.3.2, page 4.3-6 of Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR summarizes the appropriate "National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards" which are identified in detail in Table 4.3.B on page 4.3-7 of the Draft EIR.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for demonstrating regional compliance with ambient air quality standards and works cooperatively with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, and other federal and State government agencies in the development of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet both State and national air quality standards. The main purpose of an AQMP is to bring the area it covers into compliance with federal and State air quality standards.

Every 3 years, SCAQMD prepares a new AQMP, updating the previous plan and 20-year horizon. As stated in Section 4.3.4.2, page 4.3-15, of Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the 2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from previous AQMP, and includes a variety of additional strategies such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g., zero emissions technologies, when cost-effective and feasible, and low NOx technologies in other applications), best management practices, cobenefits from existing programs (e.g., climate and energy efficiency), incentives, and other Clean Air Act (CAA) measures to achieve the 2015 8-hour ozone standard, which is the most current ozone standard. The air emission thresholds established by the SCAQMD to meet state and national air quality standards are clearly identified as thresholds (refer to Draft EIR Tables 4.3 I-J, and Q-R on pages 4.3-27 through 4.3-43). (FEIR, p. 385.)
Item: 9
1124
3 Appeal Issue Response
As noted in Master Response 6 and Response to Comment O-6-4, the Project includes a quantitative cumulative analysis of air quality impacts. (FEIR, p. 385.) As described in Section 4.3.5.2, page 4.3-19 of Section 4.3, Air Quality of the Draft EIR, the SCAQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance were determined based on the attainment status of the air basin and the ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants. Further, page 4.3-2 includes the following text explaining the relationship between the adopted thresholds and the AAQS:
“[…] emission thresholds established by an air district are used to manage total regional emissions within an air basin based on the air basin’s attainment status for criteria pollutants. These emission thresholds were established for individual projects that would contribute to regional emissions and pollutant concentrations and could adversely affect or delay the projected attainment target year for certain criteria pollutants.” (FEIR, p. 385.)
Additionally, the Draft EIR compared Project emissions to SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs), which, according to SCAQMD, “present the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.” Therefore, by relying on the adopted criteria pollutant thresholds of significance and applicable LSTs, the Draft EIR evaluated the Project in the context of potential violations of State and federal AAQS, in compliance with CEQA and the applicable SCAQMD thresholds. (FEIR, p. 385.)
• EIR fails to quantify peak (1 hour)
construction emissions
Under CEQA there is no requirement to quantify construction emissions on a peak 1-hour basis (FEIR, p. 385.) In addition, CEQA does not prescribe a specific averaging period (e.g. hourly, daily, or annual) for evaluating emissions. Consistent with SCAQMD guidance and standard modeling practice, construction emissions are quantified on a daily basis (pounds per day). The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Item: 9
1125
4 Appeal Issue Response
Handbook and associated regional guidance recommend evaluating construction emissions against daily mass-based significance thresholds, which are the basis for determining impact significance in the South Coast Air Basin. In addition, widely used models such as CalEEMod are specifically designed to estimate construction emissions on a daily (and annual) basis, reflecting standard practice across California.

This approach is appropriate because construction activities vary by phase and intensity throughout the day and over the duration of the project, and daily emission rates provide a representative and comparable metric for assessing potential impacts. Furthermore, SCAQMD’s daily thresholds are developed to be protective of applicable CAAQS and NAAQS, including short-term (e.g., 1 hour) standards. As such, projects with emissions that do not exceed SCAQMD’s daily thresholds would not be expected to cause or contribute to violations of hourly air quality standards. • EIR fails to evaluate the formation
of secondary pollutants from the
conversion of NOx and VOC into
PM 2.5
While CEQA requires evaluation of a project’s potentially significant environmental effects, it also requires that conclusions be supported by substantial evidence and not rely on speculative analysis (CEQA Guidelines §15145). The formation of secondary PM2.5 depends on complex atmospheric chemistry, background pollutant concentrations, and regional meteorological conditions, all of which vary spatially and temporally and are not meaningfully attributable to a single project. As such, quantifying project-level secondary PM2.5 formation would be inherently uncertain and speculative.

Consistent with SCAQMD guidance and standard practice, project-level air quality analyses focus on quantifying direct emissions of PM2.5 and precursors using approved models such as CalEEMod, and comparing those emissions to adopted significance thresholds. SCAQMD does not require or provide a recommended methodology for quantifying secondary PM2.5 formation at the project level in CEQA analyses, and the air district’s thresholds are designed to address project Item: 9
1126
5 Appeal Issue Response
contributions to regional pollutant levels in a manner that is practical and supported by available tools.

Accordingly, the analysis in the Draft EIR evaluated the Project’s air quality impacts using established thresholds, SCAQMD-recommended modeling tools, and accepted methodology, consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. (FEIR, p. 385.)
• EIR fails to recognize the Project
would violate the 1 hour NOx
standards during the construction
phase and fails to mitigate these
impacts
As demonstrated in Table 4.3.O of the DEIR, construction of the Project is not expected to result in a locally significant air quality impact related to NOx and, therefore, is not expected to violate any AAQS for NOx.

The 1-hour NOx value is determined based on a long term statistical measure, specifically higher-end concentrations that occur repeatedly across the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, and is not equal to the maximum construction impact single peak hour of emissions from construction activities, as suggested in the comment letter. Because the standard reflects recurring elevated concentrations rather than a one-time hourly spike, comparing an isolated peak construction hour to the 1 hour standard is not an appropriate basis for evaluating impacts (FEIR, p. 385.) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• EIR’s emissions are very close to
the chosen significance threshold
and may be understated
This analysis used the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1. to quantify the potential GHG emissions associated with both construction and operation of the proposed project. (DEIR, p. 4.8-1.) The analysis accounted for the heavy duty truck trips and associated GHG emissions. As described in page 4.3-29 of the Draft EIR, the operational emissions analysis incorporates heavy-duty truck activity consistent with the Project’s trip Item: 9
1127
6 Appeal Issue Response
generation, which includes approximately 58 four-axle truck trips. Accordingly, all four-axle truck trips were conservatively assumed to travel approximately 40 miles.

SCAQMD’s High-Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study documents that heavy-duty truck activity associated with industrial/warehouse uses consists of regular regional trips to and from distribution centers across Southern California, rather than short local trips. (SCAQMD. N.d. High Cube Warehouse Trip Rate Study for Air Quality Analysis. Website: High-CubeWarehouse Truck Trip Study for CEQA Air Quality Analysis.) Because SCAQMD’s warehouse trip research demonstrates that heavyduty trucks serving industrial uses make longer regional trips across the basin, applying a 40-mile per-trip distance ensures emissions are not understated and provides a conservative representation of heavy-duty truck VMT for use in CalEEMod modeling (e.g., as opposed to CalEEMod default trip length).

Moreover, two separate CalEEMod analyses were prepared to ensure these emissions were fully captured: one model run evaluated operational and passenger vehicle trip emissions, and a second model run evaluated emissions from four-axle heavy heavy-duty truck trips. These same input assumptions were used in the operational GHG emissions analysis presented in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, pages 4.8-15 to 4.8-16 of the Draft EIR. Emissions associated with heavy-duty truck activity are presented in Table 4.3.K on page 4.3-29 and Table 4.8.B on page 4.8-16 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, heavy-duty truck trips—and their associated air pollutant and GHG emissions—were fully accounted for and evaluated in the Draft EIR. (FEIR, p. 887.)
• The Project would exceed City
VMT thresholds, and conflict with
the State Scoping Plan, and that
traffic mitigation would be
ineffective.

LSA, in coordination with the City, reviewed all potential mitigation measures that are listed in the City’s TA Guidelines and 2024 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook to mitigate the project’s VMT impact to the maximum extent feasible.

As discussed in Section 4.17, page 4.17-2 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be required to implement feasible Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Item: 9
1128
7 Appeal Issue Response
measures as stipulated by MM TRA-1 (consistent with measures T-32 and T-33 in 2024 CAPCOA Handbook). Providing bike lanes and an enhanced bikeway network, as required by MM TRA-1, would increase access to and from transit hubs and encourage a mode shift from vehicles to bicycles; thereby displacing VMT.

As discussed in Section 4.8, page 4.8-21, of the Draft EIR, and Master Response 10, the proposed project would also be required to implement MM GHG-1 requiring the provision of on-site electric truck charging stations (consistent with measure T14 in the 2024 CAPCOA Handbook). Additionally, because of the size of the proposed development, the project Applicant is required to comply with the site development standards specified in Section 9.160.040 of the City’s Municipal Code related to employee parking spaces, parking for carpool vehicles, parking for vanpool vehicles, bicycle parking, shower facilities, locker facilities, commuter information areas, rideshare vehicle loading areas, and the provision of transit/bus shelters.

To provide clarity on the applicable VMT reduction measures in the Draft EIR, the following Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) TRA-1 has been added to Section

4.17.9.1 identify these code requirements. (FEIR, pp. 33-34.) RCM TRA-1: Development Standards Pursuant to Section 9.160.040 of the City’s Municipal Code. The provisions of Zoning Code Chapter 9.160 (Facility Design Regulations) shall be implemented as follows:

Prior to the issuance of the building permits for the construction of the primary building, 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.

Item: 9
1129
8 Appeal Issue Response
Prior to issuance of building permits for the construction of the primary building, 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 solarpowered 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 with the regulations in Zoning Code Section

9.160.040 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 right-of-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.

Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy of the building, 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.

Additionally, the following mitigation measure has been added to Section 4.17.9.1 consistent with measure T-18 in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2024 Handbook to further encourage the use of transit and displace the use of vehicles for travel to and from the project site:

Item: 9
1130
9 Appeal Issue Response
MM TRA-2: Pedestrian-Scale Transit Access Lighting. 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 dusk-to-dawn controls.

Prior to issuance of a building permit, a lighting plan depicting fixture types, locations, heights, and illumination levels shall be submitted by the Applicant to the City for review and approval.

Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all required lighting shall be installed and operational and shall be maintained by the property owner for the life of the project.
• The EIR fails to incorporate all
feasible mitigation to reduce the
Project’s GHG emissions
Other potential mitigation measures identified in the City’s TA Guidelines related to Land Use, Neighborhood Enhancements, Parking Policy/Pricing, Transit Improvement, Commute Trip, School Trip, and Clean Vehicles and Fuels were determined to be infeasible for the proposed project due to the project’s geographic location, redundancy with the City’s Municipal Code requirements for the project site, requirements for participation and approval from third-party transit agencies which cannot be enforced by the City, incompatibility with the project’s proposed use, cost, uncertain effectiveness based on a speculative tenant, lack of enforceability, or existing factors such as on- and off-street parking at the project site is currently free. As explained in Master Response 4, a mitigation measure is only considered feasible when it is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within the constraints of the project, taking into consideration economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. Feasibility is evaluated based Item: 9
1131
10 Appeal Issue Response
on the measure’s ability to be enforced and to achieve the desired outcome. (FEIR, p. 36.)
Traffic and VMT
• Traffic Impact analysis fails to
comply with City’s adopted
Transportation Analysis
Guidelines.
• EIR fails to evaluate or adopt
additional feasible truck traffic and
VMT mitigation measures
The Project Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) was prepared following the City's TA Guidelines (refer to Draft EIR Appendix I). The City's consultant on the Draft EIR closely coordinated with the City and reviewed all potential mitigation measures that are listed in the City's TA Guidelines and California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook to mitigate the Project's VMT impact to the greatest degree feasible with directly applicable and enforceable measures. (FEIR, p. 386) Nearby Communities
• Proximity to neighbors will
introduce heavy diesel truck traffic
within 100 feet of family homes
and schools
The roadway LOS assessment provided in the TIA and the Draft EIR evaluates the potential for the project to increase vehicle and truck trips on the roadway network such that acceptable service levels could not be maintained. This information is provided as required by the City of Lake Forest's Transportation Analysis (TA) Guidelines (July 21, 2020) and for local planning purposes, specifically consistency with General Plan Mobility Element Goal 1 and Policy M-10.2. In addition, as stated on pages 4.17-13 through 4.17-14 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project itself includes off-site improvements at 5 intersections to enhance public safety and address concerns regarding truck turning movements. These improvements are considered in the analysis of roadway operations. Per California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21099(b), policy conflicts related to automobile delay and roadway congestion as measured by LOS standards are not considered environmental impacts under CEQA. Nevertheless, this evaluation was provided in the EIR for public disclosure purposes and to identify any potential deficiencies that should be addressed by the City or the project applicant via conditions of project Item: 9
1132
11 Appeal Issue Response
approval or contribution to identified infrastructure improvements through traffic impact fees assessed by the City. (FEIR, p. 30.)
• The Project would exacerbate
cancer and respiratory health risks
for nearby residents.

The Draft EIR includes a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) (Appendix C of the Draft EIR and fully summarized on pages 4.3-31 through 4.3-35 of the Draft EIR) that fully analyzes the health risks to all sensitive receptors, which include residences, schools, workplaces, etc., surrounding the project site. As described in Section 4.3, pages 4.3-31 through 4.3-22, of the Draft EIR, the HRA was conducted using three models (1) CARB's California Emissions Factor Model, Version 2021 (EMFAC2021) for on-road vehicle emissions factors and percentages of fuel type within the overall vehicle fleet; (2) the USEPA's AERMOD air dispersion model to determine how the TACs would move through the atmosphere after release from sources both on site and on surrounding roadways; and (3) CARB's HARP2 model to translate the pollutant concentrations from AERMOD into individual health risks at any sensitive receptor locations surrounding the project site. In addition, the HRA follows the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment guidance, including Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments as well as guidance from South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), and CARB. The HRA fully analyzes the health risks to children and adults of all ethnicities and backgrounds. The HARP model specifically includes the risks for children by using higher breathing rates and a 9-year exposure period, both of which are designed to be protective of children's health. As described on Pages 10-14 of the HRA, Appendix C of the Draft EIR, the HRA includes all traffic information, including vehicle daily trips and number of truck trips generated, number of loading dock doors, truck idling and on-site queuing to determine the potential risk to all nearby sensitive receptors, including the senior residential apartment building located east of the project site and the Meadows residential community. Furthermore, the operational HRA analysis assumes continuous exposure over a 25- and 30-year exposure period for both people living and working near the project site. This represents a conservative scenario because it assumes that individuals are exposed to the maximum potential emissions consistently over the entire duration without Item: 9
1133
12 Appeal Issue Response
accounting for potential mitigating factors such as improved vehicle technology, or implementation of emission-reduction measures over time. By modeling the worstcase exposure conditions, the HRA ensures that the analysis is conservative and likely overstates rather than understates the impact, thereby providing a protective assessment for public health.

As shown in Table 4.3.M, page 4.3-34 of Section 4.3, of the Draft EIR, with implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1, which requires the project to utilize Tier 4 Interim equipment or the most effective Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) available for the engine type as certified by the CARB during the construction period, the maximum cancer risk for the residential receptor MEI would be reduced from 41.14 in 1 million to 5.12 in 1 million, which is below the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in 1 million. Requiring the use of Tier 4 Interim equipment or most effective VDECS available for engine types is a common method of substantially reducing construction emissions attributed to the vehicles and is applied to development projects throughout the State. This equipment is readily available across fleet sizes, equipment types, and horsepower bins.5 Further, the project Applicant is committed to meeting the mitigation requirements as outlined in the Draft EIR and will be responsible for mitigation implementation through the MMRP. Therefore, with implementation of MM AQ-1, construction of the proposed project would not cause an exceedance of the SCAQMD health risk thresholds and would not result in the exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and no further mitigation is required.

Additionally, as shown in Table 4.3.N, page 4.3-35 of Section 4.3, of the Draft EIR, all health risk levels to nearby receptors from operation-related emissions of TACs would be well below the SCAQMD’s health risk thresholds. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during project operations. (FEIR, pp. 38-39.) Item: 9
1134
13 Appeal Issue Response
• The Project would increase air,
noise and light pollution in adjacent
residential neighborhoods
Noise: Note that Section 4.13 of the Draft EIR and the supporting Noise and Vibration Technical Analysis include an assessment of the construction noise (see page 4.13-17 of the Draft EIR, page 22 of Appendix H), construction vibration (page

4.13-20 of the Draft EIR, page 25 of Appendix H), off-site traffic noise and vibration (page 4.13-17 of the Draft EIR, page 28 of Appendix H), and off-site operational noise and vibration impacts (page 4.13-18 of the Draft EIR, page 31 of Appendix H) for the proposed project. The impact conclusion for each of the sections related to construction noise, operational noise, and traffic noise indicated that noise generated by the proposed project would not exceed established standards and standards that apply citywide and/or are specific to the project type and location, as applicable, and therefore, would not generate excessive noise to surrounding sensitive uses. (FEIR, p. 44.)
Light: As stated in Section 4.1, page 4.1-26, of the Draft EIR, in addition to the proposed project complying with Title 24 and Section 9.72.085 of the City of Lake Forest Municipal Code to ensure that project related light and glare impacts would be less than significant, development within the cumulative study area would also be required to comply with existing regulatory requirements related to light and glare including Title 24 and the City’s Municipal Code to reduce potential impacts associated with light and glare. If significant light and glare impacts of individual development projects within the cumulative study area are anticipated, appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented as part of the CEQA environmental review process for such projects. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to light and glare.

