Ontario City Council
November 19, 2024

6752-007acp
printed on recycled paper
demand data)… The commenter’s recommended trip lengths are not supported by any substantial evidence provided by the SCAQMD and contradicts published material from SCAQMD that was utilized in the underlying analysis.52
The FEIR misinterprets the SCAQMD guidance. SCAQMD itself regularly comments on warehouse projects that it is essential to analyze the distance from warehouse projects to likely destinations and has emphasized that agencies should not rely solely on the 40-mile average trip length identified in its guidance. For example, SCAQMD recently commented on a warehouse project proposed for a location at a similar distance from the Ports as the instant Project:

South Coast AQMD recommended 15.3 miles, 14.2 miles, and 40 miles of truck trip lengths derived from the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) estimation of average truck trip length in its 2016 Regional Transportation Plan. However, it is essential to note that the distance from the Proposed Project site to the Port of Los Angeles or Long Beach is approximately 70 miles one-way. Thus, South Coast AQMD staff is concerned about underestimating truck emissions due to the shorter distance that HHDT is analyzed in the Draft SEIR. Hence, it is recommended that the Lead Agency revise the truck emissions analysis using the more conservative trip length between 40 to 70 miles, of which 40 miles could be used for local and 70 miles for Port trips and include the revision in the final CEQA document. Tailoring these parameters and assumptions to be based on project-specific data will ensure a more accurate assessment of emissions, accounting for the unique circumstances and logistical realities of the Proposed Project.53
52 FEIR, pg. 2-43.
53 Exhibit C, containing the following comment letters: SCAQMD, Comments on the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Hemlock Warehouse Development Project (SCH No.: 2009091089) (November 22, 2023), available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/comment-letters/2023/november-2023/SBC231011-05.pdf; also attached as Attachment B to Mr. Marshall’s comments; SCAQMD, Comments on Notice of Availability of a Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Rubidoux Commerce Park Project (Proposed Project) (SCH No. 2020110449) (October 9, 2023), available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/comment-letters/2023/october-2023/RVC230901-01.pdf; SCAQMD, Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Optimus Logistics Center 2 (September 11, 2015), pg. 3, available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/commentletters/2015/september/deiroptimus.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (“Since the port areas are over 70 miles away from the project site and that trucks will be serving other destinations within the basin and out of state, the SCAQMD staff recommends, absent a tenant-specific analysis with trip length information, that all applicable analyses be revised in the Final EIR using a one-way trip length that more accurately estimates air quality emission and related impacts based on the anticipated activities and distances 1-15
1-16
2824
April 15, 2024

6752-007acp
printed on recycled paper
In sum, the FEIR is incorrect when it states that CARE CA’s recommendation to use a 60-mile truck trip length for trips to Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach is not supported by substantial evidence. Rather, it is the FEIR’s truck trip length assumptions which are not supported by substantial evidence – SCAQMD does not recommend blind reliance on truck trip lengths of 15.3 miles,

14.2 miles, and 40 miles for warehouse projects such as the instant Project for which longer trips to and from the ports are reasonably foreseeable.

Dr. Clark’s comments also discuss the relationship between the ports and warehouses like this Project. Dr. Clark discusses the large percentage of goods passing through the ports, the number of truck trips generated by the ports, and observes that the Project site is approximately 62 miles via Interstate 15 to Route 91 to Interstate 710.54 Substantial evidence therefore demonstrates that the Project’s truck trip lengths are underestimated, resulting in underestimation of transportation, air quality, and GHG impacts. The Project cannot be approved until this error is corrected in a revised and recirculated EIR.

F. The FEIR Fails to Include Sufficient Investigation into Energy Conservation Measures
The DEIR and FEIR do not include sufficient investigation into energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for the Project. In the DEIR, the City concludes that energy impacts of the Project would be less than significant because the Project’s construction and operations would comply with state regulations.55 But as discussed below, the Project’s environmental review does not sufficiently consider energy conservation measures like solar facilities, use of alternate fuel sources, and passive energy efficiency measures to ensure the Project’s energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. The FEIR briefly addresses some energy conservation measures in Responses B-59, B56, and B-53, but only to explain that none are required because air quality impacts are less than significant. This analysis fails to meet CEQA’s requirements.

CEQA requires an environmental document to discuss mitigation measures for significant environmental impacts, including “measures to reduce the wasteful, described in the DEIR.”); SCAQMD, Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Westgate Specific Plan (SCH No. 1995052002) (March 5, 2015), pg. 5, available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/commentletters/2015/march/deirwestgate.pdf?sfvrsn=4; SCAQMD, Comments on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft MND) for the Proposed Colton – DEXUS Project (February 1, 2013), available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/comment-letters/2013/february/colton-dexus.pdf. 54 Clark Comments, pg. 6. 55 DEIR, pg. 4.4-5, 6.
1-19
1-17
1-16
1-18
2825
April 15, 2024

6752-007acp
printed on recycled paper
inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.”56 The CEQA Guidelines require discussion of energy conservation measures when relevant, and provide examples in Appendix F:57
1) Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed. 2) The potential of siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy, increase water conservation and reduce solid waste.
3) The potential for reducing peak energy demand.
4) Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems. 5) Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts.

Courts have rejected EIRs that fail to include adequate analysis investigation into energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for a project.58 In California Clean Energy Commission v. City of Woodland (“CCEC”),59 the Court of Appeal reviewed an EIR for a shopping center on undeveloped agricultural land. The EIR concluded that, due to the proposed project’s compliance with Title 24 guidelines and regulations, the project would be expected to have a less-than-significant impact regarding the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. But the lead agency’s EIR did not include discussion regarding the different renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for the project. The Court held “the City's EIRs failed to comply with the requirements of Appendix F to the Guidelines by not discussing or analyzing renewable energy options.”60 The lead agency argued that compliance with the Building Code sufficed to address energy impact concerns for the project.61 But the Court explained:

Although the Building Code addresses energy savings for components of a new commercial construction, it does not address many of the considerations required under Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines… These considerations include whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should 56 Pub. Resources Code, § 21100(b)(3); Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912, 930. 57 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15126.4(a)(1)(C) (stating “‘Energy conservation measures, as well as other appropriate mitigation measures, shall be discussed when relevant.”). 58 Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 CA4th 256; Spring Valley Lake Ass’n v.

City of Victorville (2016) 248 CA4th 91.
59 (2014) 225 CA4th 173.
60 Id. at 213.
61 Id. at 210, 211.
1-20
1-19
2826
April 15, 2024

6752-007acp
printed on recycled paper
be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building's envelope. Here, a requirement that Gateway II comply with the Building Code does not, by itself, constitute an adequate assessment of mitigation measures that can be taken to address the energy impacts during construction and operation of the project.62
Here, the FEIR lacks analysis of common energy consumption measures in violation of CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. The FEIR fails to analyze the feasibility of onsite solar facilities, such as rooftop, parking lot, or ground-level solar photovoltaics. This analysis must address considerations such as the technical and economic feasibility of installing solar facilities on the Project site, the potential size of the Project’s solar zone, and the potential magnitude of mitigation provided by installing solar facilities. The FEIR also fails to evaluate the extent to which mobile source energy consumption could be reduced during Project operations through electric vehicle charging infrastructure (above what is required by existing regulations).

The FEIR acknowledges that a diesel backup generator may be required for Project operations,63 but fails to evaluate measures to reduce this source of energy consumption, such as use of alternative fuel sources.

The FEIR also fails to evaluate the feasibility of more stringent idling requirements over existing requirements.64
The FEIR’s discussion of construction energy conservation measures also violates CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. The City’s energy analysis fails to evaluate the feasibility of utilizing existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or alternative fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.65 The FEIR contains responses briefly addressing the measures discussed above.66 But the responses simply state: “[a]s concluded in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, Project operation-source emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutants even when not taking 62 CECC (2014) 225 CA4th 173, 213.
63 FEIR, pg. 2-40. 64 Page 4.2-18 (CARB Rule 2485 (13 CCR 2485): Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit DieselFuel Commercial Vehicle Idling, which limits nonessential idling to five minutes or less for commercial trucks; CARB Rule 2449 (13 CCR 2449): In-Use Off-Road Diesel Idling Restricts, which limits nonessential idling to five minutes or less for diesel-powered off-road equipment.). 65 DEIR, Appendix D, pg. 37.
66 See FEIR, Responses B-59, B-56, and B-53.
1-20
1-21
1-22
1-23
1-24
2827
April 15, 2024

6752-007acp
printed on recycled paper
into account of existing development emissions (Refer to Draft EIR pp. 4.2-31 to 4.2- 32)… Thus, the City determines that additional mitigation is not warranted.”67 This type of response does not evaluate the feasibility or effectiveness of energyconservation measures, and thus does not provide the analysis required by CEQA Guidelines Appendix F.

In sum, the FEIR’s energy analysis fails adequately analyze measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy, and fails to meaningfully address Appendix F’s considerations of whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building's envelope.68 This analysis must be provided in a revised and recirculated EIR.

III. THE BOARD CANNOT MAKE THE REQUISITE FINDINGS TO

RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT
Section 4.02.025(D) of the City of Ontario Municipal Code sets forth findings necessary to approve a development plan. The Code provides that an application for a development plan shall be denied if the following finding (among others) cannot be clearly established: “The proposed development will complement and/or improve upon the quality of existing development in the vicinity of the project and the minimum safeguards necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare have been required of the proposed project.”69
The Staff Report states that the Project meets this requirement, but this finding lacks support.70 The Project would have a significant and unavoidable VMT impact. And the Project has potentially significant health risk, air quality, GHG, and energy impacts which have been underestimated in the FEIR. Because the Project’s impacts on public health, safety and general welfare have not been adequately analyzed and mitigated, the City cannot make the requisite findings to approve the Project.
67 FEIR, Response B-57.
68 Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 CA4th 256, 264. 69 Section 4.02.025(D)(3).
70 Staff Report, PDEV22-017, Part 3, Section 4.
1-24
1-25
1-26
2828
April 15, 2024

6752-007acp
printed on recycled paper
For the same reason, the Staff Report lacks support to make the following finding in recommending adoption of the FEIR: “[t]he draft EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project.”71 A revised EIR must be recirculated before the Project can be recommended for approval.

IV. CONCLUSION
As is explained herein, the FEIR’s air quality, health risk, energy, and transportation analyses remain substantially inaccurate and incomplete, failing to comply with the requirements of CEQA. As a result, the FEIR still fails to adequately disclose and mitigate the Project’s significant impacts. As a consequence of these impacts, the City cannot make the requisite findings under CEQA to recommend certification of the FEIR or under the City of Ontario Municipal Code to approve the Project’s development plan. CARE CA urges the Board to recommend that the City revise and recirculate the EIR before any further action is taken on the Project.

Sincerely,
Aidan P. Marshall
Attachments
APM:acp
71 Staff Report, PDEV22-017 – Draft EIR, Part 3, Section 1; Staff Report, PDEV22-017, Part 3, Section 1.
1-27
1-28
2829

EXHIBIT A
2830
1 794 Sawnee Bean Road
Thetford Center VT 05075
Norman Marshall, President
(802) 356-2969
[email protected]
April 15, 2023
Aidan P. Marshall
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: 5355 East Airport Drive Project
Dear Mr. Marshall,
In October 2023, I reviewed trip generation, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of the City of Ontario Draft Environmental Impact Report for a proposed warehouse project at 5355 East Airport Drive (“DEIR”). I made the following findings:
1) The DEIR acknowledges significant and unavoidable VMT impact. Furthermore, the DEIR documents that the project would exceed the VMT screening thresholds by a wide margin:

22.56% in the baseline year and 28.47% in the horizon year. 2) The proposed VMT mitigation is not fully specified or quantified in the DEIR and appears to fall far short of what would be required to reduce project VMT below the City’s threshold. Achieving significant VMT mitigation for this project may be impossible – but mitigation must be specified and quantified for the project to be properly evaluated. 3) Project trip generation could be much higher than assumed. Given the large uncertainty in the project’s trip generation, the applicant should take one of two paths -either a) applying a significantly higher and more conservative trip generation rate, or b) requesting as a condition of approval that trip generation will not exceed the number assumed in the EIR, and this be certified prior to beginning construction.
4) Project GHG emissions could be much higher than assumed. In addition to trip generation possibly being underestimated, average trip lengths for both trucks and passenger vehicles are likely to be underestimated in the DEIR.

Now, I have reviewed the responses to these comments made in the project’s Final Environmental Impact Review (“FEIR”) dated February 2024.
1-29
1-30
2831
2 Truck trip lengths – The FEIR repeats the false assertion that the truck trip lengths follow SCAQMD’s recommendations (FEIR, A-18, p. 2-43). In my October 2023 comments, I addressed this, writing:

The truck trip lengths are used in calculations of possible mitigation in Second Draft Staff Report Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program. And Proposed Rule 316 -Fees for Rule 2305.
1 The reference for these numbers is the 2016 SCAG travel demand model (p. 117) and there is no indication that these numbers are intended for any use beyond this single document. The 40-mile heavy truck trip length also appears in a 2014 slide presentation.
2 In neither case, are these numbers presented as general recommendations for warehouse EIRs.

To prove that this is not a general SCAQMD recommendation for all warehouses, I attach SCAQMD’s November 22, 2023 comments on the Hemlock Warehouse Development Project Draft SEIR in the City of Fontana. That Draft SEIR applied the same truck trip lengths as used in the 5355 East Airport Drive DEIR and FEIR. SCAQMD’s comments state:

However, it is essential to note that the distance from the Proposed Project site to the Port of Los Angeles or Long Beach is approximately 70 miles one-way. Thus, South Coast AQMD staff is concerned about underestimating truck emissions due to the shorter distance that HHDT is analyzed in the Draft SEIR. Hence, it is recommended that the Lead Agency revise the truck emissions analysis using the more conservative trip length between 40 to 70 miles, of which 40 miles could be used for local and 70 miles for Port trips and include the revision in the final CEQA document. Tailoring these parameters and assumptions to be based on project-specific data will ensure a more accurate assessment of emissions, accounting for the unique circumstances and logistical realities of the Proposed Project. (p. 2)
SCAQMD is making the same point I made in my October 2023 comments where I wrote:
it is notable that important major freight origins and destinations are considerably further away than the trip lengths assumed in the DEIR. These include the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that are approximately 60 miles away. It would be more conservative to assume longer average truck distances in the air quality and GHG analyses.

The FEIR does not use SCAQMD- recommended truck trip lengths. SCAQMD instead recommends: “Tailoring these parameters and assumptions to be based on project-specific data will ensure a more accurate assessment of emissions, accounting for the unique circumstances and logistical realities of the Proposed Project.” 1 www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/fbmsm-docs/pr-2305_sr_2nd-draft_4-7-21_clean.pdf 2 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study-for-airquality-analysis/sclc_warehouse-presentation-final.pdf 1-30
2832
3 VMT mitigation – The FEIR continues to state that the proposed project would exceed the VMT screening thresholds by a wide margin: 22.56% in the baseline year and 28.47% in the horizon year.

However, the FEIR states that these impacts cannot be mitigated because “measures associated with commute trip reduction (CTR) programs and their related commute trip reduction strategies have been excluded as they are not quantifiable, nor can their implementation be guaranteed and enforced since the Project is proposed to be developed as a speculative building without a known tenant." (FEIR A-24, p. 2-44)
My October 2023 comments recommended requiring CAPCOA T-5 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Mandatory Implementation and Monitoring) – that can provide up to 26% VMT reduction:

The mandatory CTR program must include all other elements (i.e., Measures T-7 through T-11) described for the voluntary program (Measure T-5) plus include mandatory trip reduction requirements (including penalties for non-compliance) and regular monitoring and reporting to ensure the calculated VMT reduction matches the observed VMT reduction). (Handbook, p. 86)
A smaller mandatory reduction may be appropriate for this project, with this requirement passed on to the tenant, but it is not sufficient to claim that no significant mitigation is possible.

In addition, the attached SCAQMD comments on the Hemlock Warehouse Development Project recommends several mitigation measures targeting truck emissions, including:
• Require zero-emissions (ZE) or near-zero emission (NZE) on-road haul trucks, • Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the Proposed Project to levels analyzed in the final CEQA document, and
• Provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and electrical hookups for truckers. (p.3) Trip generation
In my October 2023 comments, I provided data on different types of warehouses that have significantly higher trip generation rates than the 1.75 trips per 1000 sq. ft. assumed in the DEIR and FEIR. These include:

The Parcel Hub Warehouse trip generation rate is 2.6 times the rate used in the DEIR, and the Fulfillment Center Warehouse with Sorting rate is 5.2 times the rate used in the DEIR.

The FEIR argues that the highest generators that I discussed in my October 2023 comments could not be accommodated because “. . . the layout of the site with 251 parking spaces would not reasonable accommodate the on-site parking required to support these uses.” This point about parking may be valid for the highest generators per 1000 sq. ft. but not for the intermediate generators. The DEIR and FEIR estimate only 270 passenger car trips per day (DEIR Appendix K, p. 5), i.e., 135 vehicles in and 135 cars out. Therefore, if all cars were employees and they all worked the same single shift, the parking lot utilization would never exceed 54%. With multiple shifts and non-employee passenger car trips, the parking lot utilization would be much 1-31
1-32
1-33
1-34
1-35
2833
4 lower. Therefore, the parking lot is designed to support many more trips than assumed in the DEIR and FEIR.

The 251 parking spaces are consistent with ITE Land Use 156: High Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse.

This use is described:

A high-cube warehouse (HCW) is a building that typically has at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area, has a ceiling height of 24 feet or more, and is used primarily for the storage and/ or consolidation of manufactured goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. A typical HCW has a high level of on-site automation and logistics management. The automation and logistics enable highly-efficient processing of goods through the HCW. A high-cube warehouse can be free-standing or located in an industrial park. A high-cube parcel hub warehouse typically serves as a regional and local freight-forwarder facility for time sensitive shipments via airfreight and ground carriers. A site can also include truck maintenance, wash, or fueling facilities. Some limited assembly and repackaging may occur within the facility.

Given the uncertainty concerning the proposed project and its size, 270,377 sq. ft., it could foreseeably end up being a High-Cube-Parcel-Hub Warehouse as defined above.

The number of parking spaces provided also is consistent with this usage. The trip generation rate for this category is 4.63 trips per 1000 sq. ft., i.e. 2.6 times the rate used in the DEIR and FEIR. This rate includes 0.58 truck trips per 1000 sq. ft. Therefore, the passenger car rate is 4.05 trips per 1000 sq. ft. As a High-Cube-Parcel-Hub Warehouse, the proposed project would generate 1095 passenger car trips per day.

The DEIR states:

For the purposes of this EIR, the Project is assumed to be operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week, with exterior loading and parking areas illuminated at night. (DEIR, p. 3-13)
This suggests multiple shifts each day.

Some of the passenger car trips would not be parking long term, including trips dropping off and picking up workers, and miscellaneous service trips, all of which include both and entering trip and an exiting trip. However, even if all passenger car trips involved parking long-term, all the trips could be accommodated with the planned 251 parking spaces if each space is occupied an average of 2.18 times per day.
1-35
1-36
2834
5 As I stated in my October 2023 comment letter:

Given the large uncertainty in the project’s trip generation, the applicant should take one of two paths - either a) applying a significantly higher and more conservative trip generation rate, or b) requesting as a condition of approval that trip generation will not exceed the number assumed in the EIR, and this be certified prior to beginning construction.

Sincerely,
Norman L. Marshall
1-37
2835
6 Resume
NORMAN L. MARSHALL, PRESIDENT
[email protected]
EDUCATION:

Master of Science in Engineering Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 1982 Bachelor of Science in Mathematics, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, 1977 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: (33 Years, 19 at Smart Mobility, Inc.) Norm Marshall helped found Smart Mobility, Inc. in 2001. Prior to this, he was at RSG for 14 years where he developed a national practice in travel demand modeling. He specializes in analyzing the relationships between the built environment and travel behavior and doing planning that coordinates multi-modal transportation with land use and community needs.

Regional Land Use/Transportation Scenario Planning
Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System (PACTS) – the Portland Maine Metropolitan Planning Organization. Updating regional travel demand model with new data (including AirSage), adding a truck model, and multiclass assignment including differentiation between cash toll and transponder payments.

Loudoun County Virginia Dynamic Traffic Assignment – Enhanced subarea travel demand model to include Dynamic Traffic Assignment (Cube). Model being used to better understand impacts of roadway expansion on induced travel.

Vermont Agency of Transportation-Enhanced statewide travel demand model to evaluate travel impacts of closures and delays resulting from severe storm events. Model uses innovate Monte Carlo simulations process to account for combinations of failures.

California Air Resources Board – Led team including the University of California in $250k project that reviewed the ability of the new generation of regional activity-based models and land use models to accurately account for greenhouse gas emissions from alternative scenarios including more compact walkable land use and roadway pricing. This work included hands-on testing of the most complex travel demand models in use in the U.S. today.

Climate Plan (California statewide) – Assisted large coalition of groups in reviewing and participating in the target setting process required by Senate Bill 375 and administered by the California Air Resources Board to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions through land use measures and other regional initiatives.

Chittenden County (2060 Land use and Transportation Vision Burlington Vermont region) – led extensive public visioning project as part of MPO’s long-range transportation plan update.

Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization – Implemented walk, transit and bike models within regional travel demand model. The bike model includes skimming bike networks including on-road and off-road bicycle facilities with a bike level of service established for each segment.

Chicago Metropolis Plan and Chicago Metropolis Freight Plan (6-county region)— developed alternative transportation scenarios, made enhancements in the regional travel demand model, and used the enhanced 2836
7 model to evaluate alternative scenarios including development of alternative regional transit concepts.

Developed multi-class assignment model and used it to analyze freight alternatives including congestion pricing and other peak shifting strategies.

Municipal Planning
City of Grand Rapids – Michigan Street Corridor – developed peak period subarea model including nonmotorized trips based on urban form. Model is being used to develop traffic volumes for several alternatives that are being additional analyzed using the City’s Synchro model City of Omaha - Modified regional travel demand model to properly account for non-motorized trips, transit trips and shorter auto trips that would result from more compact mixed-use development. Scenarios with different roadway, transit, and land use alternatives were modeled.

City of Dublin (Columbus region) – Modified regional travel demand model to properly account for nonmotorized trips and shorter auto trips that would result from more compact mixed-use development. The model was applied in analyses for a new downtown to be constructed in the Bridge Street corridor on both sides of an historic village center.

City of Portland, Maine – Implemented model improvements that better account for non-motorized trips and interactions between land use and transportation and applied the enhanced model to two subarea studies.

City of Honolulu – Kaka’ako Transit Oriented Development (TOD) – applied regional travel demand model in estimating impacts of proposed TOD including estimating internal trip capture.

City of Burlington (Vermont) Transportation Plan – Led team that developing Transportation Plan focused on supporting increased population and employment without increases in traffic by focusing investments and policies on transit, walking, biking and Transportation Demand Management.

Transit Planning
Regional Transportation Authority (Chicago) and Chicago Metropolis 2020 – evaluated alternative 2020 and 2030 system-wide transit scenarios including deterioration and enhance/expand under alternative land use and energy pricing assumptions in support of initiatives for increased public funding.

Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Austin, TX) Transit Vision – analyzed the regional effects of implementing the transit vision in concert with an aggressive transit-oriented development plan developed by Calthorpe Associates. Transit vision includes commuter rail and BRT.

Bus Rapid Transit for Northern Virginia HOT Lanes (Breakthrough Technologies, Inc and Environmental Defense.) – analyzed alternative Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) strategies for proposed privately-developing High Occupancy Toll lanes on I-95 and I-495 (Capital Beltway) including different service alternatives (point-to-point services, trunk lines intersecting connecting routes at in-line stations, and hybrid).

Roadway Corridor Planning
I-30 Little Rock Arkansas – Developed enhanced version of regional travel demand model that integrates TransCAD with open source Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) software, and used to model I-30 alternatives.

Freeway bottlenecks are modeled much more accurately than in the base TransCAD model. 2837
8 South Evacuation Lifeline (SELL) – In work for the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, used Dynamic Travel Assignment (DTA) to estimate evaluation times with different transportation alternatives in coastal South Caroline including a new proposed freeway.

Hudson River Crossing Study (Capital District Transportation Committee and NYSDOT) – Analyzing long term capacity needs for Hudson River bridges which a special focus on the I-90 Patroon Island Bridge where a microsimulation VISSIM model was developed and applied.

PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS (partial list)
DTA Love: Co-leader of workshop on Dynamic Traffic Assignment at the June 2019 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.

Forecasting the Impossible: The Status Quo of Estimating Traffic Flows with Static Traffic Assignment and the Future of Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Research in Transportation Business and Management 2018.

Assessing Freeway Expansion Projects with Regional Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Presented at the August 2018 Transportation Research Board Tools of the Trade Conference on Transportation Planning for Small and Medium Sized Communities.

Vermont Statewide Resilience Modeling. With Joseph Segale, James Sullivan and Roy Schiff. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.

Assessing Freeway Expansion Projects with Regional Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.

Pre-Destination Choice Walk Mode Choice Modeling. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.

A Statistical Model of Regional Traffic Congestion in the United States, presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.

MEMBERSHIPS/AFFILIATIONS
Associate Member, Transportation Research Board (TRB)
Member and Co-Leader Project for Transportation Modeling Reform, Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) 2838

EXHIBIT B
2839
1 | Page
April 15, 2024
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Mr. Aidan Marshall
Subject: Comments On Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) 5355 East Airport Drive, City of Ontario, CA SCH No. 202209006
At the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ABJC), Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed materials related to the City of Ontario (the City) FEIR of the above referenced project.

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

Project Description:

According to the City of Ontario’s Development Advisory Board Decision File No. PDEV22-017 – Draft EIR (dated March 18, 2024), the Project consists of a Development Plan application to construct a 270,337 square-foot industrial building on the 13.08 acres of the Project site. The Project would require the demolition of the existing buildings and structures, on-site landscaping, and on-site parking. The design would also include the installation of site improvements, including drive aisles, landscaping, utility infrastructure, underground storm drain detection facilities, exterior lighting, walls/fencing, and signage along with improvements to East Airport Drive.

Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc.

OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd
Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]
1-38
1-39
2840
2 | Page
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Under existing conditions, the Project Site is developed with a grain processing company and a corn storage and distribution facility. The eastern portion of the Project Site contains grain storage silos, grain mill area, and five buildings that are used for maintenance and repair, grain storage, and service shop. The western portion of the Project Site contains enclosed grain storage, with an office trailer. A vehicle wash-down area is also present on the northeastern portion of the Site. Several subsurface septic systems are located beneath the Site to serve the existing uses. 1-39
2841
3 | Page
Specific Comments

1. The City’s Air Quality Analysis Did Not Incorporate Building Downwash In The AERMOD Analysis.

A review of the AQ Analysis and the Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment show that building downwash was not incorporated into the AERMOD analysis of the Project. Building downwash occurs as the wind flows over and around buildings and impacts the dispersion of pollution from nearby stacks. A plume caught in the path of this flow is drawn into the wake, temporarily trapping it in a recirculating cavity. This downwash effect leads to higher ground-level concentration of chemicals emitted from sources. The downwash effect increases as the relative difference between the release height and top of the building increases.1 Using a lower height for the building will underestimate the potential ground level concentrations of pollutants associated with the Project operation.

For the closest receptors to the site, this difference will create an additional air quality impact that is not accounted for in the City’s analysis. In addition to incorporating the building downwash impacts of the Project buildings, the AERMOD model should also incorporate the building downwash for receptors near the Project. Receptors farther away will still be subject to the downwash effect given the assumed emission height release incorporated into the model. Guidance from authoritative bodies in California regarding the preparation of health risk assessments of mobile sources of diesel emissions2 requires the inclusion of building heights and dimensions for building downwash calculations. Omission of the building downwash effect underestimates the exposure point concentrations for receptors near the building(s). The City should address the impact of this issue in a revised DEIR.
1 The so-called good engineering practice height (GEP) of the source. The GEP is defined in Section 123 of the Clean Air Act as “the height necessary to ensure that emissions from a stack do not result in excessive concentrations of any air pollutant in the immediate vicinity of the source as a result of atmospheric downwash, eddies or wakes which may be created by the source itself, nearby structures or nearby terrain obstacles.” 2 SCAQMD. 2003. Health Risk Assessment Guidance For Analyzing Cancer Risks From Mobile Source Diesel Emissions. August, 2003. Page 2.
1-40
2842
4 | Page

2. The Air Quality Analysis Relies On An Input Value From AP-42 That Is Rated As Poor And May Be Unreliable
The CalEEMOD analysis of the construction emissions incorporates various factors from U.S.

EPA’s Emission Factors Handbook (AP-42). The AP-42 emission factor for crushing stones used in the CalEEMOD analysis is rated E. This is the worst rating in AP-42. According to the AP-42 FAQ - E = Poor. Factor is developed from C and D rated test data from a very few number of facilities, and there may be reason to suspect that the facilities tested do not represent a random sample of the industry. There also may be evidence of variability within the source category population. This means that there is a lot of uncertainty in the AQ analysis regarding the amount of particulate matter that will be emitted from the construction phase of the Project. The City should assess the impacts of this variable in a revised DEIR.

3. The Health Risk Analysis Incorporates Non-Standard Daily Breathing Rates For Sensitive Receptors Analyzed In The HRA

According to the FEIR, a health risk assessment was prepared in accordance with SCAQMD’s guidance. For purposes of this Health Risk Assessment, receptors include both residential and nonresidential (worker) land uses in the vicinity of the Project. These receptors are included in the Health Risk Assessment since residents and workers may be exposed at these locations over a long-term duration of 30 and 25 years, respectively.3
The input values utilized in the HRA analysis included a variety of daily breathing rates that are favorable to reducing the potential health impacts. The HRA states that “Discrete variants for daily breathing rates, exposure frequency, and exposure duration were obtained from relevant distribution profiles presented in the 2015 OEHHA Guidelines.”4 The values listed in Table 2-7 include both the 95 percent upper confidence limit (95% UCL) values (for age in utero exposure and age 0 to 2) and the 80th percentile values for the remaining age groups (age 2 to 16 and age 16 to 30). 3 Urban Crossroads. 2022. 5355 East Airport Drive Mobile Source Health Risks Assessment. Prepared by Urban Crossroads. August 30, 2022. pg 5
4 Urban Crossroads. 2022. 5355 East Airport Drive Mobile Source Health Risks Assessment. Prepared by Urban Crossroads. August 30, 2022. pg 19-20
1-41
1-42
2843
5 | Page
The risk estimates for ages 2 to 30 is off by a factor of 1.3.

Figure 2: Daily Breathing Rates Utilized In HRA
The 2015 Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual 5 notes that residential estimates use 95th percentile breathing rates in Table 5.6. Table 5.6 shows values of 745 L/kg BW-day for children age 2 to 16 and 335 L/kg BW-day for adults age 16 to 30.

The City’s analysis is therefore incomplete, is not consistent with the guidance from OEHHA, and must be corrected in a revised final environmental impact report for the Project.

4. The Average Truck Trip Length Of 40 Miles Used In The Air Quality Analysis Does Not Match The Length(s) Used To Support Other Warehouse Projects.

According to the operations air quality analysis of Project,6 the analysis incorporated the SCAQMD recommended truck trip length of 15.3 miles for 2-axle (LHDT1, LHDT2), 14.2 miles for 5 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015, http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/hotspots2015.html 6 Urban Crossroads. 2022. 5355 East Airport Drive Air Quality Impact Analysis. August 30. 2022. Pg 37 1-42
1-43
2844
6 | Page
3-axle (MHDT) trucks, and 40 miles for 4+-axle (HHDT) trucks and weighting the average trip lengths using traffic trip percentages.

This statement does not comport with the reality of where warehoused materials will ship from in the region. The 40-mile distance is insufficient to allow vehicles to travel to the major ports in the Southern California region – Los Angeles and Long Beach. These Ports are the largest source(s) of containerized products, and therefore the primary sources of heavy-duty truck traffic, on the West Coast of the United States are the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. “In 2020, the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland collectively accounted for over 34% of all United States international container trade. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach alone generate about 35,000 container truck trips every day. Accordingly, the South Coast Air Basin now contains approximately 3,000 warehouses of over 100,000 square feet each, with a total warehouse capacity of approximately 700 million square feet, an increase of 20 percent over the last five years”), 7 citing data from the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Container TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent Units)8 from 2020, the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland combined for 14.157 million TEUs, 34% of 41.24 million TEUs total nationwide.
9 The distance from the Port of LA to the Project site is approximately 62 miles via Interstate 15 to Route 91 to Interstate 710.

Using the 62-mile daily truck trip will nearly double the daily emissions of pollutants associated with the Project, increasing the Regional burden and resulting in a potentially significant impact. The City must address the impact of this issue in a revised DEIR.

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

Sincerely,
7 Available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf 8 https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Container-TEU/x3fb-aeda/ 9 U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Operations Support – Port Peak Pricing Program Evaluation (2020), available at https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09014/sect2.htm 1-43
1-44
2845
7 | Page
2846
James J. J. Clark, Ph.D.

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

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

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

Significant projects performed by Dr. Clark include the following:

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

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

Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]
2847
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

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

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

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

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

Case Result: Summary judgment for defendants.

Case: Moore V., Shell Oil Company, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to chemicals while benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court. 2848
Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

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

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

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

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

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

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.
2849
Case: JoAnne R. Cook, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-9R
Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.

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

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

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

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

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Michael Fahey, Susan Fahey V. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. United States District Court Central District of California Civil Action Number CV-06 7109 JCL.
2850
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons.

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

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

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

Case Result: Settlement in favor of defendant.

Case: Michael Nawrocki V. The Coastal Corporation, Kurk Fuel Company, Pautler Oil Service, State of New York Supreme Court, County of Erie, Index Number I2001-11247
Client: Richard G. Berger Attorney At Law, Buffalo, New York Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the 2851
known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons.

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

Case Result: Judgement in favor of defendant.

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

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

Client – Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), Los Angeles, California
Dr. Clark is advising the LAANE on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) operated by the Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) Authority. He is working with the LAANE and LAX staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports.
2852
Client – City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica, California Dr. Clark is advising the City of Santa Monica on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the facility. He is working with the City staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports.

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

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

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

Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency
Dr. Clark is part of team that performed comprehensive evaluation of soil vapor intrusion of VOCs from former landfill adjacent residences for the United Kingdom’s Environment 2853
Agency. The evaluation included collection of liquid and soil vapor samples at site, modeling of vapor migration using the Johnson Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, and calculation of site-specific health based vapor thresholds for chlorinated solvents, aromatic hydrocarbons, and semi-volatile organic compounds. The evaluation also included a detailed evaluation of the use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, and toxicology of chemicals of concern (COC). The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals.

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

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

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of perchlorate in environment. Dr. Clark evaluated the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of perchlorate. Perchlorates form the basis of solid rocket fuels and have recently been detected in water supplies in the United States. The results of this research 2854
were presented to the USEPA, National GroundWater, and ultimately published in a recent book entitled Perchlorate in the Environment.

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

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

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

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized major public health research in United States. Identified major public health research efforts within United States over last twenty years. Results were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.
2855
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Quantified the potential multi-pathway dose received by humans from a pesticide applied indoors. Part of team that developed exposure model and evaluated exposure concentrations in a comprehensive report on the plausible range of doses received by a specific person. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation.

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

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

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

Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in municipal drinking water system. MTBE is a chemical added to gasoline to increase the octane 2856
rating and to meet Federally mandated emission criteria. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MTBE. The results of the evaluation have been were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

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

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

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

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

RISK ASSESSMENTS/REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS
Client: Confidential, Atlanta, Georgia
Researched potential exposure and health risks to community members potentially exposed to creosote, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pentachlorophenol, and dioxin compounds used at a former wood treatment facility. Prepared a comprehensive toxicological summary of the chemicals of concern, including the chemical characteristics, absorption, distribution, and carcinogenic potential. Prepared risk characterization of the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic chemicals based on the exposure assessment to quantify the potential risk to members of the surrounding community. This evaluation was used to help settle class-action tort. 2857
Client: Confidential, Escondido, California
Prepared comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of dense nonaqueous liquid phase hydrocarbon (chlorinated solvents) contamination at a former printed circuit board manufacturing facility. This evaluation was used for litigation support and may be used as the basis for reaching closure of the site with the lead regulatory agency.

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

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

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

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed remedial investigation (RI) of heavy metals and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) for a 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The RI investigation of the site included over 800 different sampling locations and the collection of soil, soil gas, and groundwater samples. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The Remedial Investigation was performed in a manner 2858
that did not interrupt school activities and met the time restrictions placed on the project by the overseeing regulatory agency. The RI Report identified the off-site source of metals that impacted groundwater beneath the site and the sources of VOCs in soil gas and groundwater. The RI included a numerical model of vapor intrusion into the buildings at the site from the vadose zone to determine exposure concentrations and an air dispersion model of VOCs from the proposed soil vapor treatment system. The Feasibility Study for the Site is currently being drafted and may be used as the basis for granting closure of the site by DTSC.

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

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

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

Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for a fiftyyear old wastewater treatment facility used at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.
2859
ANR Freight - Los Angeles, California
Prepared a comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of petroleum hydrocarbon and metal contamination of a former freight depot. This evaluation was as the basis for reaching closure of the site with lead regulatory agency.

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

Unocal Corporation - Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive assessment of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals for a former petroleum service station located next to sensitive population center (elementary school).

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

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed oversight of remedial investigation most contaminated heavy metal site in California. Lead concentrations in soil excess of 68,000,000 parts per billion (ppb) have been measured at the site. This State Superfund Site was a former hard chrome plating operation that operated for approximately 40-years.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Coordinator of regional monitoring program to determine background concentrations of metals in air. Acted as liaison with SCAQMD and CARB to perform co-location sampling and comparison of accepted regulatory method with ASTM methodology. 2860
Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Analyzed historical air monitoring data for South Coast Air Basin in Southern California and potential health risks related to ambient concentrations of carcinogenic metals and volatile organic compounds. Identified and reviewed the available literature and calculated risks from toxins in South Coast Air Basin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clark, J.J.J. 2001. “TBA: Chemical Properties, Production & Use, Fate and Transport, Toxicology, Detection in Groundwater, and Regulatory Standards” in Oxygenates in the Environment. Art Diaz, Ed.. Oxford University Press: New York.

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

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

Clark, J.J.J. 1995. Probabilistic Forecasting of Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations At The Soil Surface From Contaminated Groundwater. UMI. 2861
Baker, J.; Clark, J.J.J.; Stanford, J.T. 1994. Ex Situ Remediation of Diesel Contaminated Railroad Sand by Soil Washing. Principles and Practices for Diesel Contaminated Soils, Volume III. P.T. Kostecki, E.J. Calabrese, and C.P.L. Barkan, eds. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, MA. pp 89-96.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 20, 2003.
2862
Rosenfeld, P. and J.J.J. Clark. 2003. “Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity, and Regulatory Guidance” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Phoenix, AZ. February 21, 2003.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gong, H., Jr.; Simmons, M.S.; McManus, M.S.; Tashkin, D.P.; Clark, V.A.; Detels, R.; Clark, J.J. (1990). Relationship Between Responses to Chronic Oxidant and Acute 2863
Ozone Exposures in Residents of Los Angeles County. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 141(4):A70.

Tierney, D.F. and J.J.J. Clark. (1990). Lung Polyamine Content Can Be Increased By Spermidine Infusions Into Hyperoxic Rats. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 139(4):A41.
2864

EXHIBIT C
2865
SENT VIA E-MAIL: November 22, 2023
[email protected]
Rina Leung, Senior Planner
City of Fontana - Planning Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) for the Hemlock Warehouse Development Project (Proposed Project) (SCH No.: 2009091089)
South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The City of Fontana is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency for the Proposed Project. To provide context, South Coast AQMD staff has provided a brief summary of the project information and prepared the following comments organized by topic of concern.

South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Information in the Draft SEIR Based on the Draft SEIR, the Lead Agency proposes demolishing the existing development to construct and operate a warehouse facility for 882,000 square feet on the 40.01-acre site at 11115 Hemlock Avenue, Fontana.1 A portion of the warehouse facility would be used for cold storage, approximately 220,500 square feet or 25 percent of the warehouse. 2 The Proposed Project would
have 114 dock doors on the east and west sides of the building3associated with 562 truck trips per day.4 Regional access to the Proposed Project site via Interstate 10, State Route 60, and Interstate 15, and local access via Santa Ana Avenue and Jurupa Avenue. 5 Based on a review of aerial photographs, South Coast AQMD staff found that the nearest sensitive receptor (e.g., residential units) is approximately 900 feet southeast and southwest of the Proposed Project site. Construction of the Proposed Project is anticipated to take approximately 15 months. 6 South Coast AQMD Staff’s Comments on the Draft SEIR
Potential Underestimation of Emissions Due to Imprecise Assumptions for Truck Trip Lengths and Trip Rates in Emissions Analysis In the Draft SEIR, the Lead Agency discusses the determination of truck emissions for the Proposed Project and states that “…CalEEMod defaults were utilized for trip length and the SCAQMD recommended truck trip length of 15.3 miles for 2-axle (LHDT1, LHDT2) trucks, 14.2 1 Draft SEIR. Page 3-1 and 3-2.
2 Ibid. Page 3-9.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid. Appendix F- Traffic Impact Analysis. Page 40.
5 Ibid. Page 3-1.
6 Ibid. Page 3-10.
2866
Rina Leung November 22, 2023
-2-
miles for 3-axle (MHDT) trucks, and 40 miles for 4+-axle (HHDT) trucks and weighting the average trip lengths using traffic trip percentages from the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Project (Appendix F), which resulted in an overall truck trip length of 29.9 miles with an assumption of 100% primary trips for the proposed warehouse.7” South Coast AQMD recommended 15.3 miles, 14.2 miles, and 40 miles of truck trip lengths derived from the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) estimation of average truck trip length in its 2016 Regional Transportation Plan.8 However, it is essential to note that the distance from the Proposed Project site to the Port of Los Angeles or Long Beach is approximately 70 miles one-way. Thus, South Coast AQMD staff is concerned about underestimating truck emissions due to the shorter distance that HHDT is analyzed in the Draft SEIR. Hence, it is recommended that the Lead Agency revise the truck emissions analysis using the more conservative trip length between 40 to 70 miles, of which 40 miles could be used for local and 70 miles for Port trips and include the revision in the final CEQA document. Tailoring these parameters and assumptions to be based on project-specific data will ensure a more accurate assessment of emissions, accounting for the unique circumstances and logistical realities of the Proposed Project.

User-Defined Land Use Subtype in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Analysis
In the operational CalEEMod output files, besides the “unrefrigerated warehouse-no rail” and “refrigerated warehouse-no rail” land use subtypes, “user-defined industrial” is added.9 According to the CalEEMod User Guide, the “user-defined” may be selected to characterize project land use subtypes not included in CalEEMod. If selected, all data on the Land Use screen will need to be input manually. 10 However, lot acreage and the floor square area use are all set to zero under the “user-defined industrial” land use subtype.

In addition, the truck information (e.g., truck trips) is input under the “user-defined industrial” but not in the “unrefrigerated warehouse-no rail” and “refrigerated warehouse-no rail” land use subtypes for the Proposed Project. This possibly leads to underestimating the heavy-duty truck emissions for warehouse activities since no data is filled under this “user-defined industrial” land use subtype. Therefore, it is recommended that the Lead Agency explain why the land use is separated in the CalEEMod analysis and why the truck information is not under the “unrefrigerated warehouse-no rail” and “refrigerated warehouse-no rail” land use subtype and revise the analysis as necessary in the final CEQA document.

Additional Recommended Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Mitigation Measures CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized to minimize or eliminate any significant adverse air quality impacts. To further reduce the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts, and in addition to SWIP SP FEIR Mitigation Measures 7 Ibid. Page 5.1-22
8 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Preliminary Draft Staff Report: Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce. 9 Ibid. Appendix B - Air Quality Impact Analysis. CalEEMod Operational and LST Output Files. 10 California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1 User Guide. Access at:
https://www.caleemod.com/documents/user-guide/CalEEMod_User_Guide_v2022.1.pdf 2867
Rina Leung November 22, 2023
-3-
MM 4.2-1a to MM 4.2-1f, MM 4.2-2a to MM4.2-2l, and MM 4.2-5a, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency incorporate the following mitigation measures in the Final EIR.

Mitigation measures for operational air quality impacts from mobile sources that the Lead Agency should consider in the Draft SEIR may include the following:
• Require zero-emissions (ZE) or near-zero emission (NZE) on-road haul trucks, such as heavy-duty trucks with natural gas engines that meet the CARB’s adopted optional NOx emissions standard at 0.02 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), if and when feasible. Given the state’s clean truck rules and regulations aiming to accelerate the utilization and market penetration of ZE and NZE trucks, such as the Advanced Clean Trucks Rule11 and the Heavy-duty Low NOx Omnibus Regulation,12 ZE and NZE trucks will become increasingly more available to use. The Lead Agency should require a phasein schedule to incentivize the use of these cleaner operating trucks to reduce any significant adverse air quality impacts. South Coast AQMD staff is available to discuss the availability of current and upcoming truck technologies and incentive programs with the Lead Agency.

At a minimum, require the use of a 2010 model year13 that meets CARB’s 2010 engine emissions standards at 0.01 g/bhp-hr of particulate matter (PM) and 0.20 g/bhp-hr of NOx emissions or newer, cleaner trucks. All heavy-duty haul trucks should meet CARB’s lowest optional low-NOx standard starting in 2022.14 Where appropriate, include environmental analyses to evaluate and identify sufficient electricity and supportive infrastructures in the Energy and Utilities and Service Systems Sections in the CEQA document. Include the requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts. Operators shall maintain records of all trucks associated with project construction to document that each truck used meets these emission standards and make the records available for inspection.

The Lead Agency should conduct regular inspections to the maximum extent feasible to ensure compliance.
• Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the Proposed Project to levels analyzed in the Final CEQA document. If higher daily truck volumes are anticipated to visit the site, the Lead Agency should commit to re-evaluating the Proposed Project through CEQA prior to allowing this higher activity level.
• Provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations or, at a minimum, provide electrical infrastructure, and electrical panels should be appropriately sized. Electrical hookups should be provided for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment.