The light and glare analysis that was conducted for the proposed project took into consideration both stationary and dynamic lighting as well as potential cumulative impacts from implementation of the proposed project in combination with the cumulative projects identified in Table 4.A of the Draft EIR. (FEIR, p. 52.) Item: 9
1135
14 Appeal Issue Response
• The Project would undermine the
long-term livability, safety, and
environmental integrity of the City.

As reviewed by the City, the Project has been designed consistent with the Lake Forest General Plan Goals and Policies and all discretionary measures set forth in the City of Lake Forest Citywide Design Guidelines. These Guidelines are intended to guide proposed development so that it is aesthetically pleasing, high quality, and reflective of the character of the surrounding community. Furthermore, the Project would require a Site Development Permit, which would provide an opportunity for the City to review the physical improvements to the Project site, including the overall building scale, massing, and design to ensure compatibility and compliance with the Citywide Design Guidelines. (FEIR, p. 390.)
Regarding community health, the Draft EIR includes a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) (Appendix C of the Draft EIR) that fully analyzes the health risks to all sensitive receptors, which include residences, schools, workplaces, schools, daycare facilities, parks, nursing homes and hospitals surrounding the Project site, as described in Section 4.3, Air Quality, pages 4.3-31 through 4.3-22, of the Draft EIR, (refer to Master Response 9). Regarding 24/7 operations, Section 4.1, Aesthetics, pages 4.1-25 and - 26 of the Draft EIR includes a thorough analysis of potential impacts related to Project lighting, which presumably would be operated during evening and nighttime hours. Also, refer to Master Response 12 regarding the assessment of lighting provided in the Draft EIR. Furthermore, the Draft EIR identified that daytime and nighttime noise levels during operation of the Project and the referenced cumulative projects would be 52.8 and 50.0 dBA Leq, respectively.

Therefore, the Draft EIR provides an appropriate assessment of potential nighttime operations (FEIR, p. 390.)
• The Project does not meet CARB’s
recommended warehouse setback
guidance from sensitive receptors
• This is inconsistent with the City’s
General Plan policies
The City acknowledges the State of California Attorney General's NOP comment letter and considered the issues presented in the letter during preparation of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR adequately evaluates air pollution and health risks associated with the Project, as described in Master Response 9. (FEIR, p. 388.) The State of California Attorney General's "Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act" Item: 9
1136
15 Appeal Issue Response
document provides recommendations and guidance for development and siting of warehouse projects throughout the State; it is not a standalone set of mandatory regulations. As established in the Draft EIR (Section 4.3.6, Table 4.3.1 on page 4.3- 27) emissions of NOx during construction would exceed established SCAQMD significance thresholds. Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1 requires the use of Tier 4 or the most effective Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) during project activities. This mitigation is similar to the suggested 'best practices" of equipping construction equipment with Tier 4 compliant measures or better.

Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requiring the control of fugitive dust, is a standard requirement of all development projects in the Basin. Implementation of MM AQ-1 would reduce emissions of NOx during construction to below SCAQMD thresholds (see Draft EIR, Table 4.3.J on page 4.3-28). Suggested 'Best Practices' relative to the use of low-VOC architectural coatings is addressed through MM AQ2, requiring the use of "supercompliant" low-VOC paint. This measure addresses cumulative VOC emissions. Emissions of all other construction pollutants, including fugitive dust, were determined to be less than SCAQMD thresholds. Regarding Health Risk, MM-1 sufficiently reduces the inhalation risk to below established thresholds (see Draft EIR, table 4.3.M on page 4.3-34). The Draft EIR did not identify significant operational-related air emission impacts (see Draft EIR, Table

4.3.K on page 4.3-29) or localized air quality impacts during construction or operation (see Draft EIR, Tables 4.3.0 on page 4.3-37 and 4.3.P on page 4.3-38).

No additional mitigation or best practices are required for the Project. (FEIR, p. 388) As suggested by Warehouse Project: Best Practices, the proposed Project would be consistent with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) and Assembly Bill (AB) 1881 water efficient landscape requirements. Additionally, the proposed Project would be consistent with California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) and requirements for solar photovoltaic systems. The proposed Project will be seeking Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification through the Applicant's LEED Volume program. Some of the features included in the design will include, but not be limited to, drought-tolerant landscaping, low-flow fixtures, high-efficiency lighting, solar, and Item: 9
1137
16 Appeal Issue Response
infrastructure for EV charging. The proposed Project identifies MM GHG-1, requiring the installation of EV truck charging in conjunction with tenant improvements. In compliance with the SCAQMD Rule 2305 (WAIRE) the future owners and operators of the proposed Project would be required to comply with the WAIRE Program's point based emission reduction and reporting requirements through the SCAQMD permitting process. The project features provided and mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR, in tandem with compliance with the applicable provision of the WAIRE program sufficiently satisfy the intent of Warehouse Projects: Best Practices by requiring the implementation of practices or actions to reduce air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. (FEIR, p. 388.)
As the Draft EIR did not identify significant noise impacts, the implementation of mitigation or suggested best practices is not required, though through building orientation and the construction of screening features, the proposed Project satisfies several suggested measures for reducing noise at nearby receptors. (FEIR, p. 388) The Warehouse Projects: Best Practices are suggestions and recommendations for warehouse development and would not result in a greater reduction of the proposed Project’s identified impacts than that already achieved through the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. The mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR along with the project design features achieved through LEEDs certification, compliance with appropriate provisions of the CALGreen and Energy Codes, and compliance with existing SCAQMD policies (e.g., Rules 403 and 2305), collectively satisfy the intent of Warehouse Project: Best Practices, relative to the air quality, greenhouse gas, health risk, and noise conditions associated with proposed Project. (FEIR, p. 389.)
Beginning January 1, 2026, AB 98 applies different development standards to logistics use facilities based on various factors including: (1) whether a facility’s size exceeds 250,000 square feet; (2) whether loading bays (i.e., dock doors) are less than 900 feet from a sensitive receptor (including residences, schools, daycare facilities, parks, nursing homes and hospitals); (3) whether the site’s existing zoning Item: 9
1138
17 Appeal Issue Response
is industrial or non-industrial; (4) whether the site is located in a “warehouse concentration region”; and (5) the entitlement application date for the new or expanded facility. The application for the Project was deemed complete prior to September 30, 2024; therefore, AB 98 does not apply to the Project. As established in the Draft EIR, Project-specific impacts relative to aesthetics, air quality, healthrisk, and noise were determined to be less than significant. (FEIR, p. 389.) Nevertheless, the proposed Project incorporates site design features and physical buffers that achieve the underlying intent of the warehouse setback guidance, which is to reduce exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to truck-related emissions.

As described in Master Response 7, in the FEIR, the Project includes setbacks and buffers between industrial uses and nearby residential communities. The building and loading areas are set back more than 200 feet from the nearest residential property line, and the dock doors and loading areas are oriented to the southeast, away from the adjacent residences, reducing direct exposure to emissions. In addition, the Project includes enhanced landscaping with mature trees exceeding City requirements along the northeastern site boundary, further increasing separation and visual buffering from the Meadows residential community. A 16-foothigh, 65-foot-long screen wall is also proposed along the eastern end of the loading docks to block views of truck activity and loading operations from nearby residences. These design features, combined with required mitigation measures and regulatory compliance (including SCAQMD Rule 2305 [WAIRE] and projectspecific health risk mitigation), reduce both the proximity and intensity of potential exposure. While the Project may not meet all recommended setback distances identified in CARB guidance, it implements multiple physical design measures and enforceable mitigation strategies that fulfill the intent of those recommendations.

The City’s latest General Plan Update (2040 Lake Forest General Plan Update) was approved in June 2020 and provided the long-term vision for land use development in the City. The land use designation and zoning for the Project and cumulative sites Item: 9
1139
18 Appeal Issue Response
is the same as that considered in the City’s most recent General Plan. The Project site has been zoned Light Industrial (LI) since 1987. (FEIR, p. 389.) One of the primary objectives of the City’s 2040 General Plan is to encourage economic development in areas adjacent to major roadways and transportation corridors, ensuring a diverse mix of land uses that supports the community’s ability to thrive and be economically sustainable over time. City General Plan policies seek to balance economic development, fiscal stability, and land use compatibility. As detailed in the Draft EIR (refer to Table 4.11.B, starting on page 4.11-10), the Project is consistent with the applicable land use compatibility policies established in the General Plan. Furthermore, by providing for the redevelopment of a currently underutilized site, the Project satisfies the goals and policies of the General Plan to promote economic development and support the fiscal health of the City. (FEIR, p. 389.)
The cumulative projects were included in the Draft EIR’s quantitative analysis of air quality, health risk, noise, and traffic impacts, and qualitatively in the consideration of the other environmental issues addressed in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR appropriately assesses the Project-specific and cumulative impacts associated with development of the proposed use. Refer to Master Response 6 and the Response to Comment 0-6-4 regarding the Project's cumulative analysis. (FEIR, p. 390.) Noise Pollution
• Noise mitigation measures are not
sufficiently enforceable or it is
unclear who is responsible for
them.

No mitigation measures are proposed for noise impacts in the DEIR. Instead, regulatory compliance measures NOI-1, limiting construction activity hours in accordance with the Municipal Code and NOI-2, requiring a pre-construction vibration assessment, are listed in the DEIR.

NOI-1 requires adherence to the Lake Forest Municipal Code, including construction hours and noise standards. These requirements are mandatory and enforced by the City’s Code Enforcement Division through citations, fines, stop-work orders, and Item: 9
1140
19 Appeal Issue Response
other remedies. NOI-2 (pre-construction vibration assessment) is implemented through the City’s permitting process and verified during plan check and inspections.

Any approved project and subsequent use of the site is subject to the LFMC, which regulates noise, public nuisance, and operational standards, all of which are enforceable by the City through code enforcement actions. The City ensures compliance through permit review, inspections, and enforcement actions, including permit revocation or work stoppage for noncompliance.

The project applicant (property owner/developer) and its contractors are responsible for implementing all requirements. The City retains oversight and enforcement authority.
• Operational noise assumptions
may not reflect actual warehouse
operations.

Quantitative evaluation of the potential noise generated by the Project was calculated according to industry standards and the Project was not determined to exceed significance thresholds established by the City. In the absence of any such exceedance, no mitigation is warranted. (FEIR, p. 391.) Light Pollution
• EIR does not adequately analyze
cumulative lighting impacts from
nearby warehouse projects.

The Project site and the referenced cumulative projects are located within an urbanized area, previously developed with structures, expansive parking areas, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. Nighttime lighting in the Project area is part of the existing condition. Refer to Master Response 12 regarding the light and glare analysis prepared for the Project. Also, refer to the Response to Comment 0-6-4.

Regarding glare from solar systems, the concept of efficient solar power is to absorb as much light as possible, while reflecting as little light as possible; therefore, standard solar panels produce less glare and reflection than standard window glass.

On a more technical level, solar panels use "high transmission, low iron glass," which absorbs more light and produces less glare and reflectance than normal glass. It is anticipated the rooftop solar systems would be installed to maximize the production of electricity; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that glare and Item: 9
1141
20 Appeal Issue Response
reflection from rooftop solar panels would not generate a significant amount of glare onto adjacent properties. In addition, the Project would require a Site Development Permit, which would provide the opportunity for the City to review the physical improvements to the Project site, including the overall building scale, massing, and design to ensure compatibility and compliance with City requirements governing scenic quality. (FEIR, p. 392.)
Cumulative Impacts
• EIR minimizes or fails to address
cumulative impacts of the Project
along with the two proposed
Western Realco warehouse
projects.
• EIR fails to address cumulative
truck traffic and community health
impacts from heavy diesel trucks.

The proposed project's cumulative project list includes the proposed Western Realco Enterprise Way Industrial Project (Projects 1 and 2) (Cumulative Project Nos. 3 and 4), along with other industrial developments, residential developments, commercial developments, electrical testing facility, and cemetery expansion projects. The potential impacts of the cumulative projects identified in Table 4.A, page 4-5, of the Draft EIR combined with potential impacts from implementation of the proposed project were analyzed for each individual impact category addressed in Chapter 4.0 of the DEIR and the resulting cumulatively considerable impact and significance conclusion is provided under the Cumulative Impacts subheading in each section of Chapter 4.0. According to a CEQA Topic Paper published by the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), it is possible that a significant cumulative impact may occur where the project’s contribution (either on its own or with implementation of mitigation) can be determined to be less than cumulatively considerable. (FEIR, p. 25.)
In addition, as noted in Section 4.3.7, starting on page 4.3-39 of Section 4.3, Air Quality, and Section 4.13.7, starting on page 4.13-21 of Section 4.13, of the Draft EIR, because the Western Realco Enterprise Way Industrial Project (Projects 1 and 2) is a reasonably foreseeable project that would be located in the immediate vicinity of the project site and for the purposes of the analyses are assumed to have construction schedules that overlap with the proposed project, a quantitative evaluation of the combined impacts of constructing and operating the proposed project and the Western Realco Enterprise Way Industrial Project (Projects 1 and 2) Item: 9
1142
21 Appeal Issue Response
was prepared and presented in Sections 4.3.7 and 4.13.7 of the Draft EIR.

Additionally, the Health Risk Assessment (Appendix C of the Draft EIR) also quantitatively evaluated the impacts of implementing the proposed project in combination with the Western Realco Enterprise Way Industrial Project (Projects 1 and 2). It should be noted that the traffic analysis conducted for the proposed project is cumulative by nature in that it considered Opening Year (2027) with Cumulative Projects and therefore analyzed the proposed project combined with the projects identified in the cumulative projects list (Table 4.A, starting on page 4-5, of the Draft EIR) which includes the Western Realco Enterprise Way Industrial Project (Projects 1 and 2) (refer to Section 4.17.7, starting on page 4.17-16 of the Draft EIR).

Construction and operational details for the Western Realco Enterprise Way Industrial Project (Projects 1 and 2) were provided by that project applicant and reviewed by the City and its consultants to ensure that the assumptions were reasonable and consistent with the projects’ applications. Refer to Appendices C, H, and J of the Draft EIR for copies of the cumulative modeling prepared for the proposed project. (FEIR, p. 25.)
As stated in the AEP CEQA Topic Paper, cumulative impact analyses may provide a general discussion that addresses all of the potential cumulative impacts for a particular issue area. Consistent with this approach, each section of Chapter 4.0, which focused on individual environmental issue areas, included a sub-section discussing cumulative impacts. Based on the analysis provided in Chapter 4.0 of the Draft EIR, with the exception of GHG and VMT, the proposed project when evaluated in combination with the cumulative projects listed in Table 4.A of the Draft EIR and with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, would not result in significant cumulatively considerable impacts to the resources included in the Draft EIR. (FEIR, p. 25.)
Unknown Tenant
• Because no tenant has been
identified, the EIR cannot
Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Association does not support the proposition that a project applicant must identify a future Item: 9
1143
22 Appeal Issue Response
accurately evaluate 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.App.3d 929,
938.)
• EIR should evaluate a worst case
operational scenario.
tenant. Rather, the case involved a challenge to an EIR for a theater project where the facility ultimately constructed differed substantially from the project analyzed in the EIR. Specifically, the built project included approximately 2,000 additional seats, expanded from six to ten acres, and incorporated a substantially different stage configuration that directly faced nearby single-family residences. Under those circumstances, the court concluded that the agency's failure to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project actually approved and constructed.

Here, the Draft EIR acknowledges that the future tenant of the Project has not yet been identified; therefore, the Draft EIR conservatively evaluates potential environmental impacts based on a reasonably foreseeable range of uses consistent with the property’s Light Industrial (LI) zoning designation.

Additionally, tenant turnover occurs frequently, just as homeowners and businesses change over time in residential and commercial buildings. Agencies do not prepare a new EIR each time a tenant changes. Instead, the environmental analysis focuses on the approved land use, and the proposed use here is consistent with the permitted use that was analyzed. If a future tenant proposes a different use, that change would be subject to a separate approval process.

As described in Section 3.3, Project Characteristics, page 3-9, of Chapter 3.0, Project Description of the Draft EIR, the future tenant of the proposed Project has not yet been identified, and therefore evaluates all potential environmental impacts based on a reasonably foreseeable range of uses consistent with the property's Light Industrial (LI) zoning designation within the Pacific Commercentre Planned Community and Business Park (BP) General Plan land use designation. The Draft EIR includes mitigation measures and regulatory compliance measures that require discretionary permitting associated with future tenancy, ensuring appropriate hazardous materials protection at the time of tenant occupancy (FEIR, p. 122) Item: 9
1144
23 Appeal Issue Response
The Draft EIR acknowledges that the future tenant of the Project has not yet been identified; therefore, the Draft EIR conservatively evaluates potential environmental impacts based on a reasonably foreseeable range of uses consistent with the property’s Light Industrial (LI) zoning designation. Additionally, the mitigation measures and regulatory compliance measures provided in the Draft EIR require discretionary permitting associated with future tenancy, ensuring environmental protection at the time of tenant occupancy. This approach is consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126 and 15144, which require CEQA analysis to be based upon reasonably foreseeable development assumptions. (FEIR, p. 383) Number of dock doors
• 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 should be limited to
activity described in the EIR.
• The EIR should be revised to
analyze and mitigate the impacts
of full use of all dock doors.

The Project description includes 23 usable dock doors. The use of the Project’s dock doors was specifically evaluated in the air quality/greenhouse gas emissions analysis, health risk assessment, and noise and vibration analysis in the EIR as described below.
• Health Risk Assessment (HRA) (Appendix C of the DEIR): The HRA incorporates all relevant operational inputs, including total daily vehicle trips, truck trips, number of dock doors (23), truck idling, and on-site queuing, to evaluate potential exposure.
• Operational emissions modeling: Emissions are based on Project-level trip generation, which reflects the full buildout and operational capacity of the site, including truck activity associated with loading dock use. • Sensitive receptor analysis: The HRA evaluates risk at all nearby receptors, including the senior residential apartment building east of the site and the Meadows residential community, using these conservative inputs.

Item: 9
1145
24 Appeal Issue Response
• Noise and vibration analysis: The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis technical report (Appendix H of the DEIR) and noise analysis in the EIR includes the Project’s 23 dock doors. The specific source consideration of truck loading and unloading accurately assesses a conservative assumption that within any given hour, half of the loading docks would be in operation simultaneously. This is not considered a restriction or limitation of operations, but a reasonable assumption of daily operations.

Alternatives / Statement of Overriding Considerations
• The EIR should evaluate
environmentally superior and
lower-impact alternatives,
including an office park or other
non-industrial uses
• The Reduced Project Alternative
or other lower intensity
alternatives were not adequately
considered
• The City must demonstrate why
environmentally superior
alternatives are infeasible before
approving the Project.

CEQA does not require an EIR to analyze every conceivable permutation of a project. Rather, an EIR need only evaluate a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives sufficient to foster informed decision making and public participation. (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15126.6.) If an EIR evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives, it need not analyze every alternative suggested by members of the public or other agencies. (South of Market Community Action Network v. City & County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 345; Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 214, 256.) The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to identify feasible alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen a project's significant environmental effects. (Pub.

Resources Code, §§ 21002, 21002.1, 21100; 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15126.6(a), (b); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. App.3d 376, 403.) Here, there is no substantial evidence that an office park or other non-industrial use would reduce VMT impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Accordingly, CEQA does not require analysis of such alternatives merely because they represent different development scenarios.

Additionally, the commenter does not provide any support to show that the Reduced Project Alternative or other lower intensity alternatives were not adequately considered.

Item: 9
1146
25 Appeal Issue Response
Public Resources Code Section 21100 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 require an EIR to identify and discuss a No Project Alternative and a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental impacts. (DEIR, p. 1-3.)
CEQA does not require the City to choose the environmentally superior alternative.

Instead CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, explain the considerations that led it to conclude that those alternatives were infeasible from a policy standpoint, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. The EIR is a public disclosure document. It is the responsibility of the City to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed Project against its significant unavoidable environmental impacts before approving the Project. As mandated under CEQA, the City will make appropriate findings regarding the infeasibility of alternatives if it adopts the proposed Project or an alternative that has significant unmitigable impacts. (FEIR, p. 394.)
Three alternatives were determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives.

Alternative 1 – No project alternative, Alternative 2- Previous use and associated site development permit, and Alternative 3- Reduced project alternative. (DEIR, p. 1-

4.)
Alternative 3 was identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative in the Draft EIR as it would result in similar or reduced impacts as the proposed Project. While the number of daily trips is reduced, compared to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would still result in a significant and unavoidable transportation impact related to VMT and a significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions. While Alternative 3 would meet the Project’s objectives, the Item: 9
1147
26 Appeal Issue Response
objectives would not be met to the same degree as the proposed Project. (FEIR, p. 393.)
Alternative 3 would not meet the Project Applicant’s business objectives. The business plan created when the property was acquired was predicated on designing a project that optimizes site coverage while adhering to land use regulations and providing necessary infrastructure. The proposed Project, as designed, represents the minimum development intensity necessary to achieve the Project Applicant’s fundamental business objectives. Since the Project’s initial conception, material changes in market conditions have substantially affected project feasibility. Notably, construction costs for comparable industrial developments have increased by approximately 22 percent between 2021 and 2025. At the same time, lease rates have remained relatively flat. In addition, the Project has incurred increased additional capital obligations through City-required off-site infrastructure improvements associated with the entitlement process, further elevating total development costs and constraining viability. (FEIR, pp. 393-394.) Alternative 3 would substantially reduce the overall building area and site coverage.

However, the Project Applicant has submitted evidence regarding the economic infeasibility of Alternative 3. For example, the Project Applicant provided evidence that development costs are not linearly scalable with building area due to the presence of many fixed and quasi-fixed costs, including site acquisition, entitlement, permitting, infrastructure, and certain construction components. Therefore, a reduction in project size would not yield a commensurate reduction in total project costs on a per-square-foot basis. In contrast, lease revenues are directly correlated with leasable area and would decrease proportionally with a reduction in building square footage. Accordingly, the Project Applicant provided evidence that Alternative 3 would materially degrade the Project’s revenue-to-cost relationship and preclude the achievement of the Project Applicant’s business objectives, thereby rendering the Project economically infeasible. Because the proposed Project already reflects a constrained development program necessary to maintain financial Item: 9
1148
27 Appeal Issue Response
viability under current market conditions, the Project Applicant provided that further reduction in scale would prevent the Project from meeting its core business objectives and would not be economically feasible. (FEIR, p. 394.) • EIR should evaluate additional
land use alternatives that are more
compatible with nearby
residences.

An EIR need not consider all potential alternatives to a project. Instead, an EIR need only discuss a “reasonable range” of alternatives. 14 Cal Code Regs §15126.6(a).

See §15.11. If an EIR evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives, it is not required to study additional alternatives suggested by members of the public or other agencies. (South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 345; Center for Biological Diversity v.

Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 214, 256.) The basic purpose of an EIR’s discussion of alternatives is to suggest ways project objectives might be achieved at less environmental cost. Consistent with this purpose, alternatives must be able to implement most project objectives, but they need not be able to implement all of them. (Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 489.)
The Draft EIR identified alternatives that meet the City's primary Project objectives for the site and reduce, in part, the significant impacts associated with the Project, the Draft EIR provides a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. (FEIR, p. 392.)
The Project site and the referenced cumulative projects are located within an urbanized area, previously developed with structures, expansive parking areas, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. One of the primary objectives of the City's 2040 General Plan is to encourage economic development in areas adjacent to major roadways and transportation corridors, ensuring a diverse mix of land uses that supports the community’s ability to thrive and be economically sustainable over time. The Project objectives identified in the Draft EIR recognize the existing vacant condition of the site, its current industrial zoning, and proximity of industrial uses to transportation features; therefore, the alternatives are consistent with key objectives of the City’s General Plan, and the evaluation of the identified alternatives against the stated objectives is appropriate. As noted, the Draft EIR includes an alternative Item: 9
1149
28 Appeal Issue Response
that would allow the reuse of the existing structure to accommodate office and similar uses, and identifies an alternative to reduce the size of the proposed industrial uses. (FEIR, p. 393.)
As required under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the City considered a reasonable range of alternatives that lessen the Project's contribution to significant environmental impacts. Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR includes a robust discussion of alternatives to the Project including a comparative quantification of each alternative’s contribution to the environmental impacts. (FEIR, p. 393.) CEQA also requires the identification of an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. While Alternative 1 would avoid the impacts of the proposed Project, it would not achieve the beneficial impacts of the proposed Project including re-envisioning 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, and creating employment opportunities. While Alternative 1 would be environmentally superior in the technical sense in that contribution to the aforementioned impacts would not occur, it would fail to achieve all but one of the Project’s objectives. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) provides that, if the No Project/No Build Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives. (FEIR, p. 393.)
Of the other alternatives, Alternative 2 would only meet three of the Project objectives and would result in similar or reduced environmental impacts compared to the proposed Project; though it would still result in a significant and unavoidable transportation impact related to VMT and a significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions. (FEIR, p. 393.) Alternative 3 was identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative in the Draft EIR as it would result in similar or reduced impacts as the proposed Project. While Item: 9
1150
29 Appeal Issue Response
the number of daily trips is reduced, compared to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would still result in a significant and unavoidable transportation impact related to VMT and a significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions. While Alternative 3 would meet the Project’s objectives, the objectives would not be met to the same degree as the proposed Project. (FEIR, p. 393.)
However, Alternative 3 would not meet the Project Applicant’s business objectives.

The business plan created when the property was acquired was predicated on designing a project that optimizes site coverage while adhering to land use regulations and providing necessary infrastructure. The proposed Project, as designed, represents the minimum development intensity necessary to achieve the Project Applicant’s fundamental business objectives. Since the Project’s initial conception, material changes in market conditions have substantially affected project feasibility. Notably, construction costs for comparable industrial developments have increased by approximately 22 percent between 2021 and 2025. At the same time, lease rates have remained relatively flat. In addition, the Project has incurred increased additional capital obligations through City-required offsite infrastructure improvements associated with the entitlement process, further elevating total development costs and constraining viability. (FEIR, p. 394.) Alternative 3 would substantially reduce the overall building area and site coverage.

However, the Project Applicant has submitted evidence regarding the economic infeasibility of Alternative 3. For example, the Project Applicant provided evidence that development costs are not linearly scalable with building area due to the presence of many fixed and quasi-fixed costs, including site acquisition, entitlement, permitting, infrastructure, and certain construction components. Therefore, a reduction in project size would not yield a commensurate reduction in total project costs on a per-square-foot basis. In contrast, lease revenues are directly correlated with leasable area and would decrease proportionally with a reduction in building square footage. Accordingly, the Project Applicant provided evidence that Alternative 3 would materially degrade the Project's revenue-to-cost relationship and Item: 9
1151
30 Appeal Issue Response
preclude the achievement of the Project Applicant's business objectives, thereby rendering the Project economically infeasible. Because the proposed Project already reflects a constrained development program necessary to maintain financial viability under current market conditions, the Project Applicant provided that further reduction in scale would prevent the Project from meeting its core business objectives and would not be economically feasible. (FEIR, p. 394.) Economic viability is a factor that may be considered when assessing the feasibility of alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines§ 15126.G(f)(l); Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1401.) CEQA does not require the City to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, explain the considerations that led it to conclude that those alternatives were infeasible from a policy standpoint, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. The EIR is a public disclosure document. It is the responsibility of the City to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed Project against its significant unavoidable environmental impacts before approving the Project. As mandated under CEQA, the City will make appropriate findings regarding the infeasibility of alternatives if it adopts the proposed Project or an alternative that has significant unmitigable impacts. (FEIR, p. 394.)
• 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;
As appropriate, the Draft EIR has identified mitigation to reduce the significance of impacts resulting from the proposed Project, and potential alternatives that could also reduce significant effects. In the case of GHG and VMT impacts, while mitigation has been identified to the extent feasible, significant unavoidable impacts remain.

As detailed in Master Response 2, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15043, a public agency can approve a project even though a project would cause a significant impact on the environment provided there is no feasible way to Item: 9
1152
31 Appeal Issue Response
CEQA Guidelines sections
15043,15093(b).)
lessen or avoid the significant impact, and specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding the significant environmental impacts of the project. In such instances, the lead agency must state, in writing, the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record in a statement of overriding considerations supported by substantial evidence. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, the City will make findings for each significant and unavoidable impact and will adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which, in combination with determinations for feasible alternatives, will be made by the City Council during Project consideration. No further response is required because the commenter’s concern regarding Statements of Overriding Considerations pertain to the decisionmaking process which has yet to occur. (FEIR, p. 395.) • The alternatives analysis should
reflect the current existing
residential uses surrounding the
site rather than historical zoning
patterns.

As required under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the City considered a reasonable range of alternatives that lessen the Project's contribution to significant environmental impacts. Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR includes a robust discussion of alternatives to the Project including a comparative quantification of each alternative’s contribution to the environmental impacts. (FEIR, p. 393.) The alternatives analysis contained in Chapter 5.0 of the DEIR does incorporate and reflect the current existing residential uses surrounding the site, rather than only relying on historical zoning patterns. In fact, it is because of these adjacent residential uses that a comprehensive Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared and additional buffering was incorporated into the project design.

Proposed Mitigation Measures
• Reducing the scale or intensity of
warehouse operations;
The EIR has already evaluated a reduced intensity alternative. The Draft EIR analyzes Alternative 3, the 25% reduced project alternative and identifies it as the Environmentally Superior Alternative because it would result in similar or reduced impacts as the proposed Project. While Alternative 3 would reduce the number of daily trips compared to the proposed project, it would still result in a significant and Item: 9
1153
32 Appeal Issue Response
unavoidable transportation impact related to VMT and a significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions. While Alternative 3 would meet the Project’s objectives, the objectives would not be met to the same degree as the proposed Project. (FEIR, p. 393.)
Alternative 3 would not meet the project’s business objectives. The proposed Project, as designed, represents the minimum development intensity necessary to achieve the Project Applicant’s fundamental business objectives. Additionally, the Project Applicant has submitted evidence regarding the economic infeasibility of Alternative 3. Because the proposed Project already reflects a constrained development program necessary to maintain financial viability under current market conditions, the Project Applicant provided that further reduction in scale would prevent the Project from meeting its core business objectives and would not be economically feasible. (FEIR, p. 394.)
• Increasing buffers and physical
separation between the Project
and homes and senior housing,
The Project already includes substantial setbacks and buffers between industrial uses and nearby residential communities. The building and loading areas are set back more than 200 feet from the nearest residential property line, and the dock doors and loading areas are oriented to the southeast, away from the adjacent residences, reducing direct exposure to emissions. In addition, the Project includes enhanced landscaping with mature trees exceeding City requirements along the northeastern site boundary, further increasing separation and visual buffering from the Meadows residential community. A 16-foot-high, 65-foot-long screen wall is also proposed along the eastern end of the loading docks to block views of truck activity and loading operations from nearby residences. Accordingly, the Project already incorporates the type of buffers and physical separation requested by the commenter.
• Landscaping buffers between the
Project and homes and senior
housing, in combination with sound
The Project already includes landscaping and sound attenuation features consistent with this recommendation. Specifically, the project provides enhanced landscaping with mature trees exceeding City requirements along the northeastern site boundary, increasing separation and visual buffering from the Meadows residential Item: 9
1154
33 Appeal Issue Response
attenuation measures such as
walls;
community. A 16-foot-high, 65-foot-long screen wall is also proposed along the eastern end of the loading docks to block views of truck activity and loading operations from nearby residences. The screen wall would be solid, without gaps, and would break the line-of-site from loading dock operations to adjacent uses (i.e., the unloading of goods within trailers parked at the docks and the movement of truck into and out of the docks), resulting in reduced noise levels at adjacent sensitive receptors. Additionally, the impact conclusion for each of the sections related to construction noise, operational noise, and traffic noise indicated that noise generated by the proposed project would not exceed established standards and standards that apply citywide and/or are specific to the project type and location, as applicable, and therefore, would not generate excessive noise to surrounding sensitive uses. Therefore, no additional landscaping or sound wall mitigation is warranted. (FEIR, p. 44)
• Eliminating truck ingress and
egress routes immediately
adjacent to residential
neighborhoods;
While the onsite circulation system is less than 200 ft from the residences in certain locations, truck activity in these locations would be limited to driving between the ingress/egress and the dock doors.
• Relocating loading and truck
activity areas to the portions of the
Project site furthest from homes;
The loading area is more than 200 ft from the residences and is buffered by the noise wall, vegetation, and slope.
• Enforceable limits on the number
of truck trips permitted in any time
interval;
The EIR conservatively analyzed the Project’s anticipated truck activity. As shown in the Project Trip Generation Summary in the traffic impact analysis (refer to page 18 of Appendix J in the Draft EIR), the proposed project is estimated to generate 115 daily truck trips, including 15 a.m. peak-hour and 15 p.m. peak-hour truck trips (both inbound and outbound to and from the project site). LSA, in coordination with the City, reviewed all potential mitigation measures that are listed in the City’s TA Guidelines and 2024 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook to mitigate the project’s VMT impact as much as possible. (FEIR, p. 33) Item: 9
1155
34 Appeal Issue Response
• Ongoing monitoring and reporting
requirements for metrics
measuring truck traffic, Project
noise, and air quality;
The Final EIR includes a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure implementation of all adopted mitigation measures. The mitigation measures described in the Draft EIR have been recommended in order to reduce the identified potential physical environmental impacts of the project, to the extent feasible and as authorized under CEQA. The implementation strategy and timing for all mitigation measures is presented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (refer to Chapter 7.0 of the Draft EIR). Impacts to noise and air quality were found to be less than significant and less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation measures are not warranted to reduce an impact that is not significant, or to further reduce an impact that is less than significant with the incorporation of a mitigation measure in the MMRP. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented according to the procedures, timing, and responsibilities identified in the mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR. (FEIR, p. 16).
• Clear compliance and enforcement
mechanisms, including
consequences for violations
(required by CEQA for all
mitigation);
The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented according to the procedures, timing, and responsibilities identified in the mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR. The MMRP is required to be adopted and implemented per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 if the project is approved and identifies: (1) the timing for implementation (e.g., prior to issuance of permits, certain phases of construction, certificate of occupancy), including the applicable project development phase; (2) the responsibility for implementation; and (3) the entity responsible for providing implementation oversight, whether it be the City or another public agency, and how that measure would be monitored and enforced. The MMRP ensures that the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR are implemented and fully enforced by the applicable oversight agencies through City-issued permit conditions. (FEIR, p. 16)
• Restrictions on higher-intensity
warehouse uses that could
Additional restrictions on warehouse uses are not warranted because the EIR analyzes the approved Light Industrial use under conservative operational assumptions and evaluates the reasonably foreseeable impacts of that use. The EIR also considered alternative land uses, including an office development, and Item: 9
1156
35 Appeal Issue Response
generate impacts beyond those
analyzed in the EIR; and
concluded that the alternative would result in a net increase in 844 daily trips compared to the proposed project, and therefore, would result in an increase in operational impacts to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation, compared to the proposed project. Similarly, shifting the proposed land use to other suggested land uses (mixed-use, research and development, medical, or clean-technology non-industrial uses) could also result in a potential increase in trip generation and subsequent increases in operational impacts to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation. Further, significant and unavoidable impacts related to VMT and GHG emissions would still occur under these alternatives and similar land use change alternatives • Additional City review if future
tenants propose materially
different operations than those
assumed during environmental
review
Tenant turnover occurs frequently, just as homeowners and businesses change over time in residential and commercial buildings. Agencies do not prepare a new EIR each time a tenant changes. Instead, the environmental analysis focuses on the approved land use, and the proposed use here is consistent with the permitted use that was analyzed. If a future tenant proposes a different use, that change would be subject to a separate approval process.