Mitigation measures for operational air quality impacts from other area sources that the Lead Agency should consider in the Draft SEIR may include the following:
11 CARB. June 25, 2020. Advanced Clean Trucks Rule. Accessed at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advancedcleantrucks. 12 CARB has recently passed a variety of new regulations that require new, cleaner heavy-duty truck technology to be sold and used in the state. For example, on August 27, 2020, CARB approved the Heavy-Duty Low NOx Omnibus Regulation, which will require all trucks to meet the adopted emission standard of 0.05 g/hp-hr starting with engine model year 2024. Accessed at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/hdomnibuslownox. 13 CARB adopted the statewide Truck and Bus Regulation in 2010. The Regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent. More information on the CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation is available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. 14 CARB’s optional low-NOx emission standard is available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/optional-reducednox-standards. 2868
Rina Leung November 22, 2023
-4-
• Maximize the use of solar energy by installing solar energy arrays. • Use light-colored paving and roofing materials.
• Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices and appliances.

Design considerations for the Proposed Project that the Lead Agency should consider reducing air quality and health risk further impacts include the following:
• Clearly mark truck routes with trailblazer signs so that trucks will not travel next to or near sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, daycare centers, etc.). • Design the Proposed Project such that truck entrances and exits are not facing sensitive receptors and trucks will not travel past sensitive land uses to enter or leave the Proposed Project site.
• Design the Proposed Project such that any truck check-in point is inside the Proposed Project site to ensure no trucks are queuing outside.
• Design the Proposed Project to ensure that truck traffic inside the Proposed Project site is as far away as feasible from sensitive receptors.
• Restrict overnight truck parking in sensitive land uses by providing overnight truck parking inside the Proposed Project site.

The South Coast AQMD staff also suggests the Lead Agency review the references (listed below) and consider including the additional recommended mitigation measures in the final CEQA document:
• State of California – Department of Justice: Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act15 • South Coast AQMD 2022 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan,16 specifically:
o Appendix IV-A – South Coast AQMD’s Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures
o Appendix IV-B – CARB’s Strategy for South Coast
o Appendix IV-C – SCAG’s Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures
• United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA): Mobile Source Pollution - Environmental Justice and Transportation17
South Coast AQMD Air Permits and Role as a Responsible Agency The Draft SEIR assumes in the analysis that an emergency diesel-powered fire pump and emergency diesel-powered generator would be used for the Proposed Project.18 Hence, air permits from South Coast AQMD would be required, and the role of South Coast AQMD would change from a Commenting Agency to a Responsible Agency under CEQA. In addition, if South Coast AQMD is identified as a Responsible Agency, per CEQA Guidelines Sections15086, the Lead 15 State of California – Department of Justice. Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Access at: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf 16 2022 South Coast AQMP. Access at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan 17 United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA): Mobile Source Pollution - Environmental Justice and Transportation. Access at: https://www.epa.gov/mobile-source-pollution/environmental-justice-and-transportation 18 Ibid. Page 5.2-13.
2869
Rina Leung November 22, 2023
-5-
Agency is required to consult with South Coast AQMD. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15096 sets forth specific procedures for a Responsible Agency, including making a decision on the adequacy of the CEQA document for use as part of evaluating the applications for air permits.

For these reasons, the Final EIR should include a discussion about any new stationary and portable equipment requiring South Coast AQMD air permits and identify South Coast AQMD as a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project.

The Final EIR should also include calculations and analyses for construction and operation emissions for the new stationary and portable sources, as this information will also be relied upon as the basis for the permit conditions and emission limits for the air permit(s). Please contact South Coast AQMD’s Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-3385 for questions regarding what types of equipment would require air permits. For more general information on permits, please visit South Coast AQMD’s webpage at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits.

Conclusion
As set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a-b), the Lead Agency shall evaluate comments from public agencies on the environmental issues and prepare a written response at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR. As such, please provide South Coast AQMD written responses to all comments contained herein at least 10 days prior to the certification of the Final EIR. In addition, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c), if the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendations provided in this comment letter, detailed reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record to explain why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted must be provided.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter.

Please contact Danica Nguyen, Air Quality Specialist, at [email protected] should you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Sam Wang
Sam Wang
Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Implementation
SW:DN
SBC231011-05
Control Number
2870
SENT VIA E-MAIL: October 9, 2023
[email protected]
Jim Pechous, Principal Planner
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Notice of Availability of a Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Rubidoux Commerce Park Project (Proposed Project) (SCH No. 2020110449) South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to review the above-mentioned document. The City of Jurupa Valley is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency for the Proposed Project. To provide context, South Coast AQMD staff has provided a brief summary of the project information and prepared the following comments which are organized by topic of concern.

South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Information in the Recirculated Draft EIR Based on the Recirculated Draft EIR, the Proposed Project is comprised of the development of the 80.8-acre property with five industrial buildings (“Building 1,” “Building 2,” “Building 3,” “Building 4,” and “Building 5”) totaling 1,118,102 square feet (s.f.). Building 1 would include 309,870 s.f. of building area, Building 2 would include 388,222 s.f. of building area, Building 3 would include 174,364 s.f. of building area, Building 4 would include 275,958 s.f. of building area, and Building 5 would include 35,688 s.f. of building area. The Recirculated Draft EIR states that although the future tenant(s) of the building is not known, industrial uses would allow for high-cube fulfillment, manufacturing, and general light industrial services. 1 Based on a
review of aerial photographs, South Coast AQMD staff found that the nearest sensitive receptor (residential development) is located adjacent to the Proposed Project site, approximately 240 feet southeast of the Proposed Project. Construction of the Proposed Project is anticipated to occur in a single phase, commence in January 2023, and be completed in June 2024.2 The Proposed Project is located on the southeast corner of Montana Avenue and 25th Street.3 South Coast AQMD Staff’s Comments
The CalEEMod Land Use(s) Subtype Assumptions (Combining Manufacturing and General Light Industrial) in the Appendix B- Air Quality Impact Analysis May Have Underestimated the Worst-Case Operational Air Quality Impacts In accordance with the project description outlined in the Recirculated Draft EIR, the construction of five industrial buildings totaling 1,194,170 square feet is proposed on 80.8 acres 1 Recirculated Draft EIR Page 26.
2 Appendix B, Air Quality Impact Analysis. Page 146.
3 Recirculated Draft EIR Page 26.
2871
Jim Pechous October 9, 2023
-2-
of land. It is important to note that the document does not currently specify the future tenants for these five buildings. 4 However, based on the footnote in Appendix B- Air Quality Impact Analysis of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the analysis assumes that the project site will be divided into two equal parts for analytical purposes. Specifically, half of the site, totaling 597,085 square feet, is designated for manufacturing land uses, while the remaining half, also 597,085 square feet, is allocated for general light industrial land uses. 5 According to the CalEEMod User Guide - Version 2022.1, it explicitly states the characteristics of “Light Industrial Land Use Subtype: “Light industrial use facilities are free-standing facilities devoted to a single use, the facilities that have an emphasis on activities other than manufacturing and typically have minimal office space. Typical light industrial activities include printing, material testing, and assembly of data processing equipment. This land use subtype must be less than 50,000 square feet”.
6 Therefore, the allocation of 597,085 square feet for this purpose contradicts the guidelines provided in the CalEEMod User Guide. Moreover, the general light industrial activities are expected to generate less emissions and involve fewer total daily truck trips
7 compared to the manufacturing or other industrial land uses. The current assumption has led to an underestimation of emissions. South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency conduct a more conservative analysis using the “worst-case” scenario in CalEEMod modeling and correct the land use sub-type used in CalEEMod to ensure accuracy and compliance with guidelines.

Potential Underestimation of Emissions Due to Inaccurate On-site Distance for the Trucks and Passenger Vehicles During Project Operation
The Recirculated Draft EIR notes that CalEEMod Version 2022 lacks the capacity to distinguish between On-site and Off-site emissions during operation. Consequently, the analysis relies on the assumption that 0.5 mile is the maximum allowable On-site distance for both trucks and passenger vehicles. However, the aerial map of the On-site vehicle route (truck movements) as identified in Exhibit 2-B in Appendix C of the Recirculated Draft EIR indicates that the actual On-site distance of the route exceed 0.7 mile, which is greater than the 0.5-mile assumption upon which the emission estimates are based. Therefore, the On-site emissions appear to have been underestimated. For this reason, T the Lead Agency is recommended to either revise the calculations to reflect an On-site route distance of 0.7 mile or provide a comprehensive explanation and justification of the methodology employed in relying on the 0.5-mile On-site assumption parameter.

Potential Underestimation of Emissions Due to Imprecise Assumptions for Truck Trip Lengths and Trip Rates in Emissions Analysis
Appendix B of the Recirculated Draft EIR, explains that air quality impact analysis was based on the assumption that the average truck trip length is 30.34 miles for general light industrial and manufacturing uses. However, the project site is located 70 to 80 miles away from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach which means that the air quality analysis underestimated the 4 Recirculated Draft EIR Page 26.
5 Appendix B, Air Quality Impact Analysis. Page 14 in PDF. 6 *CalEEMod User Guide - Version 2022.1.
7 Appendix Q, VMT Analysis. Page 12.
2872
Jim Pechous October 9, 2023
-3-
emissions from trucks traveling from the Ports to the project site. For this reason, the Lead Agency is recommended to revise the calculations in the Final EIR by taking a project-specific approach to the vehicle trip length and trip rates by applying more conservative trip lengths such as designating 40 miles for local trips and 80 miles for Port-related trips. Tailoring these parameters and assumptions to be based on project-specific data will ensure a more accurate assessment of emissions, accounting for the unique circumstances and logistical realities of the Proposed Project.

Warehouse Cold Storage Land Use and the Associated Emissions from Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU)
The project description in the Recirculated Draft EIR does not explain whether the Proposed Project intends to allocate a portion of the warehouse land use for cold storage. Cold storage warehouses utilize more trucks and trailers equipped with TRUs than warehouses without cold storage. As a result, the Lead Agency is recommended to revise the project description in the Final EIR to explain whether cold storage would be a part of the Proposed Project and provide an estimate for the number of TRU trucks and trailers associated with the operation of the warehouses with cold storage. If there are potential uses for TRUs, the Lead Agency is recommended to revise the calculations in the Final EIR to quantify the emissions from the TRUs in addition to the operational truck emissions.

Incorrect Pollutant Averaging Time and Underestimation of Ground-Level Pollutants Near Buildings in Health Risk Assessment (HRA),
South Coast AQMD staff’s review of the construction and operational HRA modeling files noted that the ANNUAL8keyword was selected for the pollutant averaging time in the control pathway in the AERMOD model. However, according to the South Coast AQMD Risk Assessment Procedures v8.1 and South Coast AQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD,9a detailed HRA utilizing AERMOD should be run using the pollutant averaging time PERIOD and 1-hour.

In addition, South Coast AQMD staff’s review of the modeling files noted that industrial buildings were not included in the building downwash option in the AERMOD dispersion model during operation which resulted in an underestimation of the ground-level pollutant concentrations near the buildings.

Thus, the Lead Agency is recommended to: 1) re-run the construction and operational HRAs to utilize PERIOD and 1-hour averaging time to determine the health risk impacts to the sensitive receptors and off-site workers and include the industrial buildings in the building downwash to analyze more accurate ground-level concentrations; and 2) include the results in the Final EIR.

Inconsistent Emission Rates (lb/day) Calculated from CalEEMod vs. AERMOD 8 South Coast AQMD Risk Assessment Procedures v8.1. Access at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/permitting/rule-1401-risk-assessment/riskassessproc-v8-1.pdf 9 South Coast AQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD. Access at:

South Coast AQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD
2873
Jim Pechous October 9, 2023
-4-
South Coast AQMD staff’s review of the AERMOD files noted that the diesel particulate matter (DPM) emission rates do not match the data reported in Table 13: Localized Significant Summary of Operations (Onsite Emissions) in Appendix B of the Recirculated Draft EIR which were estimated using CalEEMod. For example, the operational PM10 emission rates presented in Table 13 d are 0.88 pounds per day (lb/day) but the PM10 emissions calculated via AERMOD modeling (including Idling and Onsite emissions) are 0.014 lb/day. This lack of continuity in the emission estimates raises questions about the accuracy of the calculations and warrants a more comprehensive and careful examination of the underlying factors and route causes contributing to this disparity. The Lead Agency is recommended to re-review these calculations and update the Final EIR accordingly with the appropriate corrections.

South Coast AQMD Air Permits and Role as a Responsible Agency If the implementation of the Proposed Project would require the use of new stationary and portable sources, including but not limited to emergency generators, fire water pumps, boilers, spray booths, and etc., air permits from South Coast AQMD will be required and the role of South Coast AQMD would change from a Commenting Agency to a Responsible Agency under CEQA. In addition, if South Coast AQMD is identified as a Responsible Agency, per CEQA Guidelines Sections15086, the Lead Agency is required to consult with South Coast AQMD. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15096 sets forth specific procedures for a Responsible Agency, including making a decision on the adequacy of the CEQA document for use as part of evaluating the applications for air permits. For these reasons, the Final EIR should include a discussion about any new stationary and portable equipment requiring South Coast AQMD air permits and identify South Coast AQMD as a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project.

The Final EIR should also include calculations and analyses for construction and operation emissions for the new stationary and portable sources, as this information will also be relied upon as the basis for the permit conditions and emission limits for the air permit(s). Please contact South Coast AQMD’s Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-3385 for questions regarding what types of equipment would require air permits. For more general information on permits, please visit South Coast AQMD’s webpage at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits.

Conclusion
As set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a-b), the Lead Agency shall evaluate comments from public agencies on the environmental issues and prepare a written response at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR. As such, please provide South Coast AQMD written responses to all comments contained herein at least 10 days prior to the certification of the Final EIR. In addition, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c), if the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendations provided in this comment letter, detailed reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record to explain why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted must be provided.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this 2874
Jim Pechous October 9, 2023
-5-
comment letter. Please contact Sahar Ghadimi, Air Quality Specialist, at [email protected] should you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Sam Wang
Sam Wang
Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Implementation
BR:SW:SG
RVC230901-01
Control Number
2875
SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS: September 11, 2015
[email protected]
Mr. Kenneth Phung, Project Planner
City of Perris, Planning Division
135 North “D” Street
Perris, CA 92570
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
Optimus Logistics Center 2
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the lead agency and should be incorporated into the Final CEQA document.

In the project description, the lead agency proposes the construction of two buildings for warehouse distribution and office space uses totaling approximately 1,037,811 square feet on a 48.4 acre site. The lead agency has projected 1,744 total daily vehicle trips including at least 357 daily truck trips operating at the site. In the Air Quality Section, the lead agency quantified the project’s construction and operation air quality impacts and has compared those impacts with the SCAQMD’s recommended regional and localized daily significance thresholds. Based on its analyses, the Lead Agency has determined that operational air quality impacts will exceed the recommended regional daily significance threshold for NOx.

The SCAQMD staff has concerns regarding the assumptions used in the air quality analysis, specifically the operational portion of the CalEEMod land use model. Since the proposed project will result in significant NOx impacts, all feasible mitigation measures should be included in the Final CEQA document to further reduce the significant impacts. Details are included in the attachment.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, SCAQMD staff requests that the lead agency provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final EIR. Further, staff is available to work with the lead agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Jack Cheng, Air Quality Specialist, at (909) 396-2448, if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments.

Sincerely,
Jillian Wong
Jillian Wong, Ph.D.

Program Supervisor
Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources
Attachment
JW:JC
RVC150729-02
Control Number
South Coast
Air Quality Management District
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
(909) 396-2000
www.aqmd.gov
2876
2 Siting of an Incompatible Land Use

1. Based on information in the DEIR (air quality analyses, the project truck distribution, and by aerial map inspection), the lead agency shows a minimum distance of 15 meters to the nearest sensitive receptor; a residence located southeast of the project site. The SCAQMD staff is concerned that the existing sensitive receptors will be exposed to significant regional and localized operational impacts, mostly from the daily truck activities that will likely operate using diesel fuel.

As a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land-use decision making process, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has provided the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (CARB Land Use Handbook).

Based on guidance from thin e CARB Land Use Handbook, CARB recommends a buffer of at least 1,000 feet between land uses that will have 100 or more trucks per day. 1 In accordance with the state CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 (a)(1)(D), the lead agency should discuss the proposed siting of this land use and any potential impacts resulting from any proposed mitigation related to the CARB Land Use Handbook guidance in the Final EIR.

Air Quality Analysis
Daily Truck Trip Rate

2. In the Air Quality Impact Analysis, the Lead Agency uses the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 (ITE Manual) 1.68 overall trip generation rate (for cars and trucks totaling approximately 1,744 daily vehicles) for the proposed Project, but does not use the 0.64 (38.1%) daily truck trip rate from this same reference. Rather, the air quality analysis used a 0.343 daily truck trip rate (ITE 1.68 total daily trip rate minus 1.337 passenger vehicle trip rate = 0.343 (20.43%) daily truck trip rate) and truck vehicle fleet mixture percentages from the City of Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study (Fontana Study)to estimate project air quality operational impacts in the CalEEMod modeling. By using the 0.343 Fontana Study daily truck trip rate, trucks are estimated at 357 daily truck trips in the DEIR instead of approximately 664 daily truck trips using the ITE 0.64 daily truck trip rate.

Specifically, the Fontana Study fleet mixture percentages include: 3.46 percent of the total fleet for 2- axle Trucks; 4.64 percent for 3-axle trucks; and 12.33 percent for 4-axle and larger trucks with truck categories totaling 20.43 percent of the total vehicle fleet. Passenger Vehicles would therefore comprise 79.57 percent of total vehicles during operations. However, the 0.343 daily truck trip rate resulted in fleet percentages for the CalEEMod truck subcategories that were not proportionally adjusted consistent with the percentage of trucks estimated using the ITE 0.64 daily truck trip rate. In order to avoid underestimating project operational and related air quality and health effect impacts, the Air Quality Analysis, HRA and Final EIR should be revised using the following truck percentages: LHD2 = 0.0645, MHD = 0.0865, HHD = 0.2300.

Absent from a specific traffic study of known tenants, the Final EIR should be consistent using the associated ITE truck trip rate to estimate project daily truck trips so that project trips and associated emission and health effect impacts are not underestimated.

1 CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf 2877
3 On-Road Truck Trip Length

3. In the CalEEMod output sheets provided in Appendix E of the DEIR appendices, the modeling used a 60 mile one-way trip distance and a 20% trip percentage for trucks moving goods for perspective tenants (C-W) and a 6.9 one-way trip distance and an 80% trip percentage for trucks supporting the operation of the perspective tenants (C-NW). In electronic file “LOG 2 4.03 Air Quality – 7-15 Table 4.3-E Operational Vehicle Trip Assumption”, the table indicates a 16.6 mile one-way trip distance and an 80% trip percentage for trucks moving goods for perspective tenants (C-W) and a 60 mile one-way trip distance and a 20% trip percentage for trucks supporting the operation of the perspective tenants (C-NW). The Air Quality Analysis is inconsistent and under estimates air quality impacts. A 60 mile one-way trip distance and 80% trip percentage should be used to model trucks moving goods for the perspective tenants (C-W) and a 6.9 – 16.6 one-way trip distance and 20 % trip percentage should be used by trucks supporting the operations of the proposed facility(C-NW).

On page 3.0-8 in the project description, the lead agency describes potential truck activities that involve the proposed warehouse trucks. “Goods imported from the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles as well as other locations will be delivered via truck to the proposed distribution centers and distributed via truck to both in- and out-of-state locations.” Since the port areas are over 70 miles away from the project site and that trucks will be serving other destinations within the basin and out of state, the SCAQMD staff recommends, absent a tenant-specific analysis with trip length information, that all applicable analyses be revised in the Final EIR using a one-way trip length that more accurately estimates air quality emission and related impacts based on the anticipated activities and distances described in the DEIR.

Use of an Un-Refrigerated Warehouse Land Use CalEEMod Model Input

4. Based on a review of the project’s emissions calculations in Appendix E – RK Revised AQ, GHG, HRA: Air Quality Analysis 2 (CalEEMod Output Sheets), the lead agency determined the proposed Project’s air quality impacts using emission factors for unrefrigerated warehouses/truck activity.

However, in mitigation measure MM Air-12 to reduce operational emissions, the lead agency refers to the use of Transportation Refrigeration Units (TRUs) at the project site. The SCAQMD staff therefore recommends that the lead agency include a mitigation measure that precludes the use of refrigerated warehousing at the Project site or revise the air quality analysis to account for emissions from refrigerated warehouse uses. Further, if the lead agency chooses to include refrigerated warehouses in the air quality analysis then MM Air-12 should be incorporated into the project and remain in the Final EIR.

LST and Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Modeling

5. The lead agency used AERMOD (version 12345) to prepare the dispersion modeling for the HRA even though AERMOD (version 14134) was available for at the time of analysis (10/20/2014).

Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends using AERMOD (version 15181), the most recent available version, to revise the dispersion modeling for this project.

6. The HRA analysis involved the use of separate discrete receptors placed randomly for the sensitive receptors. SCAQMD staff recommends that the lead agency revise the HRA using a receptor grid over the existing residences and areas zoned or planned for residential development, in order to ensure that the maximum impacts to a residential receptor are properly analyzed.

2 Appendix A: CalEEMod Emissions Model Output.
2878
4 7. SLINE1, SLINE2, and SLINE3 onsite travel line volume sources do not span the entire docking area.

SCAQMD staff recommends that the lead agency revise the HRA using a series of volume sources that spans the entire docking area to ensure that impacts are properly analyzed.

8. STCK1, STCK2, and STCK3 onsite idling point sources should span the entire docking area.

SCAQMD staff recommends that the lead agency revise the HRA using a line volume that spans the entire docking area to ensure that impacts are properly analyzed.

9. Based on the site plan in the project description, there are two driveways that access Webster Street where residences are located across from the proposed project site. Traffic exiting the site from Webster Street can then access Ramona Expressway to get on the freeway. Although the project description in the Notice of Availability, the site plan and the computer modeling show truck traffic using only Patterson Avenue north towards Harvey Knox Boulevard to access the 215 Freeway, there is nothing, however, to preclude trucks from using the driveways on Webster Street, passing by existing residences and then accessing Ramona Expressway to get on the freeway. The SCAQMD staff recommends that the Final EIR include a discussion of how the project will stop trucks from using Webster Avenue or include a restriction that would formally restrict Webster Street to passenger vehicles only. If trucks are not formally restricted, then project impacts from truck movement on Webster Street and beyond (i.e., north on Webster Street, or south to Ramona Expressway to access the 215 Freeway) would have been underestimated in the DEIR. These potential impacts should therefore be analyzed in the HRA and included in the Final EIR.

Mitigation Measures for Operational Air Quality Impacts (Mobile Sources)

10. Because the California Air Resources Board has classified the particulate portion of diesel exhaust emissions as carcinogenic and during project operations, the lead agency has determined that project operation emissions are significant for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), primarily from truck activity emissions, the SCAQMD staff therefore recommends the following changes and additional measures that should be incorporated in the Final EIR to reduce exposure to sensitive receptors and reduce potential significant project air quality impacts:

Recommended Changes
MM AQ 4.3H
• Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project proponent shall provide the City with project specifications, drawings, and calculations that demonstrate that main electrical supply lines and panels have been sized to support heavy truck charging facilities. when these trucks become available. The calculations shall be based on reasonable predictions from currently available truck manufacturer’s data. Electrical system upgrades that exceed reasonable costs shall not be required. In addition, the Project will incorporate 2 electric vehicle charging stations for lightduty vehicles. Electrical lines shall be designed and sized to add additional charging stations when a demand is demonstrated. Similar to the City of Los Angeles requirements for all new projects, the SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency require at least 5% of all vehicle parking spaces (including for trucks) include EV charging stations.3 Further, electrical hookups should be provided at the onsite truck stop for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment. At a minimum, electrical panels should appropriately sized to allow for future expanded use.

3 http://ladbs.org/LADBSWeb/LADBS_Forms/Publications/LAGreenBuildingCodeOrdinance.pdf 2879
5 Additional Mitigation Measures
• Require the use of 2010 compliant diesel trucks, or alternatively fueled, delivery trucks (e.g., food, retail and vendor supply delivery trucks) at commercial/retail sites upon project buildout. If this isn’t feasible, consider other measures such as incentives, phase-in schedules for clean trucks, etc.
• Provide minimum buffer zone of 300 meters (approximately 1,000 feet) between truck traffic and sensitive receptors.
• Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at each facility to levels analyzed in the Final EIR.

If higher daily truck volumes are anticipated to visit the site, the lead agency should commit to re-evaluating the project through CEQA prior to allowing this higher activity level. • Design the site such that any check-in point for trucks is well inside the facility to ensure that there are no trucks queuing outside of the facility.
• On-site equipment should be alternative fueled.
• Provide food options, fueling, truck repair and or convenience stores on-site to minimize the need for trucks to traverse through residential neighborhoods. • Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization.
• Have truck routes clearly marked with trailblazer signs, so that trucks will not enter residential areas.
• Should the proposed Project generate significant regional emissions, the lead agency should require mitigation that requires accelerated phase-in for non-diesel powered trucks. For example, natural gas trucks, including Class 8 HHD trucks, are commercially available today.

Natural gas trucks can provide a substantial reduction in health risks, and may be more financially feasible today due to reduced fuel costs compared to diesel. In the Final CEQA document, the lead agency should require a phase-in schedule for these cleaner operating trucks to reduce project impacts. SCAQMD staff is available to discuss the availability of current and upcoming truck technologies and incentive programs with the lead agency and project applicant.

Mitigation Measures for Operational Air Quality Impacts (Other)

11. In addition to the mobile source mitigation measures identified above the Lead Agency should incorporate the following on-site area source mitigation measures below to reduce the project’s regional air quality impacts from NOx emissions during operation. These mitigation measure should be incorporated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15126.4, §15369.5. • Maximize use of solar energy including solar panels; installing the maximum possible number of solar energy arrays on the building roofs and/or on the Project site to generate solar energy for the facility.
• Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances. • Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool pavements. • Limit the use of outdoor lighting to only that needed for safety and security purposes. • Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters. • Use of water-based or low VOC cleaning products.
2880
South Coast
Air Quality Management District
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
(909) 396-2000 • www.aqmd.gov
SENT VIA USPS AND E-MAIL: March 5, 2015
[email protected]
Mr. DiTanyon Johnson, Associate Planner
Planning Division
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
for the Proposed Westgate Specific Plan (SCH No. 1995052002) The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final CEQA document.

The Lead Agency proposes construction within four village areas that will be divided into 68 total planning development areas on an approximately 964-acre site. Included are up to 6,410 residential units, 50.9 acres of commercial/retail uses, 179.9 acres of business park and professional office uses, 71.6 acres and up to 1.2 million square feet of warehouse/distribution uses, open space/public and private parks, two elementary schools, a high school, landscaping and infrastructure. The four project areas are located by the Interstate 15 (I-15) and State Route 210 (SR-15) Freeways. The air quality analysis assumes a construction period starting in July 2015 showing Phase 1 construction completed as early as 2016, but based on market conditions, overall construction will continue over an approximately 20-year period until project buildout planned for year 2035.

The Lead Agency has determined that estimated construction, operation emissions and cancer risks substantially exceed the SCAQMD recommended thresholds of significance during construction (NOx), operations (VOC, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5, mostly from vehicle operations) and for Toxic Air Contaminants (potential cancer risk from sensitive receptors being sited near diesel particulate emissions (DPM) from vehicles operating on the two freeways). The unmitigated cancer risk of up to 47 in one million from the DPM freeway vehicle would remain 33 in one million with mitigation, which is still substantially above the SCAQMD’s recommended CEQA significance threshold for Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk (MICR): 10 in one million or greater lifetime probability of contracting cancer.
2881
Mr. DiTanyon Johnson, March 5, 2015
Associate Planner
2 Based on its review, the SCAQMD staff has concerns about the assumptions made in the health risk assessment and air quality analyses. The SCAQMD also notes that localized significant emission impacts from on-site project uses were not estimated in the DEIR although emissions from on-site mobile sources at proposed the warehouse/distribution, light industry, commercial/retail and other land uses potentially impact nearby sensitive receptors (i.e., residents, students, school staff, etc.). Therefore, these impacts should be analyzed, compared with appropriate significance thresholds and incorporated into the Project and applicable analyses in the Final EIR to demonstrate the Lead Agency’s findings. Finally, since the Lead Agency has determined that project air quality impacts from construction, operations and cancer risk are significant and unavoidable, the SCAQMD staff is concerned that all feasible mitigation pursuant to Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines has not been incorporated into the project and should be included in the Final CEQA document. Further details are included in the attached pages.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, SCAQMD staff requests that the Lead Agency provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final EIR. The SCAQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address these issues and any other air quality questions that may arise. Please contact Gordon Mize, Air Quality Specialist CEQA Section, at (909) 396- 3302, if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments.

Sincerely,
Jillian Wong
Jillian Wong, Ph.D.

Program Supervisor
Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources
Attachment
JW:GM
SBC150121-02
Control Number
2882
Mr. DiTanyon Johnson, March 5, 2015
Associate Planner
3 Health Risk Assessment

1. As of December 9, 2006, AERMOD is fully promulgated as a replacement to ISC3, in accordance with Appendix W
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm). AERMOD is a steady-state plume model that incorporates air dispersion based on planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including treatment of both surface and elevated sources, and both simple and complex terrain. AERMOD-ready meteorological data for various meteorological stations within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) are available for download free of charge at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/meteorological-data/datafor-aermod. The Lead Agency used AERMOD (version 13350) to prepare the dispersion modeling for the Warehouse Health Risk Assessment (HRA) but used AERMOD (version 12060) for the Freeway HRA analysis. Furthermore, while the meteorological data from the SCAQMD Fontana meteorological station was used for both HRA analyses, two different versions of the meteorological data were used.

Font2.pfl and Font2.sfc (meteorological data for 2005-2007) and Font7.sfc and Font7.pfl (meteorological data for 2008-2012) are for different years. Given the advancements and bug fixes that occurred in AERMOD between version 12060 and 13350 and 14134 (today’s current version), SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency revise the HRA analyses for both warehouse and freeway using the latest version of AERMOD (version 14134) without the use of Lakes AERMODMPI. SCAQMD’s modeling guidance for AERMOD can be found at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/meteorologicaldata/modeling-guidance. Please note that when using AERMOD, the regulatory default option should be used (i.e. without the use of the “FASTALL” or “FLAT” options) and the Lakes MPI should not be used without prior SCAQMD or EPA Region 9 approval.

2. The electronic files for the HRA analyses provided by the Lead Agency to SCAQMD staff were incomplete and did not include the receptor file. Therefore, SCAQMD staff was unable to verify the placement of receptors in the HRA analyses. In the event that receptors were not placed in the correct location using a receptor grid of no more than 100-meter spacing over the existing residences and areas zoned or planned for residential development, the health risks reported in the HRA analyses and DEIR could be underestimated. Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency provide a graphic showing the receptor grid placement in the Final EIR.

3. The proposed project includes both two elementary schools and one high school.

However, in the analysis, no receptors were placed in those locations to estimate the health risks to the students, teachers and administrative staff at those locations.

SCAQMD staff recommends the Lead Agency update the HRA analyses to include the schools as receptors and estimate the health risks at those locations.

4. In the Warehouse HRA analysis, the Lead Agency assumed only 10 minutes of idling for each truck. Since trucks may idle several times on-site, the SCAQMD staff 2883
Mr. DiTanyon Johnson, March 5, 2015
Associate Planner
4 recommends assuming 15-minutes idling per truck in the HRA analysis, e.g., five minutes entering, five minutes on-site and five minutes exiting, etc.

5. In the DEIR, the Lead Agency analyzed health risk impacts for residential exposure separately from TAC emissions coming from vehicles operating on the I-15 and State SR-15 Freeways. Since residents will be exposed to adverse health impacts from both the freeways (diesel-fueled vehicles operating on the freeways) and project warehouse distribution uses (diesel-fueled trucks operating at the sites), the combined risk from both sources should be totaled and disclosed in the Final EIR, in addition to the separate Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk (MICR) estimates for both sources already included in the DEIR. Otherwise, the potential combined risk is underestimated.

Air Quality Analysis - Operations
Daily Truck Trip Rate

6. In the Air Quality Impact Analysis, the Lead Agency uses the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 (ITE Manual)

1.68 overall trip generation rate (for cars + trucks totally approximately 2,046 daily vehicles) for the proposed Project, but does not use the 0.64 daily truck trip rate from this same reference.1 Rather, the Trip Generation Rates use a passenger car daily trip rate of 1.337 vehicles per day and a daily truck trip rate of 0.343 truck trips per day.2

By using the 0.343 daily truck trip rate, trucks are estimated at 418 daily truck trips in the DEIR instead of approximately 780 daily truck trips using the ITE 0.64 daily truck trip rate. Therefore, absent from a specific traffic study of known tenants, the Final EIR should be consistent using the associated ITE truck trip rate to estimate project daily truck trips so that project trips and associated emission and health effect impacts are not underestimated.

Vehicle Fleet Mixture Percentages

7. In the DEIR, the air quality analysis used a 0.343 daily truck trip rate (ITE 1.68 total daily trip rate minus 1.337 passenger vehicle trip rate = 0.343 daily truck trip rate) and truck vehicle fleet mixture percentages from the City of Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study (Fontana Study) 3to estimate project air quality operational impacts in the CalEEMod modeling. Specifically, the Fontana Study fleet mixture percentages include: 3.46 percent of the total fleet for 2-axle Trucks; 4.64 percent for 3-axle trucks; and 12.33 percent for 4-axle and larger trucks with truck categories totaling 20.43 percent of the total vehicle fleet. Passenger Vehicles would therefore comprise 79.57 percent of total vehicles during operations. However, the 0.343 daily

1 ITE Manual, High Cube Warehouse Distribution Center (ITE Land Use – 152), 0.64 weighted average Truck Trip Generation Rate (trip ends per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area), Page 267. 2 1.337 + 0.343 = 1.68.
3 DEIR, Traffic Impact Analysis, Project Trip Generation, Pages 31 and 37 Project (High Cube Warehouse Distribution Center) Trip Generation (Table 5, (3 of 3). 2884
Mr. DiTanyon Johnson, March 5, 2015
Associate Planner
5 truck trip rate resulted in fleet percentages for the CalEEMod truck subcategories that were not proportionally adjusted consistent with the percentage of trucks estimated using the ITE 0.64 daily truck trip rate. Specifically, the number of daily trucks using the ITE 0.64 trip rate results in a greater number of daily truck trips: approximately 780 with the ITE 0.64 rate compared with approximately 418 daily trucks using the

0.343 daily truck trip rate based on the trip generation rates used in the Traffic and Circulation Section. Therefore, based on the increase numbers of trucks, the CalEEMod fleet mixture truck subcategories should be proportionally adjusted with the higher numbers of trucks after using the recommended ITE 0.64 daily truck trip rate. In the modeling inputs, however, the individual vehicle category percentages totaled 6.74 percent, which is lower than the percentage of trucks in the Traffic Study.

In order to avoid underestimating project operational and related air quality and health effect impacts, the Air Quality Analysis, HRA and FEIR should be revised using the following truck percentages: LHD2 = 0.0645, MHD = 0.0865, HHD =

0.2300.

On-Road Truck Trip Lengths

8. In the DEIR, the Lead Agency does not describe potential truck activities that involve the proposed warehouse trucks. Since goods can be brought from the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles as well as other locations and delivered via truck to the proposed distribution centers and distributed via truck to both in- and out-of-state locations, the Final EIR should include more detailed discussion to justify the trip lengths used in the air quality and health risk affect analyses. In the CalEEMod output sheets provided in Appendix B of the DEIR appendices, the modeling used a

16.6 mile one-way trip distance was used by trucks employed by perspective tenants and an 8.4 one-way trip distance was used by trucks not employed by perspective tenants was used to estimate operational air quality impacts for trucks moving goods for the proposed facility. Since the port areas are over 70 miles away from the project site and that trucks will be serving other destinations within the basin and out of state, the SCAQMD staff recommends, absent a tenant-specific analysis with trip length information, that all applicable analyses be revised in the Final EIR using a one-way trip length that more accurately estimates air quality emission and related impacts based on the anticipated activities and distances described in the DEIR. If the Lead Agency is uncertain of the types of tenants or the trip lengths, the Lead Agency could alternatively limit activities, as a condition of a tenant’s occupancy, to levels described in the analysis. Otherwise, long-term project air quality impacts for operations and other relative analyses will be substantially underestimated.

Use of an Un-Refrigerated Warehouse Land Use CalEEMod Model Input

9. Based on a review of the project’s emissions calculations in Appendix B: Air Quality Technical Appendix 4(CalEEMod Output Sheets), the Lead Agency determined the proposed Project’s air quality impacts using emission factors for unrefrigerated warehouses/truck activity. However, in mitigation measure MM C-12 to reduce

4 Appendix B: Air Quality Technical Appendix.
2885
Mr. DiTanyon Johnson, March 5, 2015
Associate Planner
6 Operational Emissions starting on Page 4.C-69, the Lead Agency refers to the use of Transportation Refrigeration Units (TRUs) at the project site. The SCAQMD staff therefore recommends that the Lead Agency include a mitigation measure that precludes the use of refrigerated warehousing at the Project site or revise the air quality analysis to account for emissions from refrigerated warehouse uses. Further, if the Lead Agency chooses to include refrigerated warehouses in the air quality analysis then MM C-12 should be incorporated into the project and remain in the Final EIR.

Mitigation During Operations (MERV Filters and HVAC Systems)

10. Starting on page 4.C-54, the Lead Agency discusses Health Risk results concluding that during occupancy, adverse air quality impacts from vehicles traveling on the existing I-10 and SR-210 freeways would expose sensitive receptors to substantially significant levels of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) even with mitigation due to existing ambient air pollution in the vicinity. The SCAQMD staff recognizes the many factors lead agencies must consider when siting new housing. On page 4.C-70, the Lead Agency is proposing mitigation to reduce the proposed project’s significant health impacts. Further, many mitigation measures should be considered in the Final CEQA document that have been proposed for other projects as well to reduce exposure, including building filtration systems, placing the residential units furthest from the freeway, making any windows facing the freeway inoperable, building sound walls, planting vegetation barriers, etc. However, because of the potentially significant health risks involved, it is critical that any proposed mitigation must be carefully evaluated prior to determining if those health risks would be brought below recognized significance thresholds.

Limits to Enhanced Filtration Units

11. The Lead Agency should consider the limitations of the proposed enhanced filtration mitigation (Measure C-16) on page for this project on the housing residents. For example, in a study that SCAQMD conducted to investigate filters5 similar to those
proposed for this project, costs were expected to range from $120 to $240 per year to replace each filter. In addition, because the filters would not have any effectiveness unless there is a HVAC system that draws enough air to support eh filter system and that the HVAC system is fully operable throughout the life of the project. In addition, there may be increased energy costs to the resident. The proposed mitigation also assumes that the filters operate 100 percent of the time while residents are indoors to reduce significant TAC impacts up to 33 in one million compared with the SCAQMD

5 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/aqmdpilotstudyfinalreport.pdf?sfvrsn=0 . This study evaluated filters rated MERV 13+ while the proposed mitigation calls for less effective MERV 12 or better filters. See also CARB link for the “Status of Research on Potential Mitigation Concepts to Reduce Exposure to Nearby Traffic Pollution” (August 23, 2012):
http://www.arb.ca.gov/db/search/search_result.htm?q=Potentiaal+Mitigation+Concepts+to+Reduce+Exposure+to+Ne arby+Traffic+Polltion&which=arb_google&cx=006180681887686055858%3Abew1c4wl8hc&srch_words=&cof=FO RID%3A11 .
2886
Mr. DiTanyon Johnson, March 5, 2015
Associate Planner
7 threshold of 10 in one million. It should be noted that these filters have no ability to filter out any toxic gasses from vehicle exhaust and would not reduce exposure when residents are outside of their homes, e.g. children playing outdoors, being around a pool area, residents relaxing or walking outside, working outside on a balcony, cleaning a vehicle, etc. In the Final CEQA document, the presumed effectiveness and feasibility of this mitigation should therefore be evaluated in more detail prior to assuming that it will sufficiently alleviate near truck exhaust exposures. Otherwise, impacts to residents from exposure to TACs will remain substantially significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures for Operational Air Quality Impacts (Mobile Sources)

12. The California Air Resources Board has classified the particulate portion of diesel exhaust emissions as carcinogenic. During project operations, the Lead Agency has determined that project operation emissions are significant for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Particulate Matter (PM10) and PM2.5, primarily from on-road mobile sources including truck activity emissions. The SCAQMD staff therefore recommends the following change and additional measures that should be incorporated into the Final EIR to reduce exposure to sensitive receptors and reduce project air quality impacts:

Recommended Change:

MM C-13
 The City shall require future commercial and industrial projects (to) promote the expanded use of renewable fuel and low-emission vehicles by including one or both of the following project components: provide preferential parking for ultra-low emission, zero-emission, and alternative-fuel vehicle; and provide electric vehicle charging stations within the development.

Additional Mitigation Measures:
 Require the use of 2010 compliant diesel trucks, or alternatively fueled, delivery trucks (e.g., food, retail and vendor supply delivery trucks) at commercial/retail sites upon project build-out. If this isn’t feasible, consider other measures such as incentives, phase-in schedules for clean trucks, etc.  Provide minimum buffer zone of 300 meters (approximately 1,000 feet) between truck traffic and sensitive receptors based on guidance from the California Air Resource Board (CARB) guidance.6
 Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at each facility to levels analyzed in the Final EIR. If higher daily truck volumes are anticipated to visit the site,

6 CARB: Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, April 2005, Page4 for Distribution Centers.
2887
Mr. DiTanyon Johnson, March 5, 2015
Associate Planner
8 the Lead Agency should commit to re-evaluating the project through CEQA prior to allowing this higher activity level.
 Design the site such that any check-in point for trucks is well inside the facility to ensure that there are no trucks queuing outside of the facility.  On-site equipment should be alternative fueled.
 Provide food options, fueling, truck repair and or convenience stores on-site to minimize the need for trucks to traverse through residential neighborhoods.  Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization.
 Have truck routes clearly marked with trailblazer signs, so that trucks will not enter residential areas.
 Because the proposed Project generates significant regional emissions, the Lead Agency should require mitigation that requires accelerated phase-in for non-diesel powered trucks. For example, natural gas trucks, including Class 8 HHD trucks, are commercially available today. Natural gas trucks can provide a substantial reduction in health risks, and may be more financially feasible today due to reduced fuel costs compared to diesel. In the Final CEQA document, the Lead Agency should require a phase-in schedule for these cleaner operating trucks to reduce project impacts. SCAQMD staff is available to discuss the availability of current and upcoming truck technologies and incentive programs with the Lead Agency and project applicant.

At a minimum, require upon occupancy that do not already operate 2007 and newer trucks to apply in good faith for funding to replace/retrofit their trucks, such as Carl Moyer, VIP, Prop 1B, or other similar funds. Should funds be awarded, the occupant should also be required to accept and use them.

Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations

13. Trucks that can operate at least partially on electricity have the ability to substantially reduce the significant NOx impacts from this project. Further, trucks that run at least partially on electricity are projected to become available during the life of the project as discussed in the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan. It is important to make this electrical infrastructure available when the project is built so that it is ready when this technology becomes commercially available. The cost of installing electrical charging equipment onsite is significantly cheaper if completed when the project is built compared to retrofitting an existing building. Therefore, the SCAQMD staff recommends the Lead Agency require the proposed facility and other plan areas that allow truck parking to be constructed with the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for trucks to plug-in. Similar to the City of Los Angeles requirements for all new projects, the SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency require at least 5% of all vehicle parking spaces (including for trucks) include 2888
Mr. DiTanyon Johnson, March 5, 2015
Associate Planner
9 EV charging stations.7Further, electrical hookups should be provided at the onsite truck stop for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment. At a minimum, electrical panels should appropriately sized to allow for future expanded use.

CNG Fueling Station and Convenience Site

14. Because proposed project generate significant regional NOx operational impacts, the SCAQMD staff recommends that the project pro-actively take measures that could reduce emissions sooner rather than later. The SCAQMD staff therefore recommends that the Lead Agency ensure the availability of alternative fueling facility (e.g., natural gas) to serve the project site prior to operation of any large truck operation uses within the project area.

Mitigation Measures for Operational Air Quality Impacts (Other)

15. In addition to the mobile source mitigation measures identified above, the SCAQMD staff recommends the following on-site area source mitigation measures below to reduce the project’s regional air quality impacts from VOC, CO, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions during operation. These mitigation measure should be incorporated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15126.4, §15369.5.
 Maximize use of solar energy including solar panels; installing the maximum possible number of solar energy arrays on the building roofs and/or on the Project site to generate solar energy for the facility.  Use light colored paving and roofing materials.
 Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances.
 Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool pavements.  Limit the use of outdoor lighting to only that needed for safety and security purposes.
 Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters.  Use of water-based or low VOC cleaning products.

Transportation
 Make a commitment to install electric car charging stations (not just wiring infrastructure) for both non-residential and residential uses at the project site.  Create local “light vehicle” networks, such as neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) systems.

7 http://ladbs.org/LADBSWeb/LADBS_Forms/Publications/LAGreenBuildingCodeOrdinance.pdf 2889
Mr. DiTanyon Johnson, March 5, 2015
Associate Planner
10 Energy
 Make a commitment that the project site will include a solar photovoltaic or an alternate system with means of generating renewable electricity.

Other
 Provide outlets for electric and propane barbecues in residential areas.

Mitigation Measures for Construction Air Quality Impacts

16. Based on a review of the DEIR the Lead Agency determined that the proposed project will result in significant air quality impacts during construction. Specifically, the air quality analysis demonstrated that the proposed project will exceed the SCAQMD’s CEQA regional construction significance thresholds for NOx. Therefore, the SCAQMD staff recommends the following changes and additional measures be incorporated into the proposed project and FEIR to reduce significant project impacts in addition to the measures included in the Draft EIR starting on page 4.C-67.