Public Access and Conditions of Approval
• Conditions of Approval were
allegedly introduced too late, were
not read aloud line by line, and
were not provided to each person
in the meeting, precluding
meaningful public comment.

The conditions of approval reflect the direction given by the Planning Commission in open session during the June 4/5, 2026, public hearing and did not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment or participate. The Commission discussed the proposed measures in open session, and the draft conditions were subsequently projected on the screen and made available at the back of the room.

There was no basis to reopen the public hearing once it had already been closed.

The Planning Commission directed staff, in open session, to prepare conditions consistent with the Commission's recommendations, and staff did so. A comparison of the adopted conditions with the hearing transcript demonstrates that the conditions track the Commission's direction.

Item: 9
1157
36 Appeal Issue Response
Accordingly, there was no Brown Act violation. The Commission's deliberations and direction to staff occurred in an open public meeting.
• The Conditions of Approval added
at the Planning Commission
meeting do not appear to satisfy
CEQA’s requirements for concrete,
enforceable mitigation.
• The City has not explained who
will monitor round-the-clock
compliance with these new
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 thirdparty 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.

There is a clear distinction between mitigation measures under CEQA and the conditions of approval added at the Planning Commission meeting. Under CEQA, mitigation measures are any action that is designed to minimize, reduce, or avoid a significant environmental impact or to rectify or compensate for the impact (14 Cal.

Code Regs. §15370.) In contrast, the Planning Commission’s recommended conditions of approval were not intended to reduce environmental impacts. Rather, they were designed to protect the peace and tranquility of the adjacent uses.

CEQA is concerned with protecting the physical environment, and not quality of life concerns on their own (Preserve Poway v. City of Poway (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 560, 576.) Therefore, the Planning Commission’s conditions of approval are not mitigation measures under CEQA and are not required to satisfy CEQA’s standards for mitigation.

Conditions of approval are enforced by the City’s Code Enforcement Division, and violations of the conditions are subject to an administrative penalty in accordance with Chapter 1.16 (Administrative Citations) of the Lake Forest Municipal Code (“LFMC”). Continued or repeated violations shall result in additional enforcement actions, including but not limited to modification, suspension, or revocation of applicable permits, consistent with City regulations.

During the public hearing, the Planning Commission added a condition of approval to the SDP resolution that generally restricts commercial truck traffic on the project site to a maximum of 15 trucks per hour during daytime hours and four trucks per hour during nighttime hours (Condition # 87 in the Planning Commission Resolution). This condition is based on the truck trip assumptions used in the EIR.

Staff is recommending revising the condition and adding 2 new conditions to provide Item: 9
1158
37 Appeal Issue Response
more clarity and strengthen the enforceability of the condition. The new recommended conditions are summarized below:
• Clarify that the condition refers to truck trips, which is a truck entering or exiting the project site, during daytime and nighttime hours; • Require the property owner to install and maintain a security camera system that provides the date and time of each truck arrival and departure; • Requires the property owner to retain a third party to verify monitoring data and submit quarterly reports to the City; and
• Provides that each truck in excess of the number of trucks allowed per the conditions, shall constitute a separate violation, subject to an administrative penalty in accordance with LFMC Chapter 1.16 (Administrative Citations).

Item: 9
1159
Attachment 10
Item: 9
1160
From: Hong Chao
To: Council
Subject: Concern Regarding the Proposed Enterprise Way Warehouse Projects Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 9:39:07 PM
Dear Mayor and Members of the Lake Forest City Council, My name is Hong Chao, and I am a homeowner in The Meadows community. My home is located very close to the proposed warehouse developments on Enterprise Way. I respectfully ask the City Council to carefully reconsider the scale of these projects and their impact on nearby residential neighborhoods.

I chose to purchase my home because of the quality, safety, and residential character of this community. As a homeowner, I am deeply concerned that constructing large warehouse facilities so close to our neighborhood will negatively affect the desirability of our community and may reduce the value of our homes.

My greatest concerns include:

Heavy truck traffic traveling near our neighborhood throughout the day.

Noise, air pollution, and diesel emissions affecting the quality of life for nearby residents.

Safety concerns resulting from large warehouses and increased truck traffic on local roads.

The loss of the residential character that attracted many families to purchase homes here.

The Meadows is a beautiful residential community with many higher-value homes. Constant truck traffic and industrial activity immediately adjacent to our neighborhood will make the area less attractive to current and future homeowners. I believe this could have a significant impact on our property values and on the long-term quality of life for residents.

I understand that economic development is important. However, I respectfully ask the City Council to seek a better balance between business development and protecting established residential neighborhoods.

Specifically, I ask the City Council to consider:

Reducing the size of the proposed warehouse buildings.

Item: 9
1161
Increasing the buffer distance and landscaped separation between the warehouses and nearby homes.

Exploring project modifications that would lessen truck traffic and other impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.

I appreciate your time, your service to our community, and your thoughtful consideration of the concerns of nearby residents. I respectfully ask you to protect our neighborhood while considering the future development of Lake Forest.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Hong Chao
Homeowner, The Meadows
Lake Forest, California
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1162
Item: 9
1163
From: 张方仁
To: Council
Subject: Honorable Members of the City Council and Distinguished Guests: Good evening! We firmly oppose this warehouse project. Urban development must never come at the expense of residents’ health, safety, and quality of life. Once the project is built, the ...

Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 5:06:07 PM
发自我的iPhone
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1164
From: Connie Ding
To: Council
Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Voigts, Scott; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Mansur, Jennifer Subject: I respectfully request that this letter be included in the Administrative Record for this project.

Date: Thursday, July 2, 2026 7:54:24 AM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I respectfully ask the City to clarify several important issues before approving the IPT Enterprise Business Center.

The Traffic Impact Analysis in the EIR estimates project trips by applying separate ITE Land Use Codes for Office, Manufacturing, and General Warehouse (ITE Land Use Code 150). The warehouse component was therefore analyzed as a general warehouse, not as a high-intensity logistics or distribution facility.

However, the project now proposes approximately 90,803 square feet of warehouse space together with 23 loading docks.

This raises an important question. A warehouse of approximately 90,000 square feet is commonly designed with substantially fewer loading docks.

The proposed 23 loading docks appear to provide significantly greater freight-handling capacity than is typically associated with a general warehouse of this size.

If the City believes that 23 loading docks are necessary, please explain how that design is consistent with the assumptions used in the EIR. Conversely, if the project is expected to operate as the general warehouse analyzed in the EIR, why are so many loading docks needed?
I am also concerned that the approval documents identify only the total square footage of office, manufacturing, and warehouse uses, but do not appear to approve or permanently establish a corresponding internal floor plan.

Without an approved and enforceable floor plan, several important questions remain:

Which areas will actually be used for manufacturing?
Which areas will function as warehouse space?
Is the office area limited to a relatively small portion of the building? After a tenant occupies the building, could the internal layout be Item: 9
1165
reconfigured while still remaining within the approved building envelope?
These questions are important because changes in the internal allocation of office, manufacturing, and warehouse space could affect truck activity, employee trips, operational intensity, noise, and other environmental impacts analyzed in the EIR.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the City explain:

1. What mechanism will the City use to verify that the approved office, manufacturing, and warehouse areas remain consistent with the project analyzed in the EIR?

2. Will the final approved floor plan become part of the Site Development Permit and remain binding on future tenants?

3. If a future tenant proposes to substantially increase warehouse space, reduce manufacturing space, or otherwise change the operational program, how will the City determine whether the change remains consistent with the certified EIR?

4. Would such changes require additional City approval or further environmental review under CEQA?
To ensure that the project ultimately built and operated is the same project evaluated in the EIR, I respectfully request that the City consider requiring, as conditions of approval:

The final floor plan be incorporated into the approved project documents;
Future Tenant Improvement permits be reviewed for consistency with the approved allocation of office, manufacturing, and warehouse space;
Any material change in the approved land use allocation require prior City approval and, where appropriate, additional CEQA review.

Finally, I respectfully request that the City explain what enforcement mechanisms will apply if the approved operational program is not maintained. Specifically:

How will the City monitor compliance?
Which department will be responsible for enforcement?
Item: 9
1166
What actions will be taken if the approved land use allocation is changed without authorization?
These questions are fundamental to ensuring that the project approved by the City is the same project that was analyzed in the EIR. Clear approval conditions and meaningful enforcement are essential to protecting nearby residents and maintaining the integrity of the environmental review process.

I respectfully request that this letter be included in the Administrative Record for this project.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
A Concerned Lake Forest Resident
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1167
From: Connie Ding
To: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Yu, Benjamin; Voigts, Scott; Tettemer, Mark Cc: Council; Mansur, Jennifer
Subject: Plase Improve the IPT Enterprise Business Center Project Before Final Approval Date: Thursday, June 25, 2026 9:52:46 PM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I respectfully ask that you use the July 7 de novo hearing as an opportunity to improve the IPT Enterprise Business Center project before making a final decision.

The public notice compares the existing 144,906-square-foot Panasonic office building with a proposed 165,803-square-foot industrial building. At first glance, the increase appears modest. However, the existing building is a two-story office building, while the proposed building is essentially single-story, resulting in a much larger building footprint immediately adjacent to The Meadows. The long-standing transition between the industrial area and nearby homes would be removed, leaving homes only about 82 feet from the project site.

The project’s overall intensity also deserves further consideration. The environmental review indicates that the operational analysis was based on approximately 12 active loading docks, while Condition 87 now limits truck activity.

If that is the case, I respectfully ask:
● Why are 23 loading docks still necessary?
● Could a smaller building with fewer loading docks support the approved operations? ● If a 25% reduction was found infeasible, has the City considered intermediate alternatives, such as a 30% or 40% reduction?
The future tenant also remains unknown. Because the project could accommodate warehousing, logistics, manufacturing, pharmaceutical, or distribution uses, future operational impacts remain uncertain.

Without knowing who the future tenant will be, how can the City be confident that a project of this size and intensity will remain compatible with the homes next door? I respectfully ask the City Council to consider reducing the building size, reducing the number of loading docks, and adopting additional project modifications that better balance economic development with neighborhood compatibility.

I have attached several photographs that illustrate the relationship between the proposed project and the surrounding homes. I respectfully ask that you review them before making your decision.

I would greatly appreciate a brief acknowledgment confirming receipt of this letter and that it has been included in the public record for the July 7, 2026 City Council hearing.

Thank you for your time, your service to the residents of Lake Forest, and your thoughtful consideration.

Respectfully,
Connie Ding
The Meadows

Item: 9
1168
Lake Forest, California
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1169
From: Jason
To: Council
Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Voigts, Scott; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Mansur, Jennifer Subject: Please Clearly Define the Project Before Final Approval Date: Saturday, June 27, 2026 7:14:23 PM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I respectfully ask the City Council not to approve the IPT Enterprise Business Center project in its current form until the project is more clearly defined.

The public notice compares an existing 144,906-square-foot two-story office building with a proposed 165,803- square-foot single-story industrial building. Although the total floor area appears similar, the proposed building is designed to accommodate a much broader range of industrial operations.

The project includes 23 loading docks, yet the future tenant remains unknown. The proposed uses include office, manufacturing, warehousing, logistics, pharmaceutical, and distribution activities, each of which may have very different operational characteristics.

However, the public has not been provided with a detailed floor plan showing how much of the building will be used for office, manufacturing, or warehouse space.

Without this information, how can the City Council know what level and type of industrial activity is actually being approved?
I respectfully request that the applicant provide:
* A detailed floor plan identifying the office, manufacturing, and warehouse areas; * The square footage allocated to each use; and
* A requirement that these fundamental project characteristics become part of the approved project description and cannot be materially changed without further City review.

If this information changes the project description or the assumptions used in the environmental review, I respectfully ask the City Council to determine whether additional environmental review and renewed public review are appropriate before taking final action.

The City should clearly understand what it is approving before granting final approval. A clearly defined project protects the public, provides certainty for future property owners, and gives the City a clear basis for future oversight and enforcement.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

I would greatly appreciate a brief acknowledgment confirming receipt of this letter and that it has been included in the public record for the July 7, 2026 City Council hearing.

Respectfully,
Jason YE
Resident, The Meadows
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1170
From: Connie Ding
To: Council
Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Voigts, Scott; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Mansur, Jennifer Subject: Please Ensure That Project Conditions Are Enforceable and Protect the Long-Term Interests of Lake Forest Date: Thursday, July 2, 2026 8:08:39 AM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
As the City considers the IPT Enterprise Business Center, I respectfully ask the City Council to consider not only the impacts on nearby residents, but also the long-term impacts on the entire City of Lake Forest.

According to the EIR, the project will require off-site improvements at five public intersections to accommodate large truck turning movements and improve traffic operations. These improvements will be funded by the project applicant.

The need for these roadway improvements demonstrates that the project will place additional demands on the City’s transportation infrastructure.

However, the EIR focuses primarily on traffic operations, intersection capacity, and Level of Service (LOS). It does not appear to evaluate the long-term effects that heavy truck traffic may have on roadway deterioration, pavement life, future maintenance needs, or the associated public costs.

If future project operations generate greater heavy truck activity than assumed in the EIR, those long-term infrastructure costs should not become an unexpected burden on the residents and taxpayers of Lake Forest.

For this reason, I respectfully ask the City Council to consider whether the existing Conditions of Approval are sufficient to ensure that the project continues to operate within the assumptions evaluated in the EIR.

More importantly, any operational conditions should be enforceable.

A condition has little practical value if compliance cannot be verified or if violations carry no meaningful consequences.

I respectfully ask the City Council to ensure that each major operational condition clearly identifies:
• How compliance will be monitored;
• Who is responsible for monitoring and enforcement;
Item: 9
1171
• How residents may report suspected violations;
• The timeframe for the City’s investigation and response; • The penalties or corrective actions for repeated or significant violations; and
• Appropriate mechanisms to ensure that project operations remain consistent with the assumptions analyzed in the EIR.

If future operations substantially exceed those assumptions and create measurable additional impacts on public infrastructure, I respectfully encourage the City to evaluate appropriate mechanisms to ensure that the resulting public costs are fairly addressed rather than shifted to Lake Forest taxpayers.

This project is not simply about one property or one neighborhood.

It is about how Lake Forest manages growth, protects public infrastructure, and ensures that future development remains accountable to the community it serves.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Respectfully,
A Lake Forest Resident
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1172
From: Lyra Hudson
To: Council
Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Voigts, Scott; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Mansur, Jennifer Subject: Please Ensure That Project Conditions Are Enforceable and That Public Infrastructure Costs Are Not Shifted to Taxpayers
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 7:29:11 PM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
As the City considers the IPT Enterprise Business Center, I respectfully ask that any approval conditions be not only well-intentioned, but also practical, measurable, and enforceable.

Conditions are meaningful only if they can be effectively monitored and enforced. If operational limits cannot be verified or violations have little consequence, the conditions may provide limited protection for nearby residents or the community.

I respectfully ask the City Council to ensure that each major operational condition clearly identifies:
* How compliance will be monitored;
* Who is responsible for monitoring;
* How residents can report suspected violations;
* What enforcement actions will be taken if violations occur; and * Whether meaningful penalties will apply for repeated or significant violations.

I also encourage the City Council to consider the long-term impact of heavy truck traffic on public infrastructure.

The EIR discusses traffic operations and proposes improvements at five intersections to accommodate truck movements. However, if future operations generate greater impacts on City roadways than anticipated, the financial burden of additional roadway wear and maintenance should not fall primarily on Lake Forest taxpayers.

If project operations create measurable additional costs for public infrastructure beyond those analyzed in the EIR, the City should evaluate mechanisms to ensure that the project applicant, rather than the general public, bears an appropriate share of those costs.

This project will affect not only nearby residents but also the long-term transportation system and public resources of the entire City of Lake Forest.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Respectfully,
A Lake Forest Resident
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1173
From: Connie Ding
To: Council
Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Tettemer, Mark; Voigts, Scott; Yu, Benjamin; Merritt, Thy; Mansur, Jennifer Subject: Please Modify the IPT Enterprise Business Center Project Before Approval Date: Thursday, June 25, 2026 12:49:27 PM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I respectfully ask that you use the July 7 hearing as an opportunity to improve the IPT Enterprise Business Center project, rather than simply affirm the Planning Commission’s approval.

Because this is a de novo hearing, the City Council has the authority to exercise its own independent judgment and determine not only whether the project can be approved, but whether it can and should be improved.

The closest homes are only 82 feet from the project property line. This creates an unusually close interface between industrial operations and an established residential neighborhood.

The attached photographs help illustrate this unusually close relationship between the proposed industrial building and the existing homes. I respectfully ask that you take a moment to review them before making your decision.

For many years, the Panasonic office building served as an important transition between the industrial area and nearby homes. Replacing that office use with a high-intensity industrial building immediately adjacent to residences fundamentally changes the relationship between the two land uses.

In addition, the future tenant is still unknown. Because the long-term operations have not yet been identified, the project itself should provide lasting protection for nearby residents. Good planning should not rely on the hope that a future tenant will be a low-impact user. Instead, the project should be designed to remain compatible with surrounding homes regardless of who ultimately occupies the building.

While the loading dock doors face away from the neighborhood, residents will still experience truck circulation, parking, loading activities, lighting, noise, and other daily industrial operations occurring close to their homes. The Planning Commission added operational conditions, but those conditions do not resolve the underlying land use compatibility issue.

I respectfully ask the City Council to consider the following modifications before making a final decision:
● Reduce the overall building size.
● Reduce the number of loading docks to better reflect the approved truck limits. ● Move truck circulation, parking, and loading activities farther from nearby homes whenever feasible.
● Strengthen monitoring, enforcement, and accountability for all operational conditions.

The question before the City Council is not whether this property should be developed, but whether it should be developed in a manner that is compatible with the homes that already exist next door.

Item: 9
1174
The Planning Commission has completed its review. The City Council now has a unique opportunity to improve this project before it becomes permanent. The decision made on July 7 will shape this neighborhood for decades.

Finally, I respectfully invite each member of the City Council to visit the site before making a decision. Seeing the relationship between the proposed project and the surrounding homes in person provides a perspective that cannot be fully appreciated through maps or renderings.

I would appreciate a brief acknowledgment confirming receipt of this letter and that it has been included in the public record for the July 7, 2026 City Council hearing.

Thank you for your time, your service, and your thoughtful consideration.

Respectfully,
Connie Ding
Resident, The Meadows
Lake Forest, CA
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1175
From: Connie Ding
To: Council
Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Voigts, Scott; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Mansur, Jennifer Subject: Please Require the Applicant to Justify the Need for 23 Loading Docks Before Approving the IPT Project Date: Thursday, July 2, 2026 8:25:23 AM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I respectfully ask the City Council not to approve the IPT Enterprise Business Center in its current form.

After reviewing the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, and the Planning Commission’s revised Conditions of Approval, I believe an important question remains unanswered.

The EIR never demonstrates why this project requires 23 loading docks.

According to the EIR, the proposed building is approximately 165,803 square feet, consisting of approximately:
10,000 square feet of office space (about 6%)
65,000 square feet of manufacturing space (about 39%)
90,803 square feet of warehouse space (about 55%)
The Traffic Impact Analysis did not analyze the project as a dedicated logistics warehouse. Instead, it estimated trip generation using three different ITE land use categories—General Office, Manufacturing, and Warehousing—based on the building’s mixed-use composition.

The Noise and Vibration Report also assumed that only approximately one-half of the loading docks (12 docks) would operate simultaneously during the noise analysis.

In addition, the project’s original proposal included only 8 loading docks before it was later revised to 23 loading docks.

Finally, the Planning Commission adopted Condition 87, permanently limiting truck traffic to:
15 trucks per hour between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.;
4 trucks per hour between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

These facts raise a fundamental question:

Item: 9
1176
If the project’s traffic analysis, noise analysis, and operational conditions all assume a lower level of truck activity, what evidence supports retaining 23 loading docks?
The Draft EIR also analyzed a 25 percent Reduced Intensity Alternative, acknowledging that reducing the size of the project would lessen environmental impacts. Yet no analysis was performed to determine whether a further reduction in building size and loading docks would better reflect the operational limits imposed by Condition 87 or better achieve compatibility with the adjacent residential neighborhood.

Before approving this project, I respectfully request that the City Council require the applicant to answer the following questions:

1. What evidence demonstrates that 23 loading docks are necessary for the mixed-use project analyzed in the EIR?

2. Under the permanent truck limits established by Condition 87, what building size and number of loading docks are actually justified?

3. Why was the project allowed to increase from 8 loading docks to 23 loading docks, while the environmental analysis did not demonstrate that such an increase was necessary?

4. Should the building area and loading dock count be reduced to better match the operational assumptions analyzed in the EIR and the Planning Commission’s revised conditions?
The purpose of CEQA is not only to disclose environmental impacts, but also to avoid or reduce those impacts whenever feasible.

If the City has already concluded that truck activity must be limited to protect nearby homes, then the physical design of the project should also be reconsidered.

Approving a project with substantially greater loading capacity than appears to be supported by the EIR or the revised operational conditions would leave residents with a project that is larger than necessary and less compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the City Council reject the project in its current form or require the applicant to substantially reduce the building size and loading dock count before any final approval.

Item: 9
1177
Thank you for your time and your consideration.

Respectfully,
Connie Ding
Lake Forest Resident
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1178
From: Jenny Li
To: Council
Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Voigts, Scott; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Mansur, Jennifer Subject: Please Resolve Key EIR Questions Before Approving the IPT Enterprise Business Center Project Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 5:15:04 PM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Before making a final decision on the IPT Enterprise Business Center project, I respectfully ask you to consider the following important questions.

1. Is the project description in the EIR internally consistent? The transportation analysis states that, “In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis,” the project was evaluated as a Manufacturing Facility (ITE Code 140). However, in the Air Quality, Health Risk, and Hazardous Materials sections, the EIR repeatedly states that the future tenant is unknown and therefore the specific environmental impacts of future operations cannot be fully evaluated.

If it is reasonable to assume a manufacturing use for the transportation analysis, why is the same assumption not applied to other environmental analyses? Conversely, if the future use is too uncertain to evaluate environmental risks, why is the transportation analysis based on a manufacturing assumption? This inconsistency raises an important question as to whether the EIR has fully analyzed all reasonably foreseeable industrial uses and their potential environmental impacts.

2. How was the 82-foot distance determined?
The Draft EIR states that:
“The nearest sensitive receptors are residential uses located approximately 82 feet from the Project site’s eastern boundary.”
However, the EIR does not explain how this distance was measured, which residence it refers to, or whether it was measured to a property line, a building wall, or another reference point.

Residents deserve a clear explanation of how this important number was determined.

3. If the project is approved based on predicted compliance, how will the City ensure continued compliance after operations begin?
The Final EIR concludes that nighttime operational noise at the nearest homes will be approximately 50 dBA, meeting the City’s nighttime noise standard. In other words, the project is considered acceptable because the predicted noise level is right at the City’s limit, leaving virtually no safety margin.

Actual operations may differ from the assumptions used in the EIR depending on the future tenant, operating practices, truck activity, refrigerated trailers, backup alarms, and other factors.

I respectfully request that the City include enforceable long-term protections as conditions of approval, including:
* Permanent nighttime noise monitoring near the homes closest to the project; * Public reporting of monitoring results;
* Immediate investigation and enforcement if noise standards are exceeded.

If the City relies on the EIR’s predictions to approve this project, residents should not bear the consequences if those predictions prove inaccurate. The project applicant should be responsible for implementing corrective measures and Item: 9
1179
providing reasonable mitigation, such as sound insulation improvements, upgraded windows and doors, or HVAC enhancements when warranted.

4. Is this project consistent with the City’s land use compatibility principles? The Meadows community directly borders the project site with little meaningful buffer between residential and industrial uses. When the residential community was approved, the City knew this industrial property could eventually be redeveloped.

Why was a larger setback or a permanent low-intensity buffer, such as office uses, not required to better protect nearby residents?
Finally, I respectfully ask one simple question:

Are there any other industrial warehouse projects in Orange County, Los Angeles County, or elsewhere in California with approximately 23 loading docks located only 82 feet from an existing single-family residential neighborhood? If such examples exist, I respectfully ask that they be identified. If not, I urge the City Council to carefully consider whether this project truly reflects Lake Forest’s longstanding commitment to land use compatibility and high-quality community planning.

If these questions cannot be answered clearly, specifically, and with supporting evidence, I respectfully request that the City Council postpone approval of the project until these issues are fully addressed and enforceable long-term protections for nearby residents are established.

Thank you for your time, your service, and your careful consideration of the concerns raised by the community.

Respectfully,
A Concerned Lake Forest Resident
Jing Li
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1180
From: Kai Chung
To: Council; City Clerk; EnterpriseProjects; Planning; Mansur, Jennifer Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Tettemer, Mark; Voigts, Scott; Yu, Benjamin; Planning Commission; Stannard, Michael; Grable, Tom; Ludden, Thomas; Villwock, Jordan; Fuentes, Jolene; Ackerman, Gayle; Stonich, Amy; Santos, Ron; Musler, Connor
Subject: Procedural Objection to July 7 Appeal Hearing Notice and Request for Continuance — IPT Enterprise Business Center Project at 26200 Enterprise Way
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2026 10:33:51 AM
Dear Mayor Pequeño, City Council Members, City Clerk, City Attorney, Planning Commission, and Planning Staff,
I am submitting this procedural objection regarding the Notice of Public Hearing for the July 7, 2026 City Council appeal hearing concerning the IPT Enterprise Business Center project at 26200 Enterprise Way, Site Development Permit 06-21-5437, and Final EIR SCH #2024030755.

This objection is submitted for inclusion in the official administrative record and to preserve all rights and objections for any later judicial review.

The Notice states that the City Council hearing will be a hearing de novo and that the City Council may take any action it deems appropriate on the agenda item. The Notice also states that the City Council will be asked to consider the Final EIR, whether to certify the Final EIR, make environmental findings, adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Because this is a de novo hearing involving CEQA certification, environmental findings, overriding considerations, mitigation, project conditions, and a Site Development Permit for a controversial industrial project near homes and sensitive receptors, the public must be given a meaningful opportunity to review the actual materials that the City Council will rely upon.

The current schedule does not provide that opportunity.

The Notice states that the full agenda, including all backup information, will be available on the Friday before the meeting. That Friday is July 3, 2026, the observed Independence Day holiday. The City’s own calendar identifies July 3, 2026 as a City-observed holiday. If City Hall is closed or staff is unavailable on that day, then the public will not have a meaningful opportunity to review the full agenda packet, backup materials, staff report, proposed resolutions, revised conditions, redlines, CEQA findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, MMRP, or any other materials in person at City Hall as represented in the Notice.

This is especially problematic because the hearing is scheduled immediately after the holiday weekend, on July 7, 2026. Releasing the full backup materials on a City-observed holiday, immediately before a holiday weekend, leaves residents with very little practical time to review complex CEQA and land-use materials, consult with others, prepare written comments, request translation, or meaningfully participate.

The Notice also states that public email comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting in order to be presented to the City Council. That deadline is not meaningful if the public does not receive the full hearing materials until the holiday weekend immediately before the hearing.

Item: 9
1181
I also object to the City’s apparent filing of a Notice of Determination on or about June 5, 2026 while the Planning Commission approval is now subject to a de novo appeal before the City Council. The Notice indicates that the City Council will consider the appeal and may take any action it deems appropriate. If the City Council has not yet completed its de novo review and may still reverse, modify, or reject the Planning Commission action, then the City must explain whether the June 5 Notice of Determination was premature, whether it should be withdrawn or amended, and whether the City contends it has already triggered any CEQA statute of limitations despite this pending administrative appeal.

This finality issue is critical. The public should not be forced to navigate conflicting positions where the City treats the project as approved for CEQA Notice of Determination purposes while simultaneously noticing a de novo appeal hearing before the City Council.

I therefore request that the City take the following actions before proceeding with the July 7 hearing:

1. Continue the July 7, 2026 hearing to a later date.

2. Publish the full agenda packet, staff report, proposed resolutions, CEQA findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, MMRP, final conditions, all revised conditions, and all redlines immediately.

3. Provide a redline showing every change between the conditions considered by the Planning Commission and the conditions proposed for City Council consideration.

4. Provide a condition-by-condition enforcement matrix identifying the City-controlled enforcement mechanism for each condition.

5. Explain whether the City contends the June 5, 2026 Notice of Determination was valid despite the pending de novo appeal.

6. Withdraw, rescind, amend, or formally clarify the June 5, 2026 Notice of Determination if the Planning Commission approval is not final due to the pending City Council appeal.

7. Provide proof of publication, proof of mailing, the mailing date, the mailing list, the 300-foot notice list, and the website posting date and timestamp for the July 7 hearing notice.

8. Confirm the date and time when the July 7 agenda and all backup materials were posted online.

9. Confirm whether City Hall is open for public review of the full agenda packet and backup materials on July 3, 2026.

10. Extend or reopen the interpreter request deadline for Chinese- and Spanish-speaking residents due to the holiday timing and late release of materials.

11. Confirm that all written comments submitted to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and Planning staff before or at the hearing will be included in the official administrative record.

12. Confirm that written comments submitted in hard copy at the July 7 hearing will be accepted by the City Clerk and included in the administrative record.

13. Confirm that all issues raised in written correspondence before or at the hearing will be preserved for purposes of later judicial review.

I also request that this email be provided to every City Council Member before the July 7 hearing and included in the agenda packet, late correspondence, and official administrative record.

Item: 9
1182
The City should not require residents to prepare for a de novo CEQA and land-use appeal hearing based on materials released during a City-observed holiday weekend. The City should not rely on a premature or confusing Notice of Determination while an administrative appeal remains pending. The City should not proceed unless the public has a fair and meaningful opportunity to review and respond to the actual materials that the City Council will consider.

Please include this objection in the official administrative record for the IPT Enterprise Business Center project and all related CEQA, Brown Act, Planning Commission, City Council, permitting, administrative appeal, and judicial review proceedings.

I reserve all rights and objections under CEQA, the Ralph M. Brown Act, the California Government Code, the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Lake Forest Municipal Code, and all other applicable laws.