Recommended Change:

MM C-2 During project construction, the City shall require internal combustion engines/construction equipment operating on all future project sites greater than five acres to meet the following:
 At least 50 percent of construction equipment greater than 250 hp, which are on-site for 6 or more consecutive days, shall meet Tier 3 emissions standards or better and be outfitted with BACT devices (e.g., Level 3 diesel emissions control devices) certified by CARB.
 Consistent with measures that other lead agencies in the region (including Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach, Metro and City of Los Angeles)8 have enacted, require all on-site construction equipment to meet EPA Tier 3 or higher emissions standards according to the following:
 Post-January 1, 2015: All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available.

In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.

8 For example see the Metro Green Construction Policy at:
http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/sustainability/images/Green_Construction_Policy.pdf 2890
Mr. DiTanyon Johnson, March 5, 2015
Associate Planner
11  Post-January 1, 2016, in addition to the Tier 3 standards specified above, an additional 20 percent or more of construction equipment greater than 250 hp, which are on-site for 6 or more consecutive days, shall meet Tier 4 emissions standards or better and be outfitted with BACT devices (e.g., and be outfitted with BACT devices (e.g., Level 3 diesel emissions control devices) certified by CARB.

Recommended Additions
 Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) and if the lead agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the lead agency shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements.  A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.
 Encourage construction contractors to apply for SCAQMD “SOON” funds.

Incentives could be provided for those construction contractors who apply for SCAQMD “SOON” funds. The “SOON” program provides funds to accelerate clean up of off-road diesel vehicles, such as heavy duty construction equipment. More information on this program can be found at the following website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/programs/business/businessdetail?title=vehicle-engine-upgrades For additional measures to reduce off-road construction equipment, refer to the mitigation measure tables located at the following website:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysishandbook/mitigation-measures-and-control-efficiencies . 2891
South Coast
Air Quality Management District
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182
(909) 396-2000  www.aqmd.gov
E-MAILED: FEBRUARY 1, 2013 February 1, 2013
Mr. Mark Tomich, Director, [email protected]
Development Services, Planning Division
City of Colton
659 N. La Cadena Drive
Colton, CA 92324
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft MND)
for the Proposed Colton – DEXUS Project
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final CEQA document. In the project description, the lead agency proposes demolition of the existing 28,000 square foot truck terminal and 18,000 square foot office building. Building construction would include a high-cube warehouse building on the 34.36 acre site. The proposed facility would have 600,046 square feet of building area (12,000 square feet of office area and 588,048 square feet of warehouse/distribution space). The proposed project would include 116 dock doors with parking for 425 standard and handicap spaces, and 42 trailer spaces. Construction is expected to last approximately 10 months and 2014 is the proposed opening year. Although basically zoned for industrial uses, there is a single-family residence located less than a quarter mile northwest of the project site along Agua Mansa Road.

The AQMD staff requests that the lead agency provide additional information regarding the fate of the existing facility. The CEQA analysis assumes it will cease its operations within the boundaries of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) by applying the emissions from the current operation to the baseline thus offsetting the projected emissions from the proposed high-cube warehouse use. In addition, the baseline itself may be overestimated by using generalized trip generation estimates instead of the on-site traffic count data to account for vehicle activity and the resulting air quality impacts for the existing operation. Because the determination of significance under CEQA is based on the difference between existing baseline and future project impacts, we recommend that the lead agency provide further substantial evidence for, and re-evaluate where necessary, the baseline and future impacts of this project. If impacts are found to be significant, then additional mitigation may be required to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Details regarding these comments and others follow in the attachment. 2892
Mr. Mark Tomich, Director 2 February 1, 2013
Development Services
Please provide the AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final MND. The AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address these issues and any other air quality questions that may arise. Please contact Gordon Mize, Air Quality Specialist – CEQA Section, at (909) 396-3302, if you have any questions regarding these comments.

Sincerely,

Ian MacMillan
Program Supervisor, Inter-Governmental Review
Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources
IM:GM
Attachment
LAC130115-02
Control Number
2893
Mr. Mark Tomich, Director 3 February 1, 2013
Development Services
Baseline Emissions and the Status of the Existing Use

1. In a telephone conversation staff on or about January 15, 2013, the lead agency staff expressed uncertainty to AQMD staff whether the existing truck terminal business would cease operations completely within the SCAB boundaries or continue its current operations at the site but at a lower level of activity. The lead agency’s operational air quality analysis uses the emissions from the existing use as a baseline to offset the estimated long-term air quality impacts from the proposed warehouse use. It is unclear to AQMD staff if the incremental emissions benefit derived from the existing use would actually be realized.

Unless there is assurance that the previous facility activities will cease and not move to another location within the SCAB, the lead agency should not include these emissions as a baseline when calculating regional impacts. AQMD staff requests that the lead agency provide additional discussion of the fate of the existing operations and revise the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses, if necessary.

Potential Overestimation of the Existing Facility Baseline Emissions

2. The lead agency has estimated project emissions for the existing truck terminal building activity using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and using trip rates based on land uses shown in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th Edition (2008) and the Truck Trip Generation Study (City of Fontana, August 2003). In addition to these sources, the lead agency included traffic count worksheets in the Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (Kunzman Associates, Inc., October 2012). It is not clear to the AQMD staff why available project-specific traffic count data included in the Draft MND that could be used to analyze vehicle activity and associated emissions for the existing facility were not used to estimate baseline emissions.

The AQMD staff believes that using the ITE trip rate to calculate baseline vehicle activity may substantially overestimate project vehicle activity and related onroad mobile source emissions compared with the data supplied in the traffic analysis. This is demonstrated, for example, by looking at the volumes supplied in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for vehicles entering the facility during the AM peak hour shown on page 11 (Figure 5, Existing Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes). For Intersection Six (the main entrance into the facility) in Figure 5, the number of vehicles entering and exiting the facility totals 70. From Table 3 of the TIA (Current Development {Truck Maintenance Facility}), the lead agency has estimated, using the ITE trip rate for the General Light Industrial (110) land use, 259 vehicles per hour. This is more than three times the 70 vehicles per hour found from actual traffic counts. Using the ITE trip rate instead of the vehicle data shown from the traffic counts appears to significantly overestimate the existing project baseline emissions. This results in the incremental emissions, i.e., the difference between the existing facility emissions and the emissions for the proposed warehouse facility being 2894
Mr. Mark Tomich, Director 4 February 1, 2013
Development Services
underestimated. The AQMD staff therefore recommends that applicable analyses be revised in the Final MND using the project-specific traffic count data.

Alternatively, the lead agency could explain why the project-specific traffic counts should be ignored.

On-Road Truck Trip Length

3. In the CalEEMod input files provided to AQMD staff by the lead agency, an average one-way trip length of 8.3 miles was used to estimate operational air quality impacts for trucks moving goods for the proposed facility. Trucks operating from these kinds of facilities often handle goods coming directly from the port areas over 70 miles away as well as potentially serving out of state destinations. Absent tenant-specific trip length information, the AQMD staff recommends a one-way trip length from the project site to the port areas as more appropriate trip length for on-road truck emissions and that applicable analyses in the Final MND be revised. If the lead agency is uncertain of the types of tenants or the trip lengths, the lead agency could alternatively limit activities, as a condition of a tenant’s occupancy, to levels described in the analysis. Otherwise, long-term project air quality impacts for operations and other relative analyses will be substantially underestimated.

Use of Non-Default Truck Trip Rate

4. In the air quality and health effect analyses, the lead agency based its estimates on trip generation rates from the 8th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Report using a non-default trip rate of 1.44 per thousand square of gross floor area (Land Use Code 152 – High-Cube Warehouse). Based on guidance from the California CalEEMod User’s Guide, the AQMD staff recommends using a more conservative trip rate of 2.59 per 1,000 square feet.

AQMD staff believes a more conservative trip rate is appropriate as the tenant is unknown, and there are no conditions on the project limiting activity to what is analyzed in the MND.

CalEEMod Fleet Mixture Percentage

5. On page 28 of the Draft IS/MND, the lead agency’s narration lists the fleet mixture percentages used in the CalEEMod land use model to estimate operational emissions. The narration states that the estimated fleet mixture is approximately 37 percent truck traffic for the proposed warehouse use including 17 percent heavy-heavy duty (HHD); 8 percent medium-heavy duty (MND); and 12 percent light-heavy duty 1 (LHD1). The CalEEMod inputs, however, also include the 3.4 percent Light-Heavy Duty 2 (LHD2) category that was omitted in the narration total. The 3.4 percent LHD2 percentage would therefore increase the overall truck percentage from 37 to 40 percent. In the Final MND, the narration should be revised to be consistent with the CalEEMod fleet percentages shown in the actual modeling.
2895
Mr. Mark Tomich, Director 5 February 1, 2013
Development Services
Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis: Construction and Operations

6. Under Sensitive receptors on page 13 of the Air Quality & Climate Change Assessment and upon an aerial map inspection, a single-family residential property appears to be located within one-quarter mile of the proposed warehouse.

We therefore recommend that the lead agency evaluate localized air quality impacts. The AQMD staff requests this evaluation to ensure that any nearby sensitive receptors are not adversely affected by the construction and operational activities that are occurring in close proximity. AQMD guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at the following web address:
http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/LST/LST.html .

Operational Mitigation Measures

7. In the event the lead agency determines that project air quality impacts (regional or localized) for operations will exceed recommended significance thresholds (mostly attributed to mobile source tailpipe emissions from vehicles operating at the proposed facility), the AQMD staff encourages the lead agency to develop a common set of enforceable mitigation measures to reduce those emissions to the maximum extent feasible. As the lead agency is aware, heavy-duty trucks are the largest source of NOx emissions in our basin and NOx emissions must be reduced by approximately two thirds beyond existing rules and regulations in order to meet air quality standards as required by 2023. Without meeting air quality standards, our region faces federally mandated sanctions, including possible loss of transportation funding. AQMD staff therefore recommends that the lead agency consider the feasibility of the following measures to reduce project impacts. Other lead agencies that have imposed these and similar measures include the City of Banning1, Riverside County2, City of San Bernardino3, and the San Pedro Bay Ports4
, among others.

Recommended additional measures:
 Lease/purchase documents shall identify that tenants required to implement the following:
 At project start, all heavy duty trucks entering the property must meet or exceed 2010 engine emission standards specified in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.5, Chapter 1, Section 2025.  If the above clean truck requirements are infeasible, a phase-in schedule should be put forth that will feasibly achieve emission reductions as soon as possible, and faster than existing regulations. Should an alternative

1 Banning Business Park http://banning.ca.us/archives/30/July%2013,%202010%20City%20Council%20Agenda.pdf . 2 Mira Loma Commerce Center: http://www.rctlma.org/online/content/conditions_of_approval.aspx?PERMITNO=pp17788 . 3 Palm/Industrial Distribution Center http://www.ci.san-bernardino.ca.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=11793 4 Clean Trucks Program http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/cleantrucks/ . 2896
Mr. Mark Tomich, Director 6 February 1, 2013
Development Services
schedule be found necessary, the AQMD staff should be consulted prior to approving the schedule.
 Provide a phase-in schedule and goals for the introduction of zero or nearzero technology trucks (e.g., 10% by 2020, 20% by 2025, etc.) that visit warehouses.

The facility operator will maintain a log of all trucks entering the facility to ensure that on average, the daily truck fleet meets the quantities and emission standards listed in the Draft MND. This log should be available for inspection by city staff at any time.
 The facility operator will ensure that onsite staff in charge of keeping the daily log and monitoring for excess idling will be trained/certified in diesel health effects and technologies [for example, by requiring attendance at CARB approved courses (such as the free, one-day Course #512)].
 Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at each facility to levels analyzed in the Final MND. If higher daily truck volumes are anticipated to visit the site, the lead agency should commit to re-evaluating the project through CEQA prior to allowing this higher activity level.
 Require at least a portion of the fleet to utilize alternative fueled technologies.
 The 2012 Regional Transportation Plan includes a zero-near-zero emissions truck corridor along the SR-60 freeway west of I-15. Because at least a portion of the trucks serving this project may be expected to travel along this route, the project should consider providing onsite alternative fueling infrastructure, such as electric charging stations or natural gas fueling that will help facilitate these low-emitting trucks. This could include ensuring electrical panels and wiring are sufficiently sized to accommodate future needs.
 At a minimum, require tenants upon occupancy that do not already operate 2007 and newer trucks to apply in good faith for funding to replace/retrofit their trucks, such as Carl Moyer, VIP, Prop 1B, or other similar funds.

Should funds be awarded, the tenant should also be required to accept and use them.
 Restrict overnight parking in residential areas. Establish overnight parking within the warehouse/distribution center where trucks can rest overnight.  Establish area(s) within the facility for repair needs.  Post signs outside of the facility providing a phone number where neighbors can call if there is a specific issue.
 Develop, adopt and enforce truck routes both in and out of city, and in and out of facilities.
2897
Mr. Mark Tomich, Director 7 February 1, 2013
Development Services
 Have truck routes clearly marked with trailblazer signs, so trucks will not enter residential areas.
 Identify or develop secure locations outside of residential neighborhoods where truckers that live in the community can park their truck, such as a Park & Ride.
 Provide food options, fueling, truck repair and or convenience store onsite to minimize the need for trucks to traverse through residential neighborhoods.
 Requiring all on-site vehicles (hostlers, forklifts, etc.) to utilize zero or near-zero emission technology.
 Use street sweepers that comply with SCAQMD Rules 1186 and 1186.1.  Install solar panels on all available roof space. If this isn’t feasible, then at a minimum all buildings and electrical infrastructure should be designed to accommodate potential future solar panel upgrades.

Off-Road Construction Equipment Reduced Load Factors

8. In Appendix B (CalEEMod Output) in the air quality assessment, the lead agency estimated project construction impacts using the CalEEMod land use emissions computer model. This model uses default and user-defined settings to estimate emissions based on the land use settings. In the CalEEMod inputs under User Entered Comments, the lead agency has reduced the Construction Phase Off-Road Equipment load factors by 33 percent citing the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as authority for the changes. For example, the default load factor in the CalEEMod model for rubber tired loaders of 54 percent was reduced to 36 percent.

Based on communication with ARB staff5regarding this issue, the AQMD staff confirmed that CARB staff does not recommend reducing the default settings in the current OFFROAD2007 without considering all parameters besides the load factor. Other parameters such as activity level, horsepower, and population all contribute to the emission factor estimate, and selectively changing only one parameter will lead to inaccurate estimates at a project level. For some equipment types, OFFROAD2007 may underestimate emissions while others may be overestimated. Because of these revisions (and others), CARB developed the new OFFROAD2011. The AQMD staff therefore recommends that the lead agency either use existing OFFROAD2007 defaults until OFFROAD2011 is incorporated into CalEEMod later this year or run OFFROAD2011 outside CalEEMod and use those results to modify the CalEEMod construction calculations. Therefore, even though the reductions might not change the lead agency’s determination of significance for construction air quality impacts, these reductions related to

5 Personal communication with Nicole Dolney, June 1, 2012. 2898
Mr. Mark Tomich, Director 8 February 1, 2013
Development Services
reduced off-road equipment load factors are not recommended by the AQMD staff without further substantial evidence to support those emission reductions resulting from their use. Otherwise, the lead agency should commit to enforcing the assumed lower non-substantiated emission factors.

Construction Mitigation Measures

9. Should the lead agency determine that project localized construction air quality impacts will exceed the AQMD recommended daily significance thresholds, the AQMD staff therefore recommends the following mitigation measures during the projected 10 month construction period to reduce adverse air quality impacts from on-site construction emission sources, if applicable and feasible.

Recommended additions:
 Limit the amounts of daily soil disturbance to the amounts analyzed in the Draft MND.
 All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.  Apply non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
 All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered.  Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil is carried onto adjacent public paved roads (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water).

Further, other lead agencies in the region including LA County Metro, the Port of Los Angeles, and the Port of Long Beach have also enacted the following mitigation measures. AQMD staff recommends the following measures to further reduce air quality impacts from construction equipment exhaust:
 Project start to December 31, 2014: All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.  Post-January 1, 2015: All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by 2899
Mr. Mark Tomich, Director 9 February 1, 2013
Development Services
the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
 A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or AQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.

For additional measures to reduce off-road construction equipment, refer to the mitigation measure tables located at the following website:
www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/mitigation/MM_intro.html .
2900
6752-008acp

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

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

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper
May 28, 2024
Via Email
City of Ontario Planning Commission
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Email: [email protected]
Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner
City of Ontario Planning Department
Email: [email protected]
Re: Agenda Item D – File No. PDEV22-017: 5355 East Airport Drive Project (SCH No. 2022090006)
Dear Planning Commission Members and Mr. Grahn:

On behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”), we submit these comments on the 5355 East Airport Drive Project (SCH No. 2022090006; File No. PDEV22-017) (“Project”), proposed by Prologis. Inc (“Applicant”) in the City of Ontario (“City”). The Project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) and development plan will be considered at the May 28, 2024 Planning Commission meeting as Agenda Item D. The Commission will consider certification of the FEIR and approval of the Development Plan application.

CARE CA submitted comments on the DEIR and subsequently on the FEIR, accompanied by expert comments, showing that the FEIR failed to comply with the requirements of CEQA by failing to accurately disclose and mitigate potentially significant air quality, public health, greenhouse gas (“GHG”), energy, transportation, and cumulative impacts. The Staff Report contains responses1 to CARE CA’s comments on the FEIR. However, the responses fail to resolve the major flaws CARE CA and its experts identified in the DEIR.
1 Letter from T&B Planning Inc. to City, re: 5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to April 15, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA (May 20, 2024). 2901
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
We reviewed the Planning Commission Staff Report with the assistance of air quality expert Dr. James Clark.2
The Staff Report fails to meaningfully address the flaws in the Project’s environmental review. Regarding hazards, the FEIR identifies significant vapor intrusion impacts due to PCE contamination, but improperly defers formulation of mitigation measures. The FEIR also fails to analyze the full scope of the Project – CEQA requires that an EIR analyze the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the Project, but the Project’s FEIR fails to analyze the Project’s reasonably foreseeable use as a parcel hub (a use that generates more trips than analyzed), and fails to analyze reasonably foreseeable truck trips to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Regarding cumulative impacts, the Staff Report still fails to meaningfully respond to the legal authority requiring analysis of the Project’s impacts in the context of the numerous other warehouses existing and planned in the area. The Staff Report also fails to resolve flaws in the Project’s health risk assessment, which still underestimates impacts on sensitive receptors. Regarding energy, the Staff Report provides an analysis of factors in Appendix F the CEQA Guidelines. But the analysis is wholly inadequate because it fails to address applicable energy consumption measures and renewable energy options. As a result, the FEIR’s conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence. Rather, substantial evidence demonstrates that the Project’s significant impacts are greater than analyzed in the FEIR.

The Staff Report incorrectly concludes that the “final EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project” and complies with CEQA.3 The Staff Report recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the final EIR and approve the Project’s Development Plan Application.4 These recommendations are unsupported by evidence in the record due to the major flaws in the Project’s environmental review.

CARE CA urges the Planning Commission to require the City revise and recirculate the EIR to comply with CEQA before any further action is taken on the Project.

I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CARE CA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker 2 Dr. Clark’s technical comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3 Staff Report, Item D - 2573 of 3296. 4 Staff Report, Item D - 1 of 3296. 2902
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
health and safety hazards, and the environmental impacts of the Project. The coalition includes Ontario residents Daniel Brewer, David Audelo, Carlos Mendez, Rober Rubio, the District Council of Ironworkers and Southern California Pipe Trades DC 16, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in Ontario and in San Bernardino County.

CARE CA advocates for protecting the environment and the health of their communities’ workforces. CARE CA seeks to ensure a sustainable construction industry over the long-term by supporting projects that offer genuine economic and employment benefits, and which minimize adverse environmental and other impacts on local communities. CARE CA members live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Ontario and surrounding communities. Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.

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

II. THE FEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE, QUANTIFY, AND MITIGATE THE PROJECT’S POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
A. The FEIR Improperly Defers Formulation of Mitigation Measures for Hazardous Materials
The FEIR’s Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) identifies levels of tetrachloroethene (“PCE”) in soil vapor samples in excess of current commercial/industrial calculated soil gas screening levels (“SGSLs”).5 The ESA concludes that “PCE impacts potentially associated with the use and storage of hazardous materials at Building B could contribute to vapor intrusion conditions on the Site.”6 The FEIR identifies this contamination as a potentially significant impact.7 Additionally, the ethylbenzene concentration in one soil vapor sample 5 FEIR, Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment, pg. vii. 6 FEIR, Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment, pg. 11-2. 7 DEIR, pg. S-17.
2903
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
exceeded the calculated soil gas commercial/industrial screening level of 163 micrograms per cubic meter.8 The FEIR fails to disclose this significant impact in the body of the FEIR, in violation of CEQA.

The FEIR states that the potentially significant vapor intrusion impacts would be mitigated through imposition of Mitigation Measure (“MM”) 4.7-1. This measure requires future preparation of a Soil Management Plan (“SMP”). he SMP will include instructions for handling, storage, and disposal of any known or potentially impacted soil during soil moving activities. But MM 4.7-1 fails to explain how the PCE contamination at the Project site will actually be addressed – whether it will be remediated, capped in place, etc. – and the FEIR lacks a quantitative analysis of the construction impacts associated with that process. The measure states that contaminated soils will be monitored and provides guidance for proper soil handling, but does not specifically state that PCE-contaminated soil will be removed. Under MM 4.7-1, it is unclear if the City will remove PCE-contaminated soil or adopt passive/engineered vapor intrusion mitigation such as installing a vapor barrier or venting. Without clear performance standards and a quantitative analysis of the impacts of the PCE cleanup phase of construction, MM 4.7-1 remains incomplete and ineffective, and the FEIR’s construction impact analysis remains incomplete.

MM 4.7-1 improperly defers formulation of mitigation measures related to PCE contamination to a future date.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 states that formulation of mitigation measures shall not be deferred until some future time. The Guidelines permit an agency to develop the “specific details of a mitigation measure” after project approval “when it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project’s environmental review.”9 In such circumstances, deferral of mitigation details is permitted if the agency “(1) commits itself to the mitigation, (2) adopts specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve, and (3) identifies the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard and that will [be] considered, analyzed, and potentially incorporated in the mitigation measure.”10 Compliance with a regulatory permit or other similar process may be identified as mitigation if compliance would result in implementation of measures that would be reasonably expected, based on 8 FEIR, Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment, pg. viii. 9 Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B) (Section 15126.4). 10 Section 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B); see Save Our Capitol! v. Department of General Services (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 1101, 1134 (Save Our Capitol!).)
2904
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
substantial evidence in the record, to reduce the significant impact to the specified performance standards.11
Here, the FEIR defers formulation of the PCE mitigation until after Project approval. But the City fails to present any evidence that it would be impractical or infeasible to do so during the Project’s environmental review. Based on the evidence before the City, it should be feasible to require and formulate vapor intrusion mitigation. Even if deferral of formulation of mitigation were reasonable in this case, MM 4.7-1 fails to adopt specific performance standards for remediating PCE contamination and the associated vapor intrusion risks. MM 4.7-1 also fails to clearly identify the types of potential actions that may be taken to mitigate the vapor intrusion risk. Thus, the City improperly defers formulation of PCE contamination and vapor intrusion mitigation.

The City also improperly defers formulation of mitigation for the ethylbenzene contamination. As with the PCE contamination, MM 4.7-1 fails to substantiate how this contaminant will be addressed. The FEIR contains no evidence that formulation of mitigation for ethylbenzene contamination is impractical or infeasible, identifies no performance standards, and fails to identify potential mitigation measures. Mitigation for this impact is thus improperly deferred.