Sincerely,
Kai Zhong
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1183
From: Cherie Liu
To: Council
Subject: Public Comment Supporting Appeal – IPT Enterprise Business Center / SDP 06-21-5437 Date: Friday, June 26, 2026 11:34:35 AM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing as a nearby resident to strongly support the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the IPT Enterprise Business Center Project / SDP 06-21-5437.

At the Planning Commission hearing, a large number of residents attended and spoke in opposition. Public comments continued past midnight. Many of us live directly next to the proposed industrial/warehouse/manufacturing project and raised serious concerns about traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, operational noise, lighting, unknown future tenant uses, hazardous materials, emergency risks, and land use compatibility with nearby homes.

Despite this significant community opposition, the Planning Commission approved the project unanimously. That decision left many residents feeling that our concerns were heard procedurally, but not meaningfully addressed.

I respectfully ask the City Council to conduct a true de novo review and not simply defer to the Planning Commission’s decision.

My concerns include the following:

1. The future tenant is unknown, but the approval allows broad industrial, warehouse, and manufacturing uses immediately next to residential homes.

2. Hazardous materials storage or use has not been ruled out. The City’s response relies heavily on future regulatory compliance, HMBP/CUPA/RMP/CalARP requirements, Fire Code requirements, and emergency response procedures. But future regulatory compliance and emergency response are not the same as land use compatibility.

Damage control is not mitigation.

3. The project creates reasonably foreseeable risks because of the approved industrial/warehouse/manufacturing uses, unknown future tenant, potential hazardous materials, truck activity, diesel emissions, and close proximity to homes, children, seniors, and other sensitive receptors.

4. If the City believes higher-risk uses will not occur, those restrictions should be written clearly into enforceable Conditions of Approval. If such uses may occur, nearby residents should receive public notice, discretionary review, and additional environmental analysis before those tenants are allowed to operate.

Item: 9
1184

5. The Final EIR acknowledges significant and unavoidable impacts related to VMT/GHG, yet the project was approved based on a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council should carefully evaluate whether the asserted project benefits are specific and substantial enough to override long-term impacts on nearby residents.

6. The conditions added by the Planning Commission do not adequately address residents’ concerns. They do not provide sufficient enforceable protections regarding future tenant uses, hazardous materials, truck idling, truck staging, truck routes, loading dock operations, hours of operation, nighttime activity, diesel emissions, or future public review.

Residents are not asking the City to assume that an accident is certain. We are asking the City to recognize that low-probability but high-consequence risks matter when a broad industrial entitlement is placed immediately next to residential backyards.

This project may be located in an industrially designated area, but zoning compliance does not end the inquiry. The City Council must decide whether this specific project, at this specific location, with unknown future operations, is compatible with the residential homes immediately next to it.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask the City Council to grant the appeal, decline to certify the Final EIR as currently presented, and reverse or remand the Planning Commission’s approval.

At minimum, the City Council should require additional environmental review and clear, enforceable conditions addressing future tenant uses, hazardous materials, truck operations, diesel emissions, noise, hours of operation, and public review for higher-risk tenants.

Please include this comment in the official public record and administrative record for the July 7, 2026 City Council hearing.

Sincerely,
Cherie Liu
The Meadows
Lake Forest, CA
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1185
From: Jeff Yu
To: Council
Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Voigts, Scott; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Mansur, Jennifer Subject: Questions Regarding Noise, the 82-Foot Separation, and Land Use Compatibility for the IPT Project Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2026 8:17:37 AM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Before the City Council makes its final decision on the IPT Enterprise Business Center project, I respectfully ask you to consider the following questions, all of which arise directly from the Draft EIR and Final EIR.

1. How was the 82-foot separation distance calculated?
The Draft EIR states:
“The nearest sensitive receptors are residential uses located approximately 82 feet from the Project site’s eastern boundary.”
However, the EIR does not explain:
* Where exactly was this 82-foot distance measured?
* Which specific residence was used?
* Was it measured to a property line, a backyard fence, the exterior wall of a home, or another location?
Based on publicly available maps, the IPT property directly adjoins the residential property, with virtually no meaningful buffer. Since the 82-foot distance is repeatedly cited throughout the EIR, residents deserve to know exactly how this number was determined.

2. If the project is approved based on predicted compliance with the City’s nighttime noise standard, how will the City ensure that it remains compliant after operations begin? The Final EIR concludes that nighttime operational noise at the nearest residences will be approximately 50 dBA, meeting the City’s nighttime noise standard. In other words, the project is approved based on a prediction that operates at the threshold of compliance, leaving virtually no margin for error.

I respectfully request that the City require:
* Permanent nighttime noise monitoring at the Redwood homes closest to the project; * Regular public reporting of the monitoring data; and
* Immediate investigation and enforcement if the City’s noise standard is exceeded.

More importantly, if the City approves this project based on the EIR’s predictions, then the project applicant—not the surrounding residents—should bear the consequences if those predictions prove to be incorrect.

I respectfully request that the City require the applicant to provide appropriate remedies for affected residents if repeated noise violations occur, including funding for sound insulation, upgraded windows, HVAC improvements, or other necessary noise mitigation measures.

Item: 9
1186

3. Has the City fulfilled its planning responsibility?
When The Meadows neighborhood was approved, the City already knew that the adjacent property was designated for industrial use and could eventually be redeveloped.

Why was there no meaningful transition, setback, or office buffer between future industrial development and existing single-family homes?
As taxpayers, residents rely on the City’s planning process to prevent incompatible land uses before neighborhoods are built—not to ask residents to live with the consequences afterward.

4. What operational scenario was used for the EIR’s noise analysis? The project allows warehouse, manufacturing, and office uses and includes 23 loading docks.

Was the operational noise model based primarily on warehouse/logistics activities, manufacturing operations, office use, or a combination of all three? If future tenants or operations differ from those assumed in the EIR, will the predicted noise levels still remain valid?
Finally, I respectfully ask one simple question.

Can the City identify any comparable warehouse project in Orange County, Los Angeles County, or elsewhere in California with approximately 23 loading docks located only about 82 feet from an existing single-family residential neighborhood? If not, I respectfully ask the Council to carefully consider whether this project truly reflects the land use compatibility and quality-of-life principles that Lake Forest has long promoted.

If these questions cannot be answered clearly before the vote, I respectfully ask the City Council to postpone approval until these issues are fully addressed and enforceable long-term monitoring and resident protection measures are established.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Respectfully,
A Lake Forest Resident
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1187
From: Mindy Li
To: Merritt, Thy
Cc: City Clerk; Mansur, Jennifer
Subject: Re: Request to Postpone Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Warehouse Project Date: Thursday, June 25, 2026 8:46:08 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Hi Thy, City Clerk and Jennifer,
I am writing to respectfully request that the public hearing regarding the proposed warehouse project be postponed and rescheduled to a later date.

The hearing is currently scheduled during a long holiday weekend, a time when many residents have pre-existing travel plans, family commitments, or other obligations that make it difficult or impossible to attend. As a result, a significant number of community members who may be directly affected by this project will be unable to participate in the public hearing process.

This warehouse proposal has generated substantial public interest and concern. Given the potential impacts on traffic, air quality, noise, public safety, and overall quality of life, it is essential that all interested residents have a meaningful opportunity to review the project and provide public comment.

Holding the hearing during a holiday weekend could unintentionally limit public participation and prevent the City from receiving comprehensive community input. To ensure transparency, fairness, and meaningful civic engagement, I respectfully request that the hearing be postponed and rescheduled for a date when more residents can attend.

Thank you for your consideration of this request and for your commitment to an open and inclusive public process.

Sincerely,
Mindy Li
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 25, 2026, at 8:22 AM, Merritt, Thy <[email protected]> wrote:

All,
Notice is hereby given that the City Council will hold a Public Hearing to review and consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the following: 1) environmental findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Item: 9
1188
(CEQA), 2) Statement of Overriding Considerations, 3) certification of IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC (Project) Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2024030755),4) a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and 5) a Site Development Permit 06-21-5437 for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a new industrial building.

The Public Hearing will be held on July 7, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. at 100 Civic Center Drive, Lake Forest CA 92630.

Please see the attached PDF for more information. Thank you. <image001.png> THY MERRITT | CITY CLERK
City Clerk Department
P. (949) 461-3423
E. [email protected]
100 Civic Center Drive, Lake Forest, CA
www.lakeforestca.gov
<CC PHN SDP 06-21-5437_Appeal.pdf>
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1189
From: Gordon Hu
To: Council
Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Voigts, Scott; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Mansur, Jennifer Subject: Request for Careful Consideration of the IPT Enterprise Business Center Project on July 7 Date: Saturday, June 27, 2026 11:37:17 AM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am a resident of The Meadows community and am writing regarding the IPT Enterprise Business Center project, which is scheduled for your consideration on July 7.

First, I would like to thank each of you for your service to our community and for taking the time to consider the concerns raised by residents. I recognize that this is a difficult decision that requires balancing economic development with the health, safety, and quality of life of Lake Forest residents.

Many of us understand that industrial development has an important role in our local economy. Our concern is not with responsible economic development, but with the placement of a large warehouse facility less than 100 feet from existing homes and approximately 200 feet from senior housing. This level of proximity is highly unusual and deserves the most careful scrutiny.

One issue that continues to concern many residents is the uncertainty surrounding the future operation of the facility. The City is being asked to approve a warehouse without knowing who the future tenant will be or how the facility will actually operate over the coming decades. The environmental review necessarily relies on assumptions regarding truck traffic, operating hours, loading activities, noise, and emissions. However, future tenants may operate quite differently from those assumptions.

For this reason, I respectfully ask the City Council to ensure that any approval is accompanied by clear, objective, and enforceable protections for nearby residents. If the project is approved, I urge the City to consider conditions such as:

1. Legally enforceable limits on truck traffic rather than projected estimates;

2. Restrictions on higher-intensity warehouse operations that would generate substantially greater impacts than those analyzed;

3. Independent monitoring of noise, air quality, and traffic, with reports available to the public;

4. Meaningful enforcement mechanisms and penalties if operating conditions are violated; and

5. Additional City review if future operations materially differ from the assumptions relied upon in the Environmental Impact Report.

These requests are not intended to prevent economic development. Rather, they are intended to ensure that the community is protected for the decades that this project will exist. Once the warehouse is built, its impacts will be experienced by nearby residents every day. It is therefore essential that the operational safeguards be established now, before approvals are finalized.

Item: 9
1190
I respectfully ask that you carefully consider both the legal issues raised in the appeal and the long-term responsibility the City has to protect existing neighborhoods. If the project proceeds, I hope the City will require the strongest possible protections for the families who will live beside this facility for many years to come.

Thank you for your time, your service, and your thoughtful consideration of this important matter.

Respectfully,
Gordon Hu
Resident, The Meadows Community
Lake Forest, California
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1191
From: Jason
To: Council
Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Voigts, Scott; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Mansur, Jennifer Subject: Request for Clarification Regarding Inconsistencies in the IPT Enterprise Business Center EIR Before Project Approval
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 12:15:29 PM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Before making a final decision on the IPT Enterprise Business Center project, I respectfully ask the City Council to carefully consider several important questions regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). These questions arise directly from the Draft EIR and Final EIR and remain unanswered.

1. Is the Project Description Consistent Throughout the EIR? The Draft EIR states:
“At this time, the future tenant remains undetermined.” However, the Transportation section also states:
“In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis, the proposed project was analyzed as a Manufacturing Facility (ITE Land Use Code 140).”
These two statements appear difficult to reconcile.

If it is reasonable to assume a Manufacturing Facility for transportation analysis, why is the same assumption not applied when evaluating air quality, health risk, hazardous materials, or fire-related impacts? Conversely, if the future tenant and operations are truly unknown, why is the transportation analysis based on a manufacturing assumption?
An Environmental Impact Report should evaluate one clearly defined project. It should not rely on different assumptions about the same project depending on which environmental topic is being analyzed.

2. Has the EIR Evaluated All Reasonably Foreseeable Industrial Uses? The proposed project includes warehouse space, loading docks, truck circulation areas, trailer parking, office space, and manufacturing uses.

Different industrial operations may generate significantly different environmental impacts, including truck activity, operational noise, air emissions, hazardous materials, and fire risks.

If the future tenant has not yet been identified, how can the City conclude that the EIR has fully evaluated all reasonably foreseeable industrial operations that this project could ultimately accommodate?

3. How Was the 82-Foot Distance Determined?
The Draft EIR states:
“The nearest sensitive receptors are residential uses located approximately 82 feet from the Project site’s eastern boundary.”
However, the EIR does not explain:

Item: 9
1192
* From where was the 82-foot distance measured?
* Which specific residence does it represent?
* Was it measured to a property line, a building wall, or another reference point? Because this distance is repeatedly cited throughout the environmental analysis, residents deserve a clear explanation of how this important number was determined.

4. How Will the City Ensure That the EIR’s Predictions Remain Accurate After Project Approval? The Final EIR concludes that nighttime operational noise at the nearest residences will be approximately 50 dBA, meeting the City’s nighttime noise standard.

If the project is approved based on these modeled predictions, what mechanisms will ensure that actual operations remain within those limits after occupancy?
I respectfully request that the City require:
* Permanent nighttime noise monitoring near the homes closest to the project; * Public reporting of monitoring results;
* Prompt enforcement if City noise standards are exceeded.

If future operations produce impacts greater than those predicted in the EIR, nearby residents should not bear the burden of those errors. The project applicant should be responsible for implementing corrective measures and providing reasonable mitigation where necessary.

5. Does This Project Reflect the City’s Commitment to Land Use Compatibility? The Meadows community directly borders the project site with virtually no meaningful buffer between residential and industrial uses.

When the residential community was approved, the City knew that the adjacent industrial property could eventually be redeveloped. Why was a larger setback or a permanent lower-intensity buffer, such as office uses, not required to better protect nearby homes?
Finally, I respectfully ask one simple question.

Can the City identify another industrial warehouse project in Orange County, Los Angeles County, or elsewhere in California with approximately 23 loading docks located only 82 feet from an existing single-family residential neighborhood?
If such examples exist, I respectfully ask that they be identified. If not, I urge the City Council to carefully consider whether this project is truly consistent with Lake Forest’s longstanding commitment to land use compatibility and thoughtful community planning.

If these questions cannot be answered clearly, specifically, and with supporting evidence, I respectfully request that the City Council postpone approval of this project until these issues have been fully addressed and appropriate longterm protections for nearby residents have been established.

Thank you for your time, your service, and your thoughtful consideration.

Respectfully,
A Concerned Lake Forest Resident
Jason YE
Item: 9
1193
Sent from my iPhone
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1194
From: Connie Ding
To: Council
Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Voigts, Scott; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Mansur, Jennifer Subject: Request for Clarification Regarding Inconsistent Project Assumptions in the IPT Enterprise Business Center EIR Date: Thursday, July 2, 2026 8:13:17 AM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I respectfully request that the City Council carefully examine an important issue concerning the consistency of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) before making a final decision on the IPT Enterprise Business Center project.

After reviewing the transportation analysis, the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR, I noticed that the same project is described using different assumptions in different sections of the environmental review. This inconsistency may directly affect the completeness and reliability of the environmental analysis.

The transportation section of the project documents states:
“In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis, the proposed Project was evaluated assuming a manufacturing facility.”
Accordingly, the transportation analysis uses ITE Code 140 (Manufacturing) as the basis for estimating project traffic.

This demonstrates that the project team concluded it was reasonable to assume a manufacturing use for purposes of transportation analysis, even though the future tenant had not yet been identified.

However, in the analyses of air quality, health risks, hazardous materials, and other environmental topics, the EIR repeatedly states that the future tenant is unknown (“Tenant Unknown”). As a result, the EIR does not provide more project-specific analyses regarding future operational characteristics, hazardous materials, or manufacturing processes.

This raises an important question.

If it is reasonable to assume a manufacturing use for transportation analysis, why is it not reasonable to apply the same assumption when evaluating air quality, health risks, hazardous materials, or fire-related impacts?
Item: 9
1195
Conversely, if the future use is truly too uncertain to support more specific environmental analyses, then why is it appropriate to base the transportation analysis on a manufacturing assumption?
The same project should not be considered “known” for transportation analysis while simultaneously being treated as “unknown” for environmental risk analysis.

In addition, the project itself is not a single-purpose facility. According to the project documents, it includes warehouse space, loading docks, truck circulation areas, trailer parking, and office areas, while the transportation analysis assumes manufacturing operations.

This indicates that the project is intended to accommodate multiple industrial uses rather than a single, clearly defined operation.