B. The City Still Fails to Adequately Evaluate Trips Generated by the Project
CARE CA’s comments on the FEIR showed that the Project’s size and number of parking spots would enable it to be used as a High Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse, which has a trip generation rate 2.6 times the rate used in the FEIR. In Response 1-8, the City reiterates its position that analyzing the Project as a combination of the “Warehousing” and “High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse” land uses is reasonable due to the Project’s anticipated use and size.12 The City’s response ignores that an EIR must analyze reasonably foreseeable consequences of a Project. Public Resources Code Section 21065 provides, in part:
“‘Project’ means an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.”13 Here, the Project proposes a 270,337-square-foot industrial 11 Id. 12 Staff Report, Item D - 2466 of 3296; FEIR, pg. 2-39. 13 See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15378; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376.
2905
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
building with a proposed height of 46 feet on 13.08 acres of land. A high-cube parcel hub warehouse is a reasonably foreseeable use of this project because “high-cube parcel hub warehouse” is defined in Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) land use code 156 as a building that typically has at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area, has a ceiling height of 24 feet or more, and is used primarily for the storage and/ or consolidation of manufactured goods prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. And Mr. Marshall’s comments on the FEIR demonstrate that the Project site includes adequate parking to support this use.

Even if less-intensive warehouse uses are possible for this Project (such as the FEIR’s combination of “Warehousing” and “High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse”), use as a high-cube parcel hub warehouse is a reasonably foreseeable outcome that must be analyzed.

The City’s claim that the Project’s “anticipated use” does not include a highcube parcel hub warehouse is irrelevant to the analysis. Courts have held that in this situation, “the identity of a tenant is irrelevant to CEQA review.”14 The court in Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley explained that “land use entitlements such as conditional use permits and development approvals run with the land and do not belong to the permittee…. had [the developer] developed the Project and then held it out for sale to any interested buyer, no additional CEQA review would have been necessary for the new owner so long as the use was consistent with that that had already been approved.”15 Here, the project that is the subject of the FEIR is a Development Plan to develop an industrial building totaling 270,337 square feet of gross floor area on 13.08 acres and having a FAR of 0.47.

This building could be used as a high-cube parcel hub warehouse, so this level of use must be analyzed in the FEIR.

C. The FEIR Still Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Cumulative Impacts
CARE CA commented that the FEIR’s analysis of cumulative impacts is inadequate because it fails to consider the cumulative impacts of past, present, and probable future projects. The City’s approach to cumulative impacts, relying on South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) guidance, is that emissions of criteria air pollutants or toxic air contaminants that do not exceed individual project thresholds are also not cumulatively considerable.16 CARE CA’s 14 Am. Canyon Cmty. United for Responsible Growth v. City of Am. Canyon (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 1062, 1074 (citing Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 430, 443–449)).
15 Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 444. 16 DEIR, Appendix B, pg. 53.
2906
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
comments provided a discussion of the controlling caselaw,17 the Attorney General’s recent litigation on this issue in People of the State of California v. City of Fontana,18 and pending updates to the SCAQMD significance thresholds for cumulative impacts in response to this litigation. These authorities explain that the City’s “drop in the bucket” approach to cumulative impacts does not comply with CEQA.

In Responses 1-10 and 1-11, the Staff Report states: “[t]he commenter is again advised that the SCAQMD is the regulatory authority on air quality charged with the responsibility of ensuring the improvement of air quality in the South Coast Air Basin… The commenter speculates on ‘updated thresholds’ for air quality impacts. Absent these ‘updated thresholds’ the EIR properly evaluates air quality impacts in the context of existing thresholds, protocols, and methodologies.”19 The Staff Report and the FEIR continue to fail to address any of the controlling legal authority on this issue raised in CARE CA’s comments. The court in Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry Fire Protection stated: "[w]e review an agency's decision regarding the inclusion of information in the cumulative impacts analysis under an abuse of discretion standard. ‘The primary determination is whether it was reasonable and practical to include the projects and whether, without their inclusion, the severity and significance of the cumulative impacts were reflected adequately.’”20 CARE CA’s comments demonstrate that the SCAQMD individual project significance threshold fail to reflect the significance of cumulative air quality and public health impacts in areas burdened by extensive warehouse development – this Project would add a substantial number of diesel truck trips to routes in an area with a high existing background MATES cancer risk, combining with the emissions of trucks from numerous other warehouses. Analysis of cumulative impacts from past, present, and probable future warehouse projects is feasible. As an example, Dr. Clark’s comments present data from Pitzer College’s Warehouse CITY tool, which maps existing and proposed warehouses in Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.21 The tool measures metrics including acreage, square footage, and diesel particulate matter and carbon emissions.22
17 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692; Env't Prot. Info. Ctr. v.

California Dep't of Forestry & Fire Prot. (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 459; 18 San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVSB2121829; SCAQMD Working Group Meeting # 4, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects (June 6, 2023) pg. 6; 19 Staff Report, Item D - 2467 of 3296. 20 Id. at 525 (citing Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 723. 21 Available at https://www.pitzer.edu/redfordconservancy/mapping-data-visualization/. 22 Id.; Clark, pg. 7. 2907
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
The Staff Report’s statement that CARE CA speculates as to “updated thresholds” is erroneous because CARE CA’s comments link directly to the materials for SCAQMD’s working group meetings – these materials discuss updates to the thresholds.23 The Staff Report’s failure to discuss SCAQMD’s pending updates is inconsistent with the Staff Report’s statement that SCAQMD is the regulatory authority on air quality. In sum, the City’s rote application of SCAQMD significance thresholds without analysis of the context in which the Project is being proposed fails to satisfy the analytical and informational requirements of CEQA.

D. The FEIR’s Quantified Health Risk Analysis Underestimates Impacts
CARE CA’s comments on the FEIR identify flaws in the City’s Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (“HRA”) that underestimate health risk impacts on residential and non-residential (worker) receptors in the vicinity of the Project. In Responses 1-12 and 1-13, the Staff Report disputes these flaws. The Staff Report maintains that “[a]ny variant in interpretation of OEHHA guidance such as is suggested by the commenter would not materially affect the EIR health risk significance conclusions” because “the Project site is surrounded by industrial uses and the nearest sensitive receptor locations are short-term stay hotels located on the opposite side of freeways with the closest being approximately 3/4-mile from the Project site.”24
The Staff Report’s statement regarding distance from sensitive receptors ignores that the Project would generate truck trips impacting sensitive receptors along the City’s designated truck routes.25 The Project’s primary truck routes would depend on the Project’s future uses. Despite uncertainty regarding the Project’s future tenants, the HRA makes an unsubstantiated assumption regarding the Project’s primary truck route, shown in the exhibit below.26 23 SCAQMD, CEQA Policy Development, https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/ceqapolicy-development-(new); SCAQMD Working Group Meeting # 4, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects (June 6, 2023) https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/documents/wgm-4_20230602_final.pdf?sfvrsn=16; SCAQMD Working Group Meeting #5, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects (March 20, 2024) https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm-5-20240320-final.pdf?sfvrsn=20. 24 Staff Report, Item D – 2468-9 of 3296. 25 The Ontario Plan, Mobility Element, Figure M-04, https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/Mobility/FIgure%20M-04%20Truck%20Routes.pdf. 26 FEIR, HRA Report, Exhibit 2-C. 2908
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
The HRA only analyzes trucks travelling east along Airport Drive, away from sensitive receptors located west of the Project. Trucks could easily travel west on Airport Drive and north along Milliken Avenue, which are both City-designated truck routes.27 Sensitive receptors including Receptor R6 are located off Milliken Avenue, and could thus be impacted by cumulative truck trips from this Project and other warehouses. The HRA’s assumption that trucks would not travel west along Airport Drive underestimates impacts. A revised HRA must be prepared.

E. The FEIR Still Underestimates Truck Trip Lengths and Resultant Impacts
CARE CA commented that the FEIR underestimates truck trip lengths by failing to account for the Project’s distance to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. CARE CA presented numerous comment letters from SCAQMD 27 The Ontario Plan, Mobility Element, Figure M-04,
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/Mobility/FIgure%20M-04%20Truck%20Routes.pdf; Clark Comments, pg. 5.
2909
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
recommending analysis of trips to the Ports, and presented evidence showing that trips to the Ports are a reasonably foreseeable consequence for a warehouse in the City of Ontario. In Response 1-16, the Staff Report states:

The commenter states that the Final EIR misinterprets the SCAQMD’s guidance and provides examples of previous SCAQMD comments on other, unrelated warehouse projects alleging that the Project’s truck trip length assumptions are not supported by substantial evidence. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project is proposed as a speculative development and the user(s) of the building is not known at this time (refer to Draft EIR p. 3-13). It is unknown and speculative at this time whether trucks serving the Project would travel to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach as a trip origin or designation, given the complexities of supply chain routing and transportation geography. As stated in Response to Comment A-18 in the Final EIR, the trip lengths were derived by weighting the average trip lengths using traffic trip percentages.

The Staff Report apparently dismisses the SCAQMD comments as inapplicable without providing any evidence demonstrating that the Project’s truck trips would be limited to the local 40-mile average trip lengths analyzed in the FEIR, and without considering the additional guidance from SCAQMD contained in the letters which explains that truck trips to and from the ports should be analyzed.

Many of the SCAQMD letters recommending consideration of the distance to the Ports were in regard to “spec” warehouses with unknown tenants, just like the Project.28 The Staff Report and the FEIR’s responses fail to respond to this guidance with good faith, reasoned analysis,29 and still fail to provide any evidence demonstrating that goods brought in and out of the Project’s warehouses would primarily come from short-distance truck trips.

The Staff Report’s statement that it is speculative to assume trucks may travel to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach also misstates the applicable legal standard. The City’s response ignores that an EIR must analyze reasonably foreseeable consequences of a Project. Public Resources Code Section 21065 provides, in part: “‘Project’ means an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical 28 SCAQMD, Comments on Notice of Availability of a Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Rubidoux Commerce Park Project (Proposed Project) (SCH No. 2020110449) (October 9, 2023), available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/commentletters/2023/october-2023/RVC230901-01.pdf (“the future tenant(s) of the building is not known”). 29 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088 requires “good faith, reasoned analysis in response… Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice.” The level of detail contained in the response may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment. 2910
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
change in the environment.”30 Here, the Project proposes a 270,337-square-foot industrial building with a proposed height of 46 feet on 13.08 acres of land. CARE CA’s comments contain evidence showing that trips to the Ports are a reasonably foreseeable outcome of a warehouse like this (citing to the massive volume of goods moving to and from the Ports, and recommendations from SCAQMD).31 In light of this evidence, the City’s assumption that trucks would not travel to the Ports is speculative, unsupported by substantial evidence, and is a failure to analyze a reasonably foreseeable use permitted by the Development Plan.

This letter contains additional substantial evidence showing that trips to the Ports are reasonably foreseeable. The National Center for Sustainable Transportation (“NCST”), sponsored by the California Department of Transportation, prepared a research report titled “Warehousing and Distribution Center Facilities in Southern California: The Use of the Commodity Flow Survey Data to Identify Logistics Sprawl and Freight Generation Patterns” in 2017.32 The report analyzed Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”) data on warehouses in the six counties that comprise the SCAG region (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura). The report finds that 56% of the facilities in the SCAG region receive goods from the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and around 50% deliver to Southern California warehouses, retail stores or manufacturing plants.33 This data suggests that trips to the Ports are reasonably foreseeable, and that it would be speculative not to account for distance to the Ports.

In June 2014, SCAQMD staff conducted a business survey of warehouse operators in the SCAQMD region.34 The survey found that 42% of goods going to high-cube warehouses in the SCAQMD region originated from the Ports, per the figure below.35
30 See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15378; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376. 31 ABJC, Letter to City re: Agenda Item B – File No. PDEV22-017: 5355 East Airport Drive Project (SCH No. 2022090006) (April 15, 2024), Clark Comments, pg. 6. 32 NCST, Warehousing and Distribution Center Facilities in Southern California: The Use of the Commodity Flow Survey Data to Identify Logistics Sprawl and Freight Generation Patterns (July 2017), available at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-systeminformation/documents/final-reports/ca17-2975-finalreport-a11y.pdf. 33 Id. at 6-7. 34 SCAQMD, SCAQMD High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary Of Business Survey Results (June 2014), available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study-for-air-quality-analysis/business-surveysummary.pdf. 35 Id. at pg. 11. 2911
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
During discussion at the April 15, 2024 Development Advisory Board hearing, a City consultant suggested that if the Project only makes truck trips to other warehouses, it would not be necessary to evaluate distance to the Ports. The figure above shows that only a small percentage of goods come from other warehouses and that the lion’s share of goods are from the Ports. Thus, it would be speculative to disregard the Project’s distance from the Ports in analyzing its impacts.

CARE CA’s prior comments discussed the volume of goods passing through the Ports. 32 percent of all containers in the U.S. move through the Ports.36 36 SCAG, ConnectSocal, Technical Report re Goods Movement (Adopted September 3, 2020), pg. 9, available at https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_goodsmovement.pdf?1606001690. 2912
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
Approximately 40 percent of the total U.S.-Asia trade is served by the Ports, and 40 percent of the imports entering the Ports are transloaded or cross-docked.37 Substantial evidence also demonstrates the demand for port-related warehouse space is expected to expand. SCAG’s 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan forecasts that “Demand for port-related warehouse space is projected to grow at a faster pace than demand for domestic warehousing… As space near the San Pedro Bay Ports reaches capacity, port warehousing will push out to the Inland Empire…. By 2035, the region may experience a shortfall of more than 228 million square feet in warehouse space relative to demand.”38 The table below reflects SCAG’s forecasts for growth in demand for port-related warehouse space. The growth in the port-related market is expected to be much higher than the domestic market.39
In sum, substantial evidence demonstrates that trips to the Ports are reasonably foreseeable for a spec warehouse proposed in the SCAG region, like this one. The lack of a specific tenant identified for the Project does not justify omission 37 SCAG, Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region – Task 3: Assessment of Supply Chain Strategies and Implications for Future Development (April 2018), Pg. 1-4, 1-5, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/task3_supplychaintrends.pdf?1604268170. (Transloading refers to transferring of import cargo from ocean containers into domestic 53-foot containers and trailers for onward movement to U.S. inland destinations via rail or truck.

Crossdocking is a type of transloading in which the cargo is transloaded within approximately 24 hours of arriving at the transload facility.).
38 SCAG, 2012-2035 RTP/SCS, pg. 68, available at https://libraryarchives.metro.net/dpgtl/scag/2012- 2035-regional-transportation-plan.pdf. 39 SCAG, Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region – Task 5: Developing a Policy Evaluation Framework and Assessing the Implications (April 2018), Pg. 2-11, available at https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/task5_developingpolicyevaluation.pdf?1604268239. 2913
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
of this analysis. As a result of this omission, the FEIR underestimates transportation, air quality, and GHG impacts.

F. The FEIR Still Fails to Include Sufficient Investigation into Energy Conservation Measures
CARE CA commented that the FEIR fails to include sufficient investigation into energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for the Project, as required by the CEQA Guidelines.40 CARE CA’s comments discussed the decision in California Clean Energy Commission v. City of Woodland (“CCEC”),41 in which the Court of Appeal held that an EIR failed to comply with the requirements of Appendix F to the Guidelines by not discussing or analyzing renewable energy options.42
In Response 1-20, the Staff Report suggests that discussion of energy consumption measures is not required for this Project because its energy impacts are less than significant.43 The City continues to make the same error as the lead agency in CCEC because the EIR in that case also identified a less-than-significant energy impact.44 The court held that the EIR must nonetheless analyze energy consumption measures.45
Response 1-20 provides a “CEQA Guidelines Appendix F Energy Analysis” in Table 1-1.46 Table 1-1 addresses factors listed in Appendix F, subdv. II(C), but fails to include any discussion of renewable energy options. As explained in CCEC, an EIR fails to comply with the requirements of Appendix F by not discussing or analyzing renewable energy options.47 And as explained in CARE CA’s prior comments, this FEIR must analyze the feasibility and effectiveness of measures including onsite solar facilities, electric vehicle charging, alternative fuel sources for the backup generators, more stringent idling requirements, and use of existing power sources during construction rather than generators.

The Staff Report contains additional responses regarding energy in Responses 1-21 to 1-25, but none address the feasibility of reducing energy 40 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15126.4(a)(1)(C) (stating “‘Energy conservation measures, as well as other appropriate mitigation measures, shall be discussed when relevant.”). 41 (2014) 225 CA4th 173. 42 Id. at 213.
43 Staff Report, Item D - 2471 of 3296. 44 CCEC, supra, 225 CA4th 173 at 183. 45 Id. at 213.
46 Staff Report, Item D - 2471 of 3296. 47 CCEC, supra, 225 CA4th 173 at 213. 2914
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
consumption through onsite solar facilities. Response 1-21 states that the City need not evaluate using alternative fuel sources for backup generators because their emissions would be less-than-significant.48 Again, the Staff Report makes the same mistake proscribed in CCEC by assuming no analysis of energy consumption measures is required if the Project’s energy impact is less-than-significant.49 In Response 1-22, the City states that it would be infeasible to set more stringent idling requirements over existing requirements because there is no enforcement mechanism that the City can assure to enforce adherence.50 But the City is authorized under Development Code Section 4.02.025(E) to impose conditions of approval to protect public health and mitigate environmental impacts.

Section 4.02.025(E)(3) states that “All conditions of approval or requirements authorized by this Section are enforceable in the same manner and to the same extent as any other applicable requirement of this Development Code.” Unenforceability is thus not a valid reason not to consider a more stringent idling requirement.

In Response 1-23, the Staff Report states that the FEIR adequately evaluated the feasibility of utilizing existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or alternative fuel generators rather than temporary power generators during construction. The Response seems to misunderstand the nature of CARE CA’s comment by discussing how “new dry utility infrastructure would be installed underground.”51 Instead, the FEIR should have included a discussion on the feasibility of a measuring limiting use of diesel generators during construction.

In Response 1-25, the Staff Report states that it meaningfully addresses Appendix F’s considerations of “whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building's envelope.”52 But neither the Staff Report nor the FEIR contain this analysis.

In sum, the FEIR’s energy analysis remains wholly inadequate. The Staff Report and the FEIR make no attempt to evaluate the feasibility of onsite renewable energy generation and storage, and fail to consider the feasibility of electric vehicle charging beyond existing requirements. And the Staff Report’s 48 Staff Report, Item D - 2473 of 3296. 49 CCEC, supra, 225 CA4th 173 at 213. 50 Staff Report, Item D - 2474 of 3296. 51 Staff Report, Item D - 2474 of 3296. 52 Staff Report, Item D - 2474 of 3296. 2915
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
responses to proposed energy consumption measures in Responses 1-21 to 1-25 are generally nonresponsive and fail to meet CEQA’s requirements.

III. THE COMMISSION CANNOT MAKE THE REQUISITE FINDINGS TO

APPROVE THE PROJECT
Section 4.02.025(D) of the City of Ontario Municipal Code sets forth findings necessary to approve a development plan. The Code provides that an application for a development plan shall be denied if the following finding (among others) cannot be clearly established: “The proposed development will complement and/or improve upon the quality of existing development in the vicinity of the project and the minimum safeguards necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare have been required of the proposed project.”53
The Project would have a significant and unavoidable VMT impact. And the Project has potentially significant vapor intrusion, health risk, air quality, GHG, and energy impacts which have been underestimated in the FEIR. Because the Project’s impacts on public health, safety and general welfare have not been adequately analyzed and mitigated, the City cannot make the requisite findings to approve the Project. A revised EIR must be recirculated before the Project can be recommended for approval.

IV. CONCLUSION
As is explained herein, the FEIR’s hazards, air quality, health risk, energy, and transportation analyses remain substantially inaccurate and incomplete, failing to comply with the requirements of CEQA. As a result, the FEIR still fails to adequately disclose and mitigate the Project’s significant impacts. As a consequence of these impacts, the City cannot make the requisite findings under CEQA to certify the FEIR or under the City of Ontario Municipal Code to approve the Project’s Development Plan. CARE CA urges the Commission to require the City revise and recirculate the EIR before any further action is taken on the Project.

Sincerely,
Aidan P. Marshall
Attachment
APM:acp
53 Section 4.02.025(D)(3).
2916

EXHIBIT A
2917

May 28, 2024
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Mr. Aidan Marshall
Subject: Comments On Staff Report For Final Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) 5355 Esat Airport Drive, City of
Ontario, CA SCH No. 202209006
At the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ABJC), Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed materials related to the August 2023 City of Ontario’s (the City) DEIR of the above referenced project.

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

Project Description:

According to the City of Ontario’s Development Advisory Board Decision File No. PDEV22-017 – Draft EIR (dated March 18, 2024), the draft EIR consists of a Development Plan application to construct a 270,337 square-foot industrial building on the 13.08 acres of the Project site. The Project would require the demolition of the existing buildings and structures, on-site landscaping, and on-site parking. The design would also include the installation of site improvements, including drive aisles, landscaping, utility infrastructure, underground storm drain detection facilities, exterior lighting, walls/fencing, and signage along with improvements to East Airport Drive.

Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc.

OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd
Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]
2918

Figure 1: Site Location Map
Under existing conditions, the Project Site is developed with a grain processing company and a corn storage and distribution facility. The eastern portion of the Project Site contains grain storage silos, grain mill area, and five buildings that are used for maintenance and repair, grain storage, and service shop. The western portion of the Project Site contains enclosed grain storage, with an office trailer. A vehicle wash-down area is also present on the northeastern portion of the Site. Several subsurface septic systems are located beneath the Site to serve the existing uses. 2919

In the Meeting Agenda for the May 28th, 2024 City of Ontario Planning Commission/Historic Preservation Meeting Agenda, the City included responses from T&B Planning (T&B) to comments on the Final EIR for the Project provided by CARE CA. The responses from T&B for the City in total claim that no new information has been provided within the comments. This assertion is not supported by the information provided within the responses from CARE.

Specific Comments

1. Comment 1-12: The City’s Air Quality Analysis Did Not Incorporate Building Downwash In The AERMOD Analysis.

T& B claims that building downwash is not appropriate for volume or area sources. This is incorrect. The choice to model the idling trucks, which are movable discrete point sources onsite below the line of the building roof, is a controllable feature in the AERMOD model. Volume sources are defined in the AERMOD Users Guide as included a variety of industrial sources, such as building roof monitors, multiple vents, and conveyor belts.1 Volume sources are characterized as having a defined specific release height above the ground, an initial lateral dimension of the volume, and an initial vertical dimension. While the assumption that roadways and idling trucks in the Health Risk Assessment can be modeled as a line of volume sources, it must be pointed out that emissions from idling trucks and moving trucks will come from the exhaust pipe(s) to the engine, releasing diesel particulate matter (DPM) from a raised pipe at a specific rate (a point source). Therefore, the use of building downwash in the model to ensure that the modeled concentrations are not underestimated is appropriate. Omission of the building downwash effect underestimates the exposure point concentrations for receptors near the building(s). T&B, in Response 1-12, states that the Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis experts (Technical Appendix B1 of the Draft EIR) have concluded that truck idling emissions sources resulting from the Project would not be materially affected by downwash, but it is important to note that the HRA does not quantify the effects of downwash. The City should address the impact of this issue in a Revised DEIR.