Different industrial uses may involve substantially different operational characteristics and environmental impacts, including truck activity, noise, air emissions, hazardous materials, and fire risks. However, the current EIR does not clearly explain whether it has fully evaluated the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts associated with the range of industrial uses that could occur under the proposed approval.

These questions are not intended to oppose appropriate development.

Rather, they are intended to ensure that the City Council is approving a project that has been fully analyzed and consistently described, rather than one whose future operational characteristics remain uncertain.

A fundamental purpose of CEQA is to ensure that environmental review is based upon a clear, stable, and accurate project description. If the project’s assumed characteristics change depending on the environmental topic being analyzed, it becomes difficult for the City Council to determine whether the EIR has fully disclosed the project’s reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the City Council require the applicant to clearly address the following questions before taking final action on the project:

1. What specific industrial uses would be permitted under the proposed project approval?
Item: 9
1196

2. Why was a manufacturing assumption considered appropriate for the transportation analysis, but not for the analyses of air quality, hazardous materials, health risks, and other environmental topics?

3. Has the EIR fully evaluated the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts associated with all industrial uses that could be permitted under this approval?

4. If these questions cannot be clearly answered, how can the City Council conclude that the current EIR is based on a consistent and complete project description sufficient to support project approval? Thank you for your time, your careful consideration of public comments, and your continued service to the Lake Forest community.

I respectfully hope that, before making a final decision, the City Council will ensure that the environmental review for this project is based on a consistent, transparent, complete, and fully supported project description.

Respectfully,
A Concerned Lake Forest Resident
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1197
From: sam.yu
To: Council
Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Voigts, Scott; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Mansur, Jennifer Subject: Request for Clarification Regarding Inconsistent Project Assumptions in the IPT Enterprise Business Center EIR Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 9:59:19 PM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I respectfully request that the City address what appears to be a significant inconsistency within the environmental review for the IPT Enterprise Business Center project.

After reviewing the transportation analysis, the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR, I noticed that the project is described differently depending on which environmental issue is being analyzed.

In the transportation analysis, the project states:
“In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis, the proposed Project was evaluated assuming a manufacturing facility.”
The traffic study therefore uses ITE Code 140 (Manufacturing) to estimate vehicle trips. This demonstrates that the project team believed it was reasonable to assume a manufacturing use when preparing the transportation analysis.

However, in the air quality, health risk, hazardous materials, and other environmental analyses, the response repeatedly changes to “tenant unknown.” Because the future tenant is unknown, the EIR concludes that more specific analyses cannot be performed.

This raises an important question.

If it is reasonable to assume a manufacturing use for traffic analysis, why is it not reasonable to apply the same assumption when evaluating potential air emissions, hazardous materials, fire risks, or other environmental impacts?
Conversely, if the future use is truly too uncertain to evaluate these environmental risks, then why is it appropriate to rely on a manufacturing assumption for transportation analysis? The project cannot logically be “known” for one environmental topic and “unknown” for another. If the project description changes depending on the issue being analyzed, then the Council cannot be confident that the environmental review accurately reflects the project’s reasonably foreseeable impacts.

In addition, the proposed building is not a simple warehouse. Based on the project documents, it includes warehouse space, loading docks, truck circulation areas, trailer parking, and office space, while the transportation analysis assumes manufacturing operations. These different industrial uses may produce substantially different environmental impacts, including truck activity, noise, air emissions, hazardous Item: 9
1198
materials, and operational characteristics.

For this reason, I respectfully request that the City clarify the following:

1. What specific industrial uses are intended to be allowed under this project approval?

2. Why was a manufacturing assumption considered appropriate for transportation analysis but not for other environmental analyses?

3. Has the EIR adequately evaluated the full range of reasonably foreseeable industrial uses that could occur under this approval?
These questions are not intended to oppose appropriate development. Rather, they concern whether the environmental analysis is internally consistent and whether the City has sufficient information before approving a project located immediately adjacent to an established residential neighborhood.

A consistent and transparent project description is fundamental to a meaningful environmental review. I respectfully ask the City Council to ensure that these inconsistencies are fully addressed before making a final decision on this project.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
A Concerned Lake Forest Resident
Sam YU
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1199
From: Connie Ding
To: Council
Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Voigts, Scott; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Mansur, Jennifer Subject: Request for Clarification Regarding the Consistency of the IPT Enterprise Business Center EIR Before Project Approval
Date: Thursday, July 2, 2026 8:04:34 AM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Before voting on the IPT Enterprise Business Center project, I respectfully ask the City Council to clarify several important questions regarding the consistency of the project’s design and the assumptions used throughout the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

During the environmental review process, the project evolved significantly.

The Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) described a project consisting of approximately 105,000 square feet of manufacturing space, 50,803 square feet of warehouse space, and a maximum of eight usable dockhigh doors.

By the Draft and Final EIR, however, the project had changed to approximately 65,000 square feet of manufacturing, 90,803 square feet of warehouse space, 10,000 square feet of office space, and 23 loading docks.

In other words, the project evolved from a manufacturing-dominant concept into one in which warehouse space became the largest component, while the approved loading dock capacity nearly tripled.

I reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis, including Table C – Project Trip Generation Summary. The analysis appropriately calculates trip generation separately for warehouse, manufacturing, and office uses using different ITE Land Use Codes before combining them into the total project trips. Based on those assumptions, the approximately 90,803-square-foot warehouse component is projected to generate approximately 156 daily vehicle trips, including approximately 49 truck trips.

This raises several important questions.

If the Traffic Impact Analysis assumes this level of warehouse activity, what planning basis supports approving a facility with 23 loading docks? Loading docks are not merely architectural features. They represent the Item: 9
1200
operational capacity of a warehouse and determine the level of truck activity that the facility is physically capable of accommodating. Yet the Final EIR does not appear to clearly explain how the approved loading dock capacity corresponds to the operational assumptions used throughout the environmental analysis.

This issue is particularly important because no future tenant has been identified. Throughout the environmental review process, residents repeatedly asked for a clearer understanding of the project’s future operations. Nevertheless, the approved project allows a broad range of manufacturing and warehouse uses, while the environmental analyses necessarily rely on specific assumptions regarding truck trips and operational intensity.

I respectfully ask the City to explain how these assumptions remain internally consistent.

Specifically:

How does the approved design with 23 loading docks correspond to the truck activity assumed in the Traffic Impact Analysis? The Revised NOP described a project with a maximum of eight usable dock-high doors, yet the approved project contains 23 loading docks. Where does the EIR explain why this nearly threefold increase in loading capacity became necessary?
If the approved loading dock capacity is intended to accommodate substantially greater future warehouse activity than that analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis, where has that operational scenario been evaluated in the EIR?
If the anticipated truck activity does not require 23 loading docks, why is such a large loading capacity being approved immediately adjacent to an established residential neighborhood?
These questions become even more significant when considered together with the project’s evolution from a manufacturing-oriented concept to a warehouse-dominant project.

I am not suggesting that the Traffic Impact Analysis is necessarily incorrect. Rather, I respectfully ask the City to explain how the approved physical design, the project’s operational assumptions, and the Item: 9
1201
environmental analyses presented throughout the EIR remain internally consistent.

An Environmental Impact Report should evaluate the project that is actually being approved. If the approved physical design provides substantially greater operational capacity than the level of activity analyzed in the EIR, the public deserves a clear explanation of how that design remains consistent with the environmental assumptions upon which the City’s approval is based.

If the anticipated level of truck activity can reasonably be accommodated with substantially fewer loading docks, I respectfully urge the City Council to consider whether the approved project is larger than necessary to support the operational assumptions analyzed in the EIR. Reducing the number of loading docks—and correspondingly reducing the warehouse footprint— could better align the approved project with its environmental analysis while reducing potential impacts on the neighboring residential community.

Before approving the project, I respectfully request that the City clearly explain the relationship between the approved building design, loading dock capacity, assumed truck activity, and the environmental analyses presented in the EIR. A consistent and transparent project description is essential for informed public review and sound decision-making.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. I respectfully request a written response to these questions so that both the public and the City Council can better understand the basis for the proposed approval.

Sincerely,
Connie Ding
The Meadows Resident
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1202
From: May Cai
To: Merritt, Thy
Cc: City Clerk; Mansur, Jennifer
Subject: Request to Continue the Public Hearing to a Later Date Date: Thursday, June 25, 2026 9:07:16 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Ms. Merritt and City Staff,
I am writing regarding the Notice of Public Hearing for the City Council’s review of the appeal concerning the IPT Enterprise Business Center Project, including the Final EIR, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Site Development Permit 06-21-5437.

We respectfully request that the City continue/postpone the July 7, 2026 public hearing to a later date.

The notice was received today, and the hearing is scheduled for July 7, which gives the affected residents only a very short time to review the materials, consult with community members, prepare written comments, and arrange attendance. This short timeframe is especially problematic because it falls during the summer vacation period and immediately after the Independence Day holiday weekend, when many residents and families are out of town or unavailable.

This project has significant potential impacts on nearby residential communities, including The Meadows and Baker Ranch. Many residents care deeply about this matter and wish to participate meaningfully in the City Council hearing. Holding the hearing on such short notice, during a holiday and vacation period, creates an unfair barrier to public participation and limits the community’s ability to fully review and respond to the issues on appeal.

We are not requesting a delay for the sake of delay. We are simply asking for a fair and reasonable opportunity for affected residents to participate in an important public decision that may have long-term consequences for our community.

Therefore, we respectfully ask the City to continue the hearing to a later City Council meeting date, preferably after the summer holiday period, or at minimum to a date that provides residents with adequate time to review the materials and prepare comments.

Thank you for your consideration. Please confirm whether this request will be forwarded to the City Council and included in the public record for the appeal hearing.

Thanks and Best regards
May Cai
Item: 9
1203
Merritt, Thy <[email protected]>于2026年6月25日 周四上午8:22写道： All,
Notice is hereby given that the City Council will hold a Public Hearing to review and consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the following: 1) environmental findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 2) Statement of Overriding Considerations, 3) certification of IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC (Project) Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2024030755),4) a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and 5) a Site Development Permit 06-21- 5437 for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a new industrial building.

The Public Hearing will be held on July 7, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. at 100 Civic Center Drive, Lake Forest CA 92630.

Please see the attached PDF for more information. Thank you.

THY MERRITT | CITY CLERK
City Clerk Department
P. (949) 461-3423 E. [email protected]
100 Civic Center Drive, Lake Forest, CA
www.lakeforestca.gov
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1204
From: Vivian Zhao
To: Merritt, Thy
Cc: City Clerk; Mansur, Jennifer
Subject: Request to Postpone Public Hearing on Proposed Warehouse Project Date: Thursday, June 25, 2026 8:56:31 AM
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing to respectfully request that the public hearing for the proposed warehouse project be postponed and rescheduled to a later date.

The hearing has been scheduled immediately following a long holiday weekend, a time when many residents are traveling, spending time with family, or returning from previously planned vacations. Scheduling a hearing of this significance at such a time is both unfortunate and inappropriate, as it unnecessarily limits the ability of affected residents to attend and participate in the public process.

This proposed warehouse development has generated substantial public interest and concern due to its potential impacts on traffic congestion, air quality, noise, public safety, and the overall quality of life in surrounding neighborhoods. Decisions of this magnitude should be made only after the broadest possible public participation. Unfortunately, the current hearing date does not provide a reasonable opportunity for many residents to be present and have their voices heard.

Public hearings are intended to promote transparency, fairness, and meaningful civic engagement. Scheduling an important hearing immediately after a major holiday undermines those objectives by predictably reducing public attendance and limiting community input. At a minimum, the appearance is created that the timing of the hearing is not conducive to full public participation, which can diminish public confidence in the decision-making process.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the public hearing be postponed and rescheduled to a date that does not conflict with a major holiday period, allowing all interested residents a fair and meaningful opportunity to participate.

Thank you for your consideration of this request and for your continued commitment to an open, transparent, and inclusive public process.

Sincerely,
Vivian Zhao
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 25, 2026, at 8:28 AM, Merritt, Thy <[email protected]> wrote:

All,
Item: 9
1205
Notice is hereby given that the City Council will hold a Public Hearing to review and consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the following: 1) environmental findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 2) Statement of Overriding Considerations, 3) certification of IPT Enterprise Business Center LLC (Project) Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2024030755),4) a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and 5) a Site Development Permit 06-21-5437 for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a new industrial building.

The Public Hearing will be held on July 7, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. at 100 Civic Center Drive, Lake Forest CA 92630.

Please see the attached PDF for more information. Thank you. <image001.png> THY MERRITT | CITY CLERK
City Clerk Department
P. (949) 461-3423
E. [email protected]
100 Civic Center Drive, Lake Forest, CA
www.lakeforestca.gov
<CC PHN SDP 06-21-5437_Appeal.pdf>
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1206
From: Tina Liao
To: Council
Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Voigts, Scott; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Mansur, Jennifer Subject: STRONG OPPOSITION: IPT Enterprise Business Center Project (SCH #2024030755) Date: Saturday, June 27, 2026 2:04:06 PM
Dear Mayor and Lake Forest City Council Members,
As a resident living directly across from the proposed site, a pregnant mother, and a parent of a young child, I strongly oppose the approval of the IPT Enterprise Business Center project and its Final EIR.

During this De Novo Hearing, I urge you to uphold the community appeal. Bringing heavy industrial operations directly across from residential homes puts our children's health and safety at immediate risk.

My primary objections are:

Health & Air Quality: Heavy diesel truck emissions pose severe, long-term respiratory risks to vulnerable developing lungs, including my toddler and my unborn child.

Flawed EIR & Unknown Tenant: The EIR fails to properly mitigate impacts on air, noise, and light. Because the tenant is unknown, the true operational disruptions cannot be predicted.

Pedestrian Safety: Increased heavy truck circulation right outside our front doors creates an immediate hazard for neighborhood families and strollers.

Please prioritize the health and safety of Lake Forest families over industrial expansion.

Respectfully submitted,
Tingwen Liao,
Owner of the meadows community home.

CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1207
From: omega hu
To: Council
Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Voigts, Scott; Tettemer, Mark; Yu, Benjamin; Mansur, Jennifer Subject: Subject: Revised Condition 87 Demonstrates Why the IPT Project Should Be Reconsidered at a Smaller Scale Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 4:31:09 PM
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I respectfully ask the City Council to carefully consider what Revised Condition 87 reveals about the appropriate scale of the IPT Enterprise Business Center project.

The Planning Commission adopted several new operating conditions intended to reduce impacts on nearby homes, including a nighttime Quiet Zone, restrictions on backup alarms and idling, truck route limitations, and most importantly, Condition 87, which states:

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

The staff report further explains that these additional conditions were added to “lessen noise impacts and reduce truck traffic near residential uses.” These conditions acknowledge an important reality: without limiting truck operations, the project would create greater impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood.

After reviewing the EIR, I was surprised to find that these truck limits are not new operational standards—they are the same assumptions used in the environmental analysis.

The City’s response to comments explains:
”…it is assumed that 15 truck arrivals and departure activities could occur during any daytime peak hour and that 4 truck arrivals and departures could occur during any nighttime off-peak hour.”
The same response also states:
“Based on prior analysis experience, it is reasonable to assume that unloading activities could occur at half of the total docks (12 docks) simultaneously for a period of 20 minutes in a given hour.”
This raises an important planning question.

If the environmental analysis assumes truck activity at only approximately 12 loading docks simultaneously, and if Condition 87 permanently limits truck traffic to those same hourly levels analyzed in the EIR, why does the project still require a facility with 23 loading docks? The Draft EIR also evaluated a 25% Reduced Project Alternative, which would proportionally reduce the warehouse, manufacturing, and office areas. The Final EIR confirms that this alternative would result in 48 fewer employees and 298 fewer daily vehicle trips, and identified it as the Environmentally Superior Alternative.

Given these facts, I respectfully ask:

Item: 9
1208
* If truck operations must be permanently limited to protect nearby residents, should the physical size of the project also be reduced to reflect those operational limits? * Why was no alternative analyzed with fewer loading docks while maintaining the same operational assumptions?
* If only approximately half of the loading docks were assumed to be active simultaneously in the noise model, what planning basis supports constructing a 23-loading-dock facility immediately adjacent to homes?
I also respectfully request clarification regarding enforcement.

Condition 87 states that truck traffic “shall not exceed” the hourly limits, but it does not explain:
* How truck movements will be monitored;
* Whether truck counts must be recorded and retained;
* Whether compliance reports will be submitted to the City; * How residents may report violations;
* What enforcement actions will occur if the limits are exceeded.

Without a transparent monitoring and enforcement mechanism, residents have no way to know whether these important operating conditions will be consistently followed over the life of the project.

I respectfully ask the City Council to reconsider whether a smaller project—with fewer loading docks and a building size consistent with the operational assumptions already analyzed in the EIR—would provide a more appropriate balance between economic development and neighborhood compatibility.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and for your service to the residents of Lake Forest.

Respectfully,
A Lake Forest Resident
WeiWei Zhang
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1209
From: Kai Chung
To: Council; City Clerk; EnterpriseProjects; Planning; Mansur, Jennifer Cc: Pequeno, Robert; Cirbo, Doug; Tettemer, Mark; Voigts, Scott; Yu, Benjamin; Planning Commission; Stannard, Michael; Grable, Tom; Ludden, Thomas; Villwock, Jordan; Fuentes, Jolene; Ackerman, Gayle; Stonich, Amy; Santos, Ron; Musler, Connor; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Substantive Objections and Issue Preservation for July 7 De Novo Appeal Hearing — IPT Enterprise Business Center Project at 26200 Enterprise Way
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2026 10:50:57 AM
Dear Mayor Pequeño, City Council Members, City Clerk, City Attorney, Planning Commission, and Planning Staff,
I am submitting this substantive objection and issue preservation letter regarding the July 7, 2026 de novo appeal hearing for the IPT Enterprise Business Center project at 26200 Enterprise Way, Site Development Permit 06-21-5437, and Final EIR SCH #2024030755.

This letter is submitted for inclusion in the official administrative record and to preserve all issues, objections, and legal grounds for any later administrative or judicial review, including review under CEQA, the Ralph M. Brown Act, the Lake Forest Municipal Code, and Code of Civil Procedure sections 1094.5 and 1094.6.

The City’s public hearing notice states that the July 7 hearing will be a hearing de novo and that the City Council may take any action it deems appropriate on the agenda item. The notice also states that any later judicial review may be limited to issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or before the hearing. For that reason, I am identifying the following statutory and regulatory grounds for objection and request that each issue be included in the official administrative record.

I respectfully request that the City Council grant the appeal, overturn the Planning Commission’s June 4, 2026 approval, decline to certify the Final EIR, decline to adopt the CEQA findings, decline to adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations, decline to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and deny Site Development Permit 06-21- 5437.

At minimum, the City Council should continue the hearing, reopen public comment, publish all revised conditions and redlines, require additional environmental review, and require enforceable project conditions before taking any further action.

1. Brown Act and Public Participation Concerns
The June 4 Planning Commission process raised serious concerns under the Ralph M. Brown Act, including Government Code sections 54957.5, 54954.3, and 54960.1.

Government Code section 54957.5 requires certain writings related to an open-session agenda item and distributed during a public meeting to be made available for public inspection at the meeting. Government Code section 54954.3 protects the public’s right to address agenda items before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item. Government Code section 54960.1 provides a cure-and-correct procedure for certain Brown Act violations.

At the June 4 hearing, revised project conditions were provided to the public only at the last minute, in limited hard-copy form. There were more members of the public present than copies available. The revised conditions were not read out loud, not projected on screen, not Item: 9
1210
meaningfully summarized, and not provided in a way that allowed residents or viewers of the recorded meeting to understand what conditions the Planning Commission was relying on before the vote.

The public was asked to comment on a moving target. Residents did not have a meaningful opportunity to inspect, understand, evaluate, and comment on the actual conditions being considered before the Planning Commission acted.

The City Council should not rely on the June 4 Planning Commission record as a valid or reliable basis for approval.

2. Revised Conditions and CEQA Recirculation
The revised conditions appear to be substantive, not clerical. They appear to relate to truck operations, air quality, hazardous materials, fire safety, future tenant limitations, hours of operation, enforcement, and neighborhood protection.

Under CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added after public notice of the Draft EIR but before certification. If the revised conditions were important enough to support approval, reduce impacts, respond to public concerns, or allow the City to make CEQA findings, then the City must explain why those conditions do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation or additional public review.

If the revised conditions were not substantive, then the City cannot rely on them to claim that the project’s impacts have been adequately addressed.

Either way, the City Council should not certify the Final EIR or approve the project without first publishing the final revised conditions, providing a redline, reopening public comment, and explaining whether additional CEQA review is required under CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5.

3. Inadequate and Unenforceable Mitigation
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(2) requires mitigation measures to be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the public agency to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for project changes or conditions adopted to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, and that program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. CEQA Guidelines section 15097 similarly requires adoption of a mitigation monitoring or reporting program when an EIR is prepared and mitigation measures are adopted.

The project conditions and mitigation measures have not been shown to be specific, measurable, enforceable, or subject to meaningful City oversight.

One exchange at the June 4 hearing illustrates the problem. During the hearing, a Commissioner asked the applicant how a condition would be enforced. The applicant responded that signs would be placed on the wall. The Commissioner then immediately responded with “perfect.” I request that the City review the official video record and identify the Commissioner, the exact condition being discussed, and the full context of that exchange.

Item: 9
1211
A sign on a wall is not enforcement.

Signage is not monitoring. It is not compliance verification. It is not City oversight. It is not a penalty. It is not a resident complaint process. It is not a consequence for violation.

If the City relies on conditions to approve this project, the City must identify a City-controlled enforcement mechanism for each condition. The City must explain who monitors compliance, how violations are verified, how residents may complain, what response deadlines apply, what penalties apply, whether violations will be public, and whether repeated violations may trigger suspension, modification, revocation, or return to the Planning Commission or City Council.

The City cannot approve the project based on conditions and then shift responsibility to the applicant, a future tenant, truck drivers, delivery companies, contractors, OCFA, traffic staff, or other third parties.

4. Inadequate Project Description
CEQA Guidelines section 15124 requires an EIR to contain an accurate, stable, and finite project description, including the precise location and objectives of the project.

Here, the project description remains inadequate because the future tenant is unknown. The project is described as including office, manufacturing, and warehouse space, but the actual operator, manufacturing activities, materials stored, truck fleet, operating hours, hazardousmaterials profile, fire load, EV truck charging needs, and emergency-response demands remain unknown.

This uncertainty goes to the core of the project’s environmental impacts.

Without knowing the future tenant, the City cannot adequately evaluate diesel truck activity, hazardous materials, fire risk, chemical risk, odor, noise, truck routing, emergency response, EV charging risks, or whether the project will operate more like a logistics warehouse, manufacturing facility, or higher-risk industrial use.

The City should not approve a broad industrial entitlement first and leave the real environmental review to future tenant permitting.

5. Inadequate EIR Analysis
CEQA Guidelines section 15151 requires an EIR to be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information that enables them to make a decision intelligently taking account of environmental consequences.

The Final EIR does not provide an adequate basis for the City Council to intelligently evaluate the project’s impacts because key issues remain unresolved, including future tenant uncertainty, truck operations, diesel emissions, sensitive receptor impacts, children’s health, hazardous materials, fire safety, EV truck charging, enforcement, cumulative industrial impacts, and whether the revised conditions are enforceable.

The City Council should not certify the EIR unless it can make findings based on substantial evidence and a complete record that actually analyzes these issues.

6. Truck Traffic and Truck-Route Enforcement
Item: 9
1212
The project includes a gated truck loading area and off-site improvements at five intersections to address large truck turning movements. This confirms that heavy truck operations are central to the project.

The City should require a binding truck trip cap, enforceable truck routes, truck tracking, queuing controls, on-site check-in, restrictions on idling, restrictions on overnight truck activity, restrictions on truck movements adjacent to residential receptors, and a public complaint and reporting process.

The City must also explain what happens if actual truck activity exceeds the assumptions used in the EIR.

A truck-route sign is not enough. A wall sign is not enough. A general promise to comply is not enough.

7. Air Quality, Diesel Particulate Matter, and Sensitive Receptors The EIR and conditions do not adequately address air quality and diesel particulate matter risks to nearby residents, children, seniors, and sensitive receptors.

Residents have repeatedly raised concerns regarding diesel emissions, truck idling, truck queues, cumulative exposure, and industrial operations near residential communities. The City must fully respond to South Coast AQMD comments and explain whether the Final EIR uses conservative assumptions regarding truck idling, truck activity, sensitive receptors, and health risk.

If the City rejected AQMD recommendations, it must identify the substantial evidence supporting that decision.

8. EV Truck Claims Without EV Charging Safety Review
The applicant suggested that future EV trucks may serve the project and may reduce noise.

The City should not rely on hypothetical EV trucks as a project benefit, mitigation measure, or response to residents’ concerns unless EV truck use is required, enforceable, and safetyreviewed.

I have not seen enforceable project conditions requiring EV trucks. I have not seen a heavyduty EV truck charging safety plan. I have not seen charger locations, setbacks from homes, OCFA review, lithium-ion battery fire response, thermal runaway response, emergency shutoffs, collision protection, fire access, contaminated firewater containment, or public review before future tenant installation of EV chargers.

If EV trucks are not mandatory, they should not be used to reassure residents. If EV trucks are intended to be part of the project, the City must require enforceable conditions and projectspecific safety review now.

9. Hazardous Materials, Fire Safety, and Future Tenant Risk The project’s hazardous materials, fire safety, emergency response, and future tenant risks remain unresolved.

Item: 9
1213
The City should not allow an unknown future tenant to introduce new industrial, chemical, battery, flammable, manufacturing, storage, or logistics risks without additional public review.

At minimum, the City should require that any future tenant change, material operational change, hazardous-materials use, heavy-duty EV charging installation, or expansion of truck operations return to the Planning Commission or City Council for noticed public review before occupancy or operation.

10. Cumulative Impacts
The EIR and conditions do not adequately address cumulative impacts.

The IPT project should not be evaluated in isolation if Enterprise Way and the surrounding area are also being considered for additional industrial, warehouse, logistics, or truck-serving projects.

The City must analyze cumulative diesel emissions, cumulative truck traffic, cumulative noise, cumulative fire and emergency-response demands, cumulative hazardous-materials risk, cumulative VMT, cumulative air quality impacts, and cumulative impacts on nearby residential communities and children.

11. Alternatives Analysis
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 requires an EIR to describe a reasonable range of alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the project’s basic objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening significant environmental effects.

The alternatives analysis is inadequate if it fails to seriously evaluate a reduced-intensity alternative, no-warehouse alternative, no-manufacturing alternative, no-truck-dock alternative, office/R&D reuse alternative, increased-buffer alternative, residential-protective alternative, or alternative site away from sensitive receptors.

A meaningful alternatives analysis must evaluate options that would reduce industrial truck impacts, diesel exposure, fire risk, hazardous-materials risk, noise, traffic conflicts, and landuse incompatibility near homes and children.

12. Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA Guidelines section 15093 governs Statements of Overriding Considerations and requires the agency to balance project benefits against unavoidable environmental risks and include the statement in the project approval record.

The City Council should not adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations unless it identifies substantial evidence of specific, concrete, and overriding project benefits.

General claims about redevelopment, jobs, economic activity, tax revenue, or possible future EV trucks are not enough. Construction jobs are temporary. The future tenant is unknown.

Permanent jobs are not quantified, guaranteed, local, or tied to enforceable hiring requirements. Speculative economic benefits should not override long-term health, safety, traffic, air quality, fire risk, hazardous-materials, and neighborhood impacts to nearby residents.

Item: 9
1214

13. AB 98 Public Health and Logistics-Siting Policy
AB 98 reflects California’s current public policy concern regarding logistics facilities near sensitive receptors. If the City contends that AB 98 does not apply because the project entered the local entitlement process before September 30, 2024, the City should disclose that position in writing and identify the statutory basis for any claimed grandfathering exemption.

Even if the City claims AB 98 does not technically apply, the project appears inconsistent with AB 98’s public-health and residential-protection principles for logistics uses near homes, schools, parks, daycare centers, and other sensitive receptors.

14. Planning Commission Conduct and Lack of Independent Scrutiny The Planning Commission hearing did not reflect adequate independent scrutiny.

The applicant appeared to receive repeated opportunities to explain, supplement, and rehabilitate weaknesses in the project record, while residents’ concerns were minimized or treated skeptically. Some Commissioner comments appeared to compare residents’ concerns to ordinary traffic inconvenience, including comments about living near major roadways or getting used to traffic.

That comparison misses the point.

Residents are not merely complaining about ordinary traffic. Residents are objecting to industrial intensification near homes and children, diesel truck activity, unknown tenant risks, hazardous materials, fire safety, noise, air pollution, and long-term community impacts.

The City Council should conduct its own independent review and should not simply ratify the Planning Commission’s approach.

15. Premature or Confusing Notice of Determination
The City appears to have filed a Notice of Determination after the June 4 Planning Commission action, while also noticing a de novo City Council appeal hearing. The City must clarify whether the June 4 action was final, whether the Notice of Determination was premature, whether the NOD should be withdrawn or amended, and whether the City contends any CEQA statute of limitations began running before the administrative appeal process was complete.

The City should not create confusion by treating the project as finally approved for CEQA limitations purposes while simultaneously treating the matter as pending before the City Council on a de novo appeal.

16. Public Hearing Notice, Holiday Timing, and Practical Access to Materials The City’s public hearing notice states that the full agenda and backup information will be available on the Friday before the July 7 hearing. That Friday is July 3, 2026, immediately before the Independence Day holiday weekend and reportedly a City-observed holiday.

For a de novo hearing involving CEQA certification, findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, MMRP, revised conditions, and a Site Development Permit, releasing the full backup materials immediately before a holiday weekend does not provide the public with a Item: 9
1215
meaningful opportunity to review, consult, prepare, request translation, and submit informed comments.

The City should continue the hearing and provide the public with adequate time to review all materials.

Requested City Council Action
For all of the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Grant the appeal.

2. Overturn the Planning Commission’s June 4, 2026 approval.

3. Decline to certify the Final EIR.

4. Decline to adopt the CEQA findings.

5. Decline to adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

6. Decline to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

7. Deny Site Development Permit 06-21-5437.

8. Continue the hearing if the Council is not prepared to deny the project.

9. Require additional CEQA review and recirculation if the City intends to rely on revised conditions or new information.

10. Publish all final revised conditions and redlines.

11. Provide a condition-by-condition enforcement matrix.

12. Require City-controlled enforcement mechanisms for all conditions.

13. Require future tenant changes and heavy-duty EV charging installation to return for public review.

14. Require additional analysis of hazardous materials, fire safety, EV truck charging, diesel exposure, cumulative impacts, truck-route enforcement, and sensitive receptor impacts.

15. Provide written responses to each issue raised in this letter.

16. Include this letter and all attachments, emails, written comments, late correspondence, and hearing testimony in the official administrative record.

This letter is intended to preserve all objections and issues for purposes of CEQA, the Ralph M. Brown Act, the Lake Forest Municipal Code, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1094.5 and 1094.6, and any other applicable administrative or judicial review.

Please include this letter in the official administrative record for the IPT Enterprise Business Center project and all related CEQA, Brown Act, City Council, Planning Commission, permitting, administrative appeal, and judicial review proceedings.

I reserve all rights and objections under CEQA, the Ralph M. Brown Act, the California Government Code, the Public Resources Code, the CEQA Guidelines, the California Code of Civil Procedure, the Lake Forest Municipal Code, and all other applicable laws.

Sincerely,
Kai Zhong
CAUTION: Think Security! This email is not from someone at the City of Lake Forest. Do not click any links or open any attachments you are not expecting.

Item: 9
1216
Charlene So
July 1, 2026
City of Lake Forest – City Council
Community Development Department
100 Civic Center Drive
Lake Forest, CA 92630
Subject: Support for Proposed Development at 26200 Enterprise Way To whom it may concern:

I am writing as a Lake Forest resident (located within the near-by Baker Ranch community) and parent to two students at Foothill Ranch Elementary to express my support for the proposed redevelopment of the property at 26200 Enterprise Way.

Like many residents, I care deeply about thoughtful growth in our community and the long-term quality of life for families who live here. After reviewing the information available regarding this project, I believe this proposal represents a reasonable and positive reinvestment within an existing business property that has long been designated for employment-related uses.

What stands out to me is that this is not a proposal to introduce a new land use into an incompatible area, but rather to modernize an existing site within an established business park. I appreciate that the project includes updated architecture, landscaping, sustainability features, and infrastructure improvements that can benefit the surrounding area.

As someone who lives off the Alton corridor, my husband and I did our research and were well aware when purchasing our home that this area includes established business and employment uses that have existed for many years. That context matters to me. While I understand that residents may have differing opinions about future development, I believe it is reasonable to evaluate projects based on their location, surrounding land uses, and the facts presented through the City’s review process. As a parent of schoolaged children, I would not support a project that I believed posed unreasonable concerns for our community.

I also appreciate that improvements are proposed at nearby intersections and pedestrian facilities, which I view as meaningful community benefits. Additionally, based on the information made available to the public, the proposed use is anticipated to generate less traffic than the previous office use at the site.

Item: 9
1217
City of Lake Forest – City Council
July 1, 2026