2. Comment 1-41: The Air Quality Analysis Relies On An Input Value From AP-42 That 1 U.S. EPA. 2023. User's Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). Pg 3-68 2920

Is Rated As Poor And Maybe Unreliable
T&B’s response that the impact from a poorly rated AP-42 value is incorporated into the analysis is not new evidence is not supported by the evidence in the FEIR. As was noted in my prior comments, the CalEEMOD analysis of the construction emissions incorporates various factors from U.S. EPA’s Emission Factors Handbook (AP-42). The AP-42 emission factor for crushing stones used in the CalEEMOD analysis is rated E. This is the worst rating in AP-42, which according to U.S.

EPA may not represent a random sample of the industry. The City’s response to the questioning of the rating of the emission factor was qualitative at best, failing to show any quantitative analysis of the potential impacts. The City should assess the impacts of this variable in a Revised DEIR.

3. Comment 1-16: The Average Truck Trip Length Of 40 Miles Used In The Air Quality Analysis Does Not Match The Length(s) Used To Support Other Warehouse Projects.

According to T&B’s response, the Project is proposed as a speculative development and the user(s) of the building. T&B goes on to state that it is unknown and speculative at this time whether trucks serving the Project would travel to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach as a trip origin or designation, given the complexities of supply chain routing and transportation geography. This line of reasoning clearly conflicts with the goals of CEQA to analyze the foreseeable and reasonable emissions from the Project.

This statement also does not comport with the reality of where warehoused materials will ship from in the region. The 40-mile distance is insufficient to allow vehicles to travel to the major ports in the Southern California region – Los Angeles and Long Beach. These Ports are the largest source(s) of containerized products, and therefore the primary sources of heavy-duty truck traffic, on the West Coast of the United States are the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. “In 2020, the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland collectively accounted for over 34% of all United States international container trade. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach alone generate about 35,000 container truck trips every day. Accordingly, the South Coast Air Basin now contains approximately 3,000 warehouses of over 100,000 square feet each, with a total warehouse capacity of approximately 2921

700 million square feet, an increase of 20 percent over the last five years”), 2 citing data from the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Container TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent Units)3 from 2020, the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland combined for 14.157 million TEUs, 34% of 41.24 million TEUs total nationwide.
4 The distance from the Port of LA to the Project site is approximately 62 miles via Interstate 15 to Route 91 to Interstate 710.

Using the 62-mile daily truck trip will nearly double the daily emissions of pollutants associated with the Project, increasing the regional burden and resulting in a potentially significant impact. The City must address the impact of this issue in a R-FEIR.

4. Additional Comments On The FEIR
a. The Truck Route Assumed For The Project Site Ignores The Traffic Constraints Of The Project Site
The truck route assumed in the FEIR assumes traffic will only exit the Project Site and turn left on East Airport Drive to S. Etiwanda Avenue. This route requires the trucks using the Project Site to cross (turn left out of the Project Site) Airport drive and to cross South Etiwanda Drive (turn left onto S. Etiwanda Avenue). The assumed distance to the 10 freeway is approximately 0.8 mile. An alternate route for traffic was not assessed in the FEIR which is longer than the primary route, but would have fewer traffic challenges for the drivers. Assuming trucks exit the Project Site and turn right (avoiding the delay getting across Airport Drive) then turn right on South Milliken Avenue, the vehicles will also be able to reach the 10 Freeway. The distance for this route is approximately 1.6 miles and is closer to the residential properties identified in the FEIR. The City must consider this alternate route and the air quality impacts in a R-FEIR. b. The HRA And Air Quality Analysis Failed To Assess A Receptor Closer To The Project Site Than The Residential Properties To The Northwest – The San Bernardino County West Valley Detention Center
2 Available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf 3 https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Container-TEU/x3fb-aeda/ 4 U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Operations Support – Port Peak Pricing Program Evaluation (2020), available at https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09014/sect2.htm 2922

The HRA and Air Quality Analysis failed to consider a significant receptor near the Project Site. The San Bernardino County West Valley Detention Center is located approximately 5,600 feet north northeast of the Project Site at 9500 Etiwanda Ave in Rancho Cucamonga. The Detention Center houses approximately 3,347 inmates and 600 workers.

The Detention Center is nearly 3,000 feet closer to the Project Site, and is nearer the proposed truck route, than the residential property identified in the HRA. The City must assess the impacts of the Project emissions on this receptor center in a revised DEIR. c. The Cumulative Analysis Of The Project Failed To Consider The Significant Number Of Existing Warehouse Projects In The Vicinity
Based on the current analysis of warehouse projects within a 5-kilometer radius (3.1 miles) of the Project Site, there are 595 current warehouses, totaling 126,400,000 square feet of floor space.
2923

Those projects account for 85,000 truck trips per day, which emit 117.6 lbs of DPM and 13, 243 lbs of NOx per day. There is an additional 7,400,000 square feet of warehousing that is either approved or undergoing CEQA review (includes the Airport Site). The cumulative impacts must be considered in a revised DEIR.

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

Sincerely,
2924
JN 597-017

MEMORANDUM
TO: Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner
City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
FROM: Tracy Zinn, Principal
Tracy Chu, Project Manager
DATE: August 8, 2024
RE: 5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA T&B Planning, Inc. is the environmental consulting firm that prepared the Environmental Impact Report (EIR; SCH No. 2022090006) for the 5355 East Airport Drive Project (hereafter “Project”). The Project Applicant, Prologis, Inc., proposes to demolish the existing buildings and structures on the Project site and redevelop the property with a 270,337 square foot (s.f.) warehouse building. The Project’s design also includes the installation of associated site improvements, including drive aisles, landscaping, utility infrastructure, underground storm drain detention facilities, exterior lighting, walls/fencing, and signage as well as site-adjacent improvements to East Airport Drive.

The Draft EIR for the Project was published on August 22, 2023, for a 45 day review period, with the local review period and State review period ending on October 5, 2023.

On May 28, 2024, and after publication of the Final EIR, a letter was sent to the City from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARECA). In response, T&B Planning prepared this memorandum for the purpose of responding to the comments received alleging deficiencies in the Draft EIR and Final EIR. The responses contained herein demonstrate that the Draft EIR’s analyses and conclusions are correct and that the Final EIR has been appropriately prepared to satisfy CEQA compliance requirements.

There are no CEQA compliance deficiencies as claimed by CARECA. For the reasons outlined in this memorandum, the comments provided by CARECA and the responses thereto contained in this memo do not present substantial new information, do not necessitate revisions to the Draft EIR or Final EIR, and do not trigger the need for recirculation of the Draft EIR or Final EIR, or the conduct of additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5.
2925
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024

Commenter Letter: Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy dated May 28, 2024.

CARE-1 This comment consists of introductory remarks and identifies that the comments in this letter are being provided by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of the Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARECA) and provides a summary of prior comments submitted concerning the Project during the Draft’s EIR public review period, and on the Final EIR. The commenter claims that the Response to Comment Memorandum (RTC), dated May 20, 2024, failed to resolve asserted flaws that CARE CA and its experts identified in the Draft EIR. Response to the comments made are provided below in this memorandum.

CARE-2 This comment first introduces the comment’s supporting documents drafted by Dr. James Clark, and asserts that the Project’s Staff Report prepared by the City for the Planning Commission hearing failed to meaningfully address CARECA’s claimed flaws in the Project’s environmental review. The commenter then provides a summary of the issues raised in the body of the comment letter. The commenter asserts that the Final EIR defers formulation of mitigation measures related to vapor intrusion impacts, does not analyze the claim that the Project could be used as a parcel hub, and does not analyze trucks trips to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, cumulative analysis, underestimates impacts on sensitive receptors, and fails to address applicable energy consumption measures and renewable energy options.

The commenter also recommends that the City revise and recirculate the Draft EIR. As described in the following responses, the commenter’s assertions are incorrect and no additions, revisions, or corrections to the Draft EIR or Final EIR are necessary. Refer to Response to Comments CARE-4 to CARE32.

CARE-3 The comment includes a statement of interest describing CARECA’s organization, role, members, and purposes. The statement of interest is noted. Employment and business concerns raised in this comment do not raise any associated environmental issues and are therefore not within the purview of CEQA; however, this comment will be provided to the City’s decision makers for their review and consideration of the Project as a whole. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR and thus no further response is required.

CARE-4 The commenter summarizes the findings of the Project’s Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA; Technical Appendix G to the Draft EIR) related to tetrachloroethylene (PCE) impacts and asserts that the Final EIR failed to disclose the impacts of ethylbenzene concentration. The commenter is referred to the Media Management Plan (Attachment F to the Final EIR), which thoroughly explains the mitigation procedures that will be undertaken for all earthwork that involves chemically impacted soil, intersects groundwater, or leads to the discovery of any unanticipated condition. All activities involving removal of chemically impacted soil, if required, will be performed under the management of a California State Professional Geologist or Professional Engineer. Implementation of the Media Management Plan is required and no additions, revisions, or corrections are necessary to the Final EIR.

CARE-5 The commenter summarizes Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1 and states that the mitigation measure failed to explain how the tetrachloroethylene (PCE) contamination at the Project site will be addressed.

The commenter further states that the Final EIR lacks quantitative analysis of the construction impacts 2926
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024

associated with that process and MM 4.7-1 defers formulative of mitigation measures related to PCE contamination to a future date. The commenter is incorrect and is referred to the Media Management Plan (Attachment F to the Final EIR), which thoroughly explains the mitigation procedures that will be undertaken. The Media Management Plan provides protocols for managing confirmed and potentially contaminated media that may be encountered during future improvement activities involving subsurface work at the Project site. Refer also to Response to Comment B-25 of the Final EIR (FEIR, pp. 2-89 and 2-90).

CARE-6 The commenter summarizes Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines and asserts that the Final EIR defers formulative of mitigation measures related to PCE contamination until after Project approval.

Refer to Response to Comment CARE-5. The commenter is referred to the Media Management Plan (Attachment F to the Final EIR), which thoroughly explains the mitigation procedures that will be undertaken for all earthwork that involves chemically impacted soil, intersects groundwater, or leads to the discovery of any unanticipated condition. All activities involving removal of chemically impacted soil, if required, will be performed under the management of a California State Professional Geologist or Professional Engineer. Implementation of the Media Management Plan is required and no additions, revisions, or corrections are necessary to the Final EIR.

CARE-7 The commenter reiterates previous statements alleging inadequacy of the Project’s trip generation estimates disclosed in the Draft EIR and that the Project’s size and number of parking spots would enable it to be used as a High Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse. This comment is similar to Response to Comment A-6 in the Final EIR and 1-8 in the RTC dated May 20, 2024. Refer to FEIR Response to Comment A-6 (Final EIR, pp. 2-38, 2-39) and Response to Comment 1-8 (RTC, p. 3). The commenter raises no new or additional environmental issues not previously addressed in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, RTC, and the Responses provided herein, and the whole record before the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency maintains its position regarding accuracy and adequacy of the EIR trip generation estimates and all environmental impacts related to or attributable to Project trip generation. No additions, revisions, or corrections are necessary and no further response is required.

CARE-8 The commenter cites Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley for the proposition that “the identity of a tenant is irrelevant to CEQA review” and that the proposed building could be used as a high-cube parcel hub warehouse. Refer to Response to Comment CARE-7 above related to the adequacy of the trip generation assumptions used for the Project. Based on the Project’s design, there is no reasonable possibility that the Project could be used as a parcel hub. Thus, no further response is required.

CARE-9 The commenter summarizes previous comments made on the Draft EIR analyses of cumulative air quality impacts and Response to Comment 1-10 and 1-11 in the RTC. This comment does not raise any new issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. The comments were responded to previously demonstrating that the analyses were properly prepared and thus no further response is required.

CARE-10 The commenter asserts that the Staff Report to the Planning Commission and the Final EIR failed to address any of the controlling legal authority on the issues raised related to cumulative impact analysis 2927
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024

and cites Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Department of Forestry Fire Protection. This comment is similar to Response to Comment A-14 in the Final EIR and 1-10 in the RTC dated May 20. Refer to FEIR Response to Comment A-14 (Final EIR, pp. 2-41, 2-42) and Response to Comment 1-8 (RTC, p. 4, 5). The commenter raises no new or additional environmental issues not previously addressed in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, RTC, and the Responses provided herein, and the whole record before the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency maintains its position regarding accuracy and adequacy of the EIR analysis of air quality impacts including analysis of cumulative air quality impacts.

No additions, revisions, or corrections are necessary and no further response is required.

CARE-11 The commenter asserts that that statements in the Staff Report about speculative “updated thresholds” are erroneous because CARECA’s comments link directly to materials from South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)’s working group meetings. As documented on SCAQMD’s website, SCAQMD is in the process of developing an "Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook", which includes updating existing and developing new air quality analysis guidance to support public agencies when they evaluate air quality impacts pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. Additionally, SCAQMD is initiating a public process for the development of additional guidance for public agencies when they evaluate cumulative air quality impacts from increased concentrations of air toxics for projects subject to the requirements of the CEQA1
. At the March 20, 2024 Working Group meeting SCAQMD was still in the process of seeking stakeholders’ feedback on the proposed methodology and thresholds. SCAQMD has not formally published a new handbook or updated thresholds for analyzing cumulative air quality impacts. Therefore, the Draft EIR’s cumulative analysis which relies on the most recent SCAQMD’s published approach for the analysis of cumulative air quality effects is appropriate and adequate. The City of Ontario serving as Lead Agency maintains its position regarding accuracy and adequacy of the EIR analysis of air quality impacts including analysis of cumulative air quality impacts. No additions, revisions, or corrections are necessary and no further response is required.

CARE-12 The commenter summarizes previous comments made on the Project’s Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (HRA; Technical Appendix B2 of the Draft EIR) and Response to Comment 1-12 and 1-13 in the RTC. This comment does not raise any new issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR and thus no further response is required.

CARE-13 The commenter asserts that the Staff Report’s statement regarding distance from sensitive receptors ignores that the Project would generate truck trips impacting sensitive receptors along the City’s designated truck routes and states that the HRA’s assumption that trucks would not travel west along Airport Drive underestimates impacts. The Project site is surrounded by industrial uses and the nearest sensitive receptor locations are short-term stay hotels located on the opposite side of freeways with the closest being approximately 3/4-mile from the Project site. Even if trucks travel to and from the Project site along the route as the commenter suggested, it would not materially affect the EIR health risk significance conclusions, as the risks are well below the significance threshold. The commenter raises no new or additional environmental issues not previously addressed in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, the Responses provided herein, and the whole record before the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency 1 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/ceqa-policy-development-(new) 2928
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024

maintains its position regarding accuracy and adequacy of the EIR analysis of health risk impacts. No additions, revisions, or corrections to the EIR are necessary and no further response is required.

CARE-14 The commenter summarizes previous comments made on the Project’s truck tip lengths and Response to Comment 1-16 in the RTC. This comment does not raise any new issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR and thus no further response is required.

CARE-15 The commenter states that the Staff Report dismisses the SCAQMD comments as inapplicable without providing any evidence demonstrating that the Project’s truck trips would be limited to the local 40- mile average trip lengths analyzed in the Final EIR, and without considering the additional guidance from SCAQMD contained in the letters which explains that truck trips to and from the ports should be analyzed. This comment is similar to Response to Comment A-18, A-19, and A-28 in the Final EIR and 1- 16 in the RTC dated May 20. Refer to FEIR Response to Comment A-18, A-19, A-28 (FEIR, pp. 2-43, 2-44, 2-45) and Response to Comment 1-16 (RTC, p. 7). The commenter raises no new or additional environmental issues not previously addressed in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, RTC, and the Responses provided herein, and the whole record before the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency maintains its position regarding accuracy and adequacy of the EIR analysis of the Project’s truck trips assumptions. No additions, revisions, or corrections are necessary and no further response is required.

CARE-16 The commenter provides additional information from the “Warehousing and Distribution Center Facilities in Southern California: The Use of the Commodity Flow Survey Data to Identify Logistics Sprawl and Freight Generation Patterns” by the National Center for Sustainable Transportation (NCST) and the truck trip study conducted by SCAQMD in June 2014 to substantiate that the Project’s trips to the Ports are foreseeable. The commenter cites the study from NCST that 56% of the facilities in the SCAG region receive goods from the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach. However, the study also stated that “around 62% of the facilities in the SCAG region (approximately 4,900 buildings) are facilities larger than 50,000 sf mainly serving non-port related services. Most of the flow of goods by truck (85% of trips) found in the area is associated with local or intra-regional trips while international shippers have a higher use share of rail and air networks. Activities at port-related warehouses which locate in the Gateway cities focus mainly in transloading, deconsolidation and some value added services. National and international distribution centers are found mainly in the Inland Empire region.” The Project site is not located in a Gateway cities and is located in the Inland Empire region. Additionally, the sample size from the survey conducted only contained information from 61 businesses in the entire region from a database of 7,600 records. Similarly, the commenter cites from the SCAQMD’s study that 42% of goods going to high-cube warehouses in the SCAQMD region originated from the Ports. However, SCAQMD sent out a survey to 400 warehouse operators in the region but only 63 of them participated and 34 of which were operating high cube warehouses. Therefore, due to the low sample size, the results from both studies are not inclusive and an accurate representation of warehouse facilities in the region.

2929
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024

CARE-17 The commenter provides a summary of previous comments made related to energy conservation measures and Response 1-20 in the RTC. This comment does not raise any new issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR and thus no further response is required.

CARE-18 The commenter referenced Responses 1-21 to 1-25 in the RTC and reiterates previous comments made related to energy consumption measures. The Project’s building will be solar ready for future solar facilities. The commenter raises no new or additional environmental issues not previously addressed in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, RTC, and the Responses provided herein, and the whole record before the Lead Agency. No additions, revisions, or corrections are necessary and no further response is required.

CARE-19 The commenter summarizes Response 1-22 in the RTC and states that the it is not true that the City cannot enforce adherence to more stringent idling requirements due to the City’s Development Code Section 4.02.025(E) to protect public health and mitigation environmental impacts. The City has added a Condition of Approval to the Project to require the posting of signs in the Project’s truck court specifying a 3 minute idling restriction instead of the State-mandated 5 minute restriction.

CARE-20 The commenter summarizes Response 1-23 in the RTC and states that the response misunderstood the nature of the comment. The previous comment made was requesting that the Final EIR should have included a discussion on the feasibility of a measuring limiting use of diesel generators during construction. Refer to Response to Comment A-10 in the Final EIR for the use of diesel generators. The SCAQMD regional threshold for VOC and NOx during construction is higher than operation while the thresholds for all other emissions are the same. As shown in the table in Response to Comment A-10, , emissions would be negligible and less than SCAQMD threshold. The intermittent use of a backup generator during either construction or operation would not result in a substantial or measurable amount of emissions, since by the very nature of the activity, it would be short-term, intermittent, and infrequent. Thus, contrary to the commenter’s assertion, measures to reduce this source of temporary and intermittent use of energy is not required. The City’s experts disagree with the commenter and no further response is required.

CARE-21 The commenter summarizes Response 1-25 in the RTC and asserts that neither the Staff Report nor the Final EIR contain the analysis on Appendix F’s considerations of whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building's envelope. The commenter is incorrect and Response to Comment 1-20 provides an analysis of the factors identified in CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. The commenter raises no new or additional environmental issues not previously addressed in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, RTC, and the Responses provided herein, and the whole record before the Lead Agency. No additions, revisions, or corrections are necessary and no further response is required.

CARE-22 The commenter cites to Section 4.02.025(D) of the City’s Municipal Code and assets that the Project would have significant and unavoidable VMT impact, potential significant vapor intrusion, health risk, air quality GHG and energy impacts that have been underestimated. The commenter asserts that the City cannot make the requisite findings to approve the Project and a revised EIR must be recirculated before the Project can be recommended for approval. Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, this 2930
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024

memorandum, RTC, and Final EIR demonstrates that the Project’s impacts have been adequately analyzed and mitigated. Thus, no additions, revisions, or corrections are necessary are necessary.

CARE-23 The commenter provides a conclusionary statement, which does not present any additional information not covered in the previous comments. Thus, no additional response is required.

CARE-24 The commenter consists of introductory remarks and does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. Thus no further response is required.

CARE-25 The commenter provides a general summary of the Project. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR and thus no further response is required.

CARE-26 The commenter states that the RTC’s assertion that no new information has been provided is not supported. Response to the specific comments made are provided below in this memorandum. Refer to Response to Comment CARE-27 to CARE-32. Thus, no further response is required.

CARE-27 The commenter reiterates previous comments made that the Project’s Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (HRA; Technical Appendix B2 of the Draft EIR) failed to account for building downwash in the AERMOD analysis and disagree with Response to Comment 1-12 in the RTC. The commenter raises no new or additional environmental issues not previously addressed in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, RTC, and the Responses provided herein, and the whole record before the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency maintains its position regarding accuracy and adequacy of the EIR analysis of air quality impacts including analysis of building downwash. No additions, revisions, or corrections are necessary and no further response is required.

CARE-28 The commenter reiterates previous comments that air quality analysis relies on an input value from AP42 that is rated as poor and may be unreliable. Refer to Response to Comment 1-41 (RTC, p. 14). The commenter raises no new or additional environmental issues not previously addressed in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, RTC, and the Responses provided herein, and the whole record before the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency maintains its position regarding accuracy and adequacy of the EIR analysis of air quality impacts including analysis of construction air quality impacts. No additions, revisions, or corrections are necessary and no further response is required.

CARE-29 The commenter reiterates previous comments on the average truck trip length of 40 miles used in the air quality analysis does not match the length used to support other warehouse projects. Refer to Response to Comment CARE-15 regarding the discussion on the Project’s truck trip assumptions. Thus, no further response is required.

CARE-30 The commenter states that the truck route assumed in the Draft EIR ignores the traffic constraints of the Project site. Response to Comment CARE-13 regarding the discussion on the Project’s truck routes.

Thus, no further response is required.
2931
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024

CARE-31 The commenter states that the Project’s HRA did not assess the San Bernardino County West Valley Detention Center (WVDC) as a receptor that is located closer to the Project site than the residential properties assessed to the northwest. The WVDC is located approximately 1.0 mile from the Project site and between the Project site and the WVDC is the I-10 freeway and a cluster of industrial and distribution buildings. First, the WVDC does meet the criteria for long-term residential occupancy since the WVDC is a facility where an individual could remain only for a short-term period (not years). With a 3,347 bed capacity, the WVDC completes 50,000 to 60,000 bookings and releases each year, evidencing that stays are short term.2 The Project’s HRA analysis reports air pollutant impacts for residential occupancy based on a 30-year exposure duration, and which would be much more impactful at the residential location analyzed in the DEIR than a short-term exposure duration as would be experienced at the WVDC. Short-term exposure at the WVDC would be less than the emissions reported at Location R5, which represents the adjacent potential worker receptor approximately 58 feet east of the Project Site. At the Maximally Exposed Individual Worker (MEIW), the maximum incremental cancer risk impact is 0.25 in one million which is far less than the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. With the WVDC being located approximately one mile from the MEIW, the exposure would be much less than 0.25 in one million and clearly less than significant.

CARE-32 The commenter states that the cumulative analysis of the Project failed to consider the significant number of existing and pending warehouses in the vicinity. Refer to Response to Comment CARE-10 for the Project’s cumulative analysis. Thus, no additional response is required.

CARE-33 The commenter provides a conclusionary statement, which does not present any additional information not covered in the previous comments. Thus, no additional response is required. 2 West Valley Detention Center – San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department (sbcounty.gov) 2932
Attachment A:

Comment Letter
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024
2933
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024
6752-008acp

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

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

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper
May 28, 2024
Via Email
City of Ontario Planning Commission
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Email: [email protected]
Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner
City of Ontario Planning Department
Email: [email protected]
Re: Agenda Item D – File No. PDEV22-017: 5355 East Airport Drive Project (SCH No. 2022090006)
Dear Planning Commission Members and Mr. Grahn:

On behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”), we submit these comments on the 5355 East Airport Drive Project (SCH No. 2022090006; File No. PDEV22-017) (“Project”), proposed by Prologis. Inc (“Applicant”) in the City of Ontario (“City”). The Project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) and development plan will be considered at the May 28, 2024 Planning Commission meeting as Agenda Item D. The Commission will consider certification of the FEIR and approval of the Development Plan application.

CARE CA submitted comments on the DEIR and subsequently on the FEIR, accompanied by expert comments, showing that the FEIR failed to comply with the requirements of CEQA by failing to accurately disclose and mitigate potentially significant air quality, public health, greenhouse gas (“GHG”), energy, transportation, and cumulative impacts. The Staff Report contains responses1 to CARE CA’s comments on the FEIR. However, the responses fail to resolve the major flaws CARE CA and its experts identified in the DEIR.
1 Letter from T&B Planning Inc. to City, re: 5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to April 15, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA (May 20, 2024).

CARE-1
2934
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
We reviewed the Planning Commission Staff Report with the assistance of air quality expert Dr. James Clark.2
The Staff Report fails to meaningfully address the flaws in the Project’s environmental review. Regarding hazards, the FEIR identifies significant vapor intrusion impacts due to PCE contamination, but improperly defers formulation of mitigation measures. The FEIR also fails to analyze the full scope of the Project – CEQA requires that an EIR analyze the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the Project, but the Project’s FEIR fails to analyze the Project’s reasonably foreseeable use as a parcel hub (a use that generates more trips than analyzed), and fails to analyze reasonably foreseeable truck trips to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Regarding cumulative impacts, the Staff Report still fails to meaningfully respond to the legal authority requiring analysis of the Project’s impacts in the context of the numerous other warehouses existing and planned in the area. The Staff Report also fails to resolve flaws in the Project’s health risk assessment, which still underestimates impacts on sensitive receptors. Regarding energy, the Staff Report provides an analysis of factors in Appendix F the CEQA Guidelines. But the analysis is wholly inadequate because it fails to address applicable energy consumption measures and renewable energy options. As a result, the FEIR’s conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence. Rather, substantial evidence demonstrates that the Project’s significant impacts are greater than analyzed in the FEIR.

The Staff Report incorrectly concludes that the “final EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project” and complies with CEQA.3 The Staff Report recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the final EIR and approve the Project’s Development Plan Application.4 These recommendations are unsupported by evidence in the record due to the major flaws in the Project’s environmental review.

CARE CA urges the Planning Commission to require the City revise and recirculate the EIR to comply with CEQA before any further action is taken on the Project.

I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CARE CA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker 2 Dr. Clark’s technical comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3 Staff Report, Item D - 2573 of 3296. 4 Staff Report, Item D - 1 of 3296.

CARE-3
CARE-2
2935
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
health and safety hazards, and the environmental impacts of the Project. The coalition includes Ontario residents Daniel Brewer, David Audelo, Carlos Mendez, Rober Rubio, the District Council of Ironworkers and Southern California Pipe Trades DC 16, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in Ontario and in San Bernardino County.

CARE CA advocates for protecting the environment and the health of their communities’ workforces. CARE CA seeks to ensure a sustainable construction industry over the long-term by supporting projects that offer genuine economic and employment benefits, and which minimize adverse environmental and other impacts on local communities. CARE CA members live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Ontario and surrounding communities. Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.

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

II. THE FEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE, QUANTIFY, AND MITIGATE THE PROJECT’S POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
A. The FEIR Improperly Defers Formulation of Mitigation Measures for Hazardous Materials
The FEIR’s Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) identifies levels of tetrachloroethene (“PCE”) in soil vapor samples in excess of current commercial/industrial calculated soil gas screening levels (“SGSLs”).5 The ESA concludes that “PCE impacts potentially associated with the use and storage of hazardous materials at Building B could contribute to vapor intrusion conditions on the Site.”6 The FEIR identifies this contamination as a potentially significant impact.7 Additionally, the ethylbenzene concentration in one soil vapor sample 5 FEIR, Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment, pg. vii. 6 FEIR, Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment, pg. 11-2. 7 DEIR, pg. S-17.

CARE-4
CARE-3
(CONT.)
2936
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
exceeded the calculated soil gas commercial/industrial screening level of 163 micrograms per cubic meter.8 The FEIR fails to disclose this significant impact in the body of the FEIR, in violation of CEQA.

The FEIR states that the potentially significant vapor intrusion impacts would be mitigated through imposition of Mitigation Measure (“MM”) 4.7-1. This measure requires future preparation of a Soil Management Plan (“SMP”). he SMP will include instructions for handling, storage, and disposal of any known or potentially impacted soil during soil moving activities. But MM 4.7-1 fails to explain how the PCE contamination at the Project site will actually be addressed – whether it will be remediated, capped in place, etc. – and the FEIR lacks a quantitative analysis of the construction impacts associated with that process. The measure states that contaminated soils will be monitored and provides guidance for proper soil handling, but does not specifically state that PCE-contaminated soil will be removed. Under MM 4.7-1, it is unclear if the City will remove PCE-contaminated soil or adopt passive/engineered vapor intrusion mitigation such as installing a vapor barrier or venting. Without clear performance standards and a quantitative analysis of the impacts of the PCE cleanup phase of construction, MM 4.7-1 remains incomplete and ineffective, and the FEIR’s construction impact analysis remains incomplete.

MM 4.7-1 improperly defers formulation of mitigation measures related to PCE contamination to a future date.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 states that formulation of mitigation measures shall not be deferred until some future time. The Guidelines permit an agency to develop the “specific details of a mitigation measure” after project approval “when it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project’s environmental review.”9 In such circumstances, deferral of mitigation details is permitted if the agency “(1) commits itself to the mitigation, (2) adopts specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve, and (3) identifies the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard and that will [be] considered, analyzed, and potentially incorporated in the mitigation measure.”10 Compliance with a regulatory permit or other similar process may be identified as mitigation if compliance would result in implementation of measures that would be reasonably expected, based on 8 FEIR, Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment, pg. viii. 9 Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B) (Section 15126.4). 10 Section 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B); see Save Our Capitol! v. Department of General Services (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 1101, 1134 (Save Our Capitol!).)
CARE-6
CARE-4
(CONT.)
CARE-5
2937
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
substantial evidence in the record, to reduce the significant impact to the specified performance standards.11
Here, the FEIR defers formulation of the PCE mitigation until after Project approval. But the City fails to present any evidence that it would be impractical or infeasible to do so during the Project’s environmental review. Based on the evidence before the City, it should be feasible to require and formulate vapor intrusion mitigation. Even if deferral of formulation of mitigation were reasonable in this case, MM 4.7-1 fails to adopt specific performance standards for remediating PCE contamination and the associated vapor intrusion risks. MM 4.7-1 also fails to clearly identify the types of potential actions that may be taken to mitigate the vapor intrusion risk. Thus, the City improperly defers formulation of PCE contamination and vapor intrusion mitigation.

The City also improperly defers formulation of mitigation for the ethylbenzene contamination. As with the PCE contamination, MM 4.7-1 fails to substantiate how this contaminant will be addressed. The FEIR contains no evidence that formulation of mitigation for ethylbenzene contamination is impractical or infeasible, identifies no performance standards, and fails to identify potential mitigation measures. Mitigation for this impact is thus improperly deferred.

B. The City Still Fails to Adequately Evaluate Trips Generated by the Project
CARE CA’s comments on the FEIR showed that the Project’s size and number of parking spots would enable it to be used as a High Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse, which has a trip generation rate 2.6 times the rate used in the FEIR. In Response 1-8, the City reiterates its position that analyzing the Project as a combination of the “Warehousing” and “High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse” land uses is reasonable due to the Project’s anticipated use and size.12 The City’s response ignores that an EIR must analyze reasonably foreseeable consequences of a Project. Public Resources Code Section 21065 provides, in part:
“‘Project’ means an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.”13 Here, the Project proposes a 270,337-square-foot industrial 11 Id. 12 Staff Report, Item D - 2466 of 3296; FEIR, pg. 2-39. 13 See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15378; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376.

CARE-7
CARE-6
(CONT.)
2938
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
building with a proposed height of 46 feet on 13.08 acres of land. A high-cube parcel hub warehouse is a reasonably foreseeable use of this project because “high-cube parcel hub warehouse” is defined in Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) land use code 156 as a building that typically has at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area, has a ceiling height of 24 feet or more, and is used primarily for the storage and/ or consolidation of manufactured goods prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. And Mr. Marshall’s comments on the FEIR demonstrate that the Project site includes adequate parking to support this use.

Even if less-intensive warehouse uses are possible for this Project (such as the FEIR’s combination of “Warehousing” and “High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse”), use as a high-cube parcel hub warehouse is a reasonably foreseeable outcome that must be analyzed.

The City’s claim that the Project’s “anticipated use” does not include a highcube parcel hub warehouse is irrelevant to the analysis. Courts have held that in this situation, “the identity of a tenant is irrelevant to CEQA review.”14 The court in Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley explained that “land use entitlements such as conditional use permits and development approvals run with the land and do not belong to the permittee…. had [the developer] developed the Project and then held it out for sale to any interested buyer, no additional CEQA review would have been necessary for the new owner so long as the use was consistent with that that had already been approved.”15 Here, the project that is the subject of the FEIR is a Development Plan to develop an industrial building totaling 270,337 square feet of gross floor area on 13.08 acres and having a FAR of 0.47.

This building could be used as a high-cube parcel hub warehouse, so this level of use must be analyzed in the FEIR.

C. The FEIR Still Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Cumulative Impacts
CARE CA commented that the FEIR’s analysis of cumulative impacts is inadequate because it fails to consider the cumulative impacts of past, present, and probable future projects. The City’s approach to cumulative impacts, relying on South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) guidance, is that emissions of criteria air pollutants or toxic air contaminants that do not exceed individual project thresholds are also not cumulatively considerable.16 CARE CA’s 14 Am. Canyon Cmty. United for Responsible Growth v. City of Am. Canyon (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 1062, 1074 (citing Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 430, 443–449)). 15 Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 444. 16 DEIR, Appendix B, pg. 53.

CARE-9
CARE-7
(CONT.)
CARE-8
2939
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
comments provided a discussion of the controlling caselaw,17 the Attorney General’s recent litigation on this issue in People of the State of California v. City of Fontana,18 and pending updates to the SCAQMD significance thresholds for cumulative impacts in response to this litigation. These authorities explain that the City’s “drop in the bucket” approach to cumulative impacts does not comply with CEQA.

In Responses 1-10 and 1-11, the Staff Report states: “[t]he commenter is again advised that the SCAQMD is the regulatory authority on air quality charged with the responsibility of ensuring the improvement of air quality in the South Coast Air Basin… The commenter speculates on ‘updated thresholds’ for air quality impacts. Absent these ‘updated thresholds’ the EIR properly evaluates air quality impacts in the context of existing thresholds, protocols, and methodologies.”19 The Staff Report and the FEIR continue to fail to address any of the controlling legal authority on this issue raised in CARE CA’s comments. The court in Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry Fire Protection stated: "[w]e review an agency's decision regarding the inclusion of information in the cumulative impacts analysis under an abuse of discretion standard. ‘The primary determination is whether it was reasonable and practical to include the projects and whether, without their inclusion, the severity and significance of the cumulative impacts were reflected adequately.’”20 CARE CA’s comments demonstrate that the SCAQMD individual project significance threshold fail to reflect the significance of cumulative air quality and public health impacts in areas burdened by extensive warehouse development – this Project would add a substantial number of diesel truck trips to routes in an area with a high existing background MATES cancer risk, combining with the emissions of trucks from numerous other warehouses. Analysis of cumulative impacts from past, present, and probable future warehouse projects is feasible. As an example, Dr. Clark’s comments present data from Pitzer College’s Warehouse CITY tool, which maps existing and proposed warehouses in Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.21 The tool measures metrics including acreage, square footage, and diesel particulate matter and carbon emissions.22
17 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692; Env't Prot. Info. Ctr. v.

California Dep't of Forestry & Fire Prot. (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 459; 18 San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVSB2121829; SCAQMD Working Group Meeting # 4, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects (June 6, 2023) pg. 6; 19 Staff Report, Item D - 2467 of 3296. 20 Id. at 525 (citing Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 723. 21 Available at https://www.pitzer.edu/redfordconservancy/mapping-data-visualization/. 22 Id.; Clark, pg. 7.

CARE-9
(CONT.)
CARE-10
2940
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
The Staff Report’s statement that CARE CA speculates as to “updated thresholds” is erroneous because CARE CA’s comments link directly to the materials for SCAQMD’s working group meetings – these materials discuss updates to the thresholds.23 The Staff Report’s failure to discuss SCAQMD’s pending updates is inconsistent with the Staff Report’s statement that SCAQMD is the regulatory authority on air quality. In sum, the City’s rote application of SCAQMD significance thresholds without analysis of the context in which the Project is being proposed fails to satisfy the analytical and informational requirements of CEQA.

D. The FEIR’s Quantified Health Risk Analysis Underestimates Impacts
CARE CA’s comments on the FEIR identify flaws in the City’s Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (“HRA”) that underestimate health risk impacts on residential and non-residential (worker) receptors in the vicinity of the Project. In Responses 1-12 and 1-13, the Staff Report disputes these flaws. The Staff Report maintains that “[a]ny variant in interpretation of OEHHA guidance such as is suggested by the commenter would not materially affect the EIR health risk significance conclusions” because “the Project site is surrounded by industrial uses and the nearest sensitive receptor locations are short-term stay hotels located on the opposite side of freeways with the closest being approximately 3/4-mile from the Project site.”24
The Staff Report’s statement regarding distance from sensitive receptors ignores that the Project would generate truck trips impacting sensitive receptors along the City’s designated truck routes.25 The Project’s primary truck routes would depend on the Project’s future uses. Despite uncertainty regarding the Project’s future tenants, the HRA makes an unsubstantiated assumption regarding the Project’s primary truck route, shown in the exhibit below.26 23 SCAQMD, CEQA Policy Development, https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/ceqapolicy-development-(new); SCAQMD Working Group Meeting # 4, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects (June 6, 2023) https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/documents/wgm-4_20230602_final.pdf?sfvrsn=16; SCAQMD Working Group Meeting #5, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects (March 20, 2024) https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm-5-20240320-final.pdf?sfvrsn=20. 24 Staff Report, Item D – 2468-9 of 3296. 25 The Ontario Plan, Mobility Element, Figure M-04, https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/Mobility/FIgure%20M-04%20Truck%20Routes.pdf. 26 FEIR, HRA Report, Exhibit 2-C.

CARE-13
CARE-11
CARE-12
2941
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
The HRA only analyzes trucks travelling east along Airport Drive, away from sensitive receptors located west of the Project. Trucks could easily travel west on Airport Drive and north along Milliken Avenue, which are both City-designated truck routes.27 Sensitive receptors including Receptor R6 are located off Milliken Avenue, and could thus be impacted by cumulative truck trips from this Project and other warehouses. The HRA’s assumption that trucks would not travel west along Airport Drive underestimates impacts. A revised HRA must be prepared.

E. The FEIR Still Underestimates Truck Trip Lengths and Resultant Impacts
CARE CA commented that the FEIR underestimates truck trip lengths by failing to account for the Project’s distance to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. CARE CA presented numerous comment letters from SCAQMD 27 The Ontario Plan, Mobility Element, Figure M-04,
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/Mobility/FIgure%20M-04%20Truck%20Routes.pdf; Clark Comments, pg. 5.

CARE-14
CARE-13
(CONT.)
2942
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
recommending analysis of trips to the Ports, and presented evidence showing that trips to the Ports are a reasonably foreseeable consequence for a warehouse in the City of Ontario. In Response 1-16, the Staff Report states:

The commenter states that the Final EIR misinterprets the SCAQMD’s guidance and provides examples of previous SCAQMD comments on other, unrelated warehouse projects alleging that the Project’s truck trip length assumptions are not supported by substantial evidence. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project is proposed as a speculative development and the user(s) of the building is not known at this time (refer to Draft EIR p. 3-13). It is unknown and speculative at this time whether trucks serving the Project would travel to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach as a trip origin or designation, given the complexities of supply chain routing and transportation geography. As stated in Response to Comment A-18 in the Final EIR, the trip lengths were derived by weighting the average trip lengths using traffic trip percentages.

The Staff Report apparently dismisses the SCAQMD comments as inapplicable without providing any evidence demonstrating that the Project’s truck trips would be limited to the local 40-mile average trip lengths analyzed in the FEIR, and without considering the additional guidance from SCAQMD contained in the letters which explains that truck trips to and from the ports should be analyzed.

Many of the SCAQMD letters recommending consideration of the distance to the Ports were in regard to “spec” warehouses with unknown tenants, just like the Project.28 The Staff Report and the FEIR’s responses fail to respond to this guidance with good faith, reasoned analysis,29 and still fail to provide any evidence demonstrating that goods brought in and out of the Project’s warehouses would primarily come from short-distance truck trips.

The Staff Report’s statement that it is speculative to assume trucks may travel to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach also misstates the applicable legal standard. The City’s response ignores that an EIR must analyze reasonably foreseeable consequences of a Project. Public Resources Code Section 21065 provides, in part: “‘Project’ means an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical 28 SCAQMD, Comments on Notice of Availability of a Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Rubidoux Commerce Park Project (Proposed Project) (SCH No. 2020110449) (October 9, 2023), available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/commentletters/2023/october-2023/RVC230901-01.pdf (“the future tenant(s) of the building is not known”). 29 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088 requires “good faith, reasoned analysis in response… Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice.” The level of detail contained in the response may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment.

CARE-15
CARE-14
(CONT.)
2943
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
change in the environment.”30 Here, the Project proposes a 270,337-square-foot industrial building with a proposed height of 46 feet on 13.08 acres of land. CARE CA’s comments contain evidence showing that trips to the Ports are a reasonably foreseeable outcome of a warehouse like this (citing to the massive volume of goods moving to and from the Ports, and recommendations from SCAQMD).31 In light of this evidence, the City’s assumption that trucks would not travel to the Ports is speculative, unsupported by substantial evidence, and is a failure to analyze a reasonably foreseeable use permitted by the Development Plan.

This letter contains additional substantial evidence showing that trips to the Ports are reasonably foreseeable. The National Center for Sustainable Transportation (“NCST”), sponsored by the California Department of Transportation, prepared a research report titled “Warehousing and Distribution Center Facilities in Southern California: The Use of the Commodity Flow Survey Data to Identify Logistics Sprawl and Freight Generation Patterns” in 2017.32 The report analyzed Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”) data on warehouses in the six counties that comprise the SCAG region (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura). The report finds that 56% of the facilities in the SCAG region receive goods from the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and around 50% deliver to Southern California warehouses, retail stores or manufacturing plants.33 This data suggests that trips to the Ports are reasonably foreseeable, and that it would be speculative not to account for distance to the Ports.

In June 2014, SCAQMD staff conducted a business survey of warehouse operators in the SCAQMD region.34 The survey found that 42% of goods going to high-cube warehouses in the SCAQMD region originated from the Ports, per the figure below.35
30 See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15378; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376. 31 ABJC, Letter to City re: Agenda Item B – File No. PDEV22-017: 5355 East Airport Drive Project (SCH No. 2022090006) (April 15, 2024), Clark Comments, pg. 6. 32 NCST, Warehousing and Distribution Center Facilities in Southern California: The Use of the Commodity Flow Survey Data to Identify Logistics Sprawl and Freight Generation Patterns (July 2017), available at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-systeminformation/documents/final-reports/ca17-2975-finalreport-a11y.pdf. 33 Id. at 6-7. 34 SCAQMD, SCAQMD High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary Of Business Survey Results (June 2014), available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study-for-air-quality-analysis/business-surveysummary.pdf. 35 Id. at pg. 11.

CARE-16
CARE-15
(CONT.)
2944
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
During discussion at the April 15, 2024 Development Advisory Board hearing, a City consultant suggested that if the Project only makes truck trips to other warehouses, it would not be necessary to evaluate distance to the Ports. The figure above shows that only a small percentage of goods come from other warehouses and that the lion’s share of goods are from the Ports. Thus, it would be speculative to disregard the Project’s distance from the Ports in analyzing its impacts.

CARE CA’s prior comments discussed the volume of goods passing through the Ports. 32 percent of all containers in the U.S. move through the Ports.36 36 SCAG, ConnectSocal, Technical Report re Goods Movement (Adopted September 3, 2020), pg. 9, available at https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_goodsmovement.pdf?1606001690.

CARE-16
(CONT.)
2945
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
Approximately 40 percent of the total U.S.-Asia trade is served by the Ports, and 40 percent of the imports entering the Ports are transloaded or cross-docked.37 Substantial evidence also demonstrates the demand for port-related warehouse space is expected to expand. SCAG’s 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan forecasts that “Demand for port-related warehouse space is projected to grow at a faster pace than demand for domestic warehousing… As space near the San Pedro Bay Ports reaches capacity, port warehousing will push out to the Inland Empire…. By 2035, the region may experience a shortfall of more than 228 million square feet in warehouse space relative to demand.”38 The table below reflects SCAG’s forecasts for growth in demand for port-related warehouse space. The growth in the port-related market is expected to be much higher than the domestic market.39
In sum, substantial evidence demonstrates that trips to the Ports are reasonably foreseeable for a spec warehouse proposed in the SCAG region, like this one. The lack of a specific tenant identified for the Project does not justify omission 37 SCAG, Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region – Task 3: Assessment of Supply Chain Strategies and Implications for Future Development (April 2018), Pg. 1-4, 1-5, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/task3_supplychaintrends.pdf?1604268170. (Transloading refers to transferring of import cargo from ocean containers into domestic 53-foot containers and trailers for onward movement to U.S. inland destinations via rail or truck.

Crossdocking is a type of transloading in which the cargo is transloaded within approximately 24 hours of arriving at the transload facility.).
38 SCAG, 2012-2035 RTP/SCS, pg. 68, available at https://libraryarchives.metro.net/dpgtl/scag/2012- 2035-regional-transportation-plan.pdf. 39 SCAG, Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region – Task 5: Developing a Policy Evaluation Framework and Assessing the Implications (April 2018), Pg. 2-11, available at https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/task5_developingpolicyevaluation.pdf?1604268239.

CARE-16
(CONT.)
2946
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
of this analysis. As a result of this omission, the FEIR underestimates transportation, air quality, and GHG impacts.

F. The FEIR Still Fails to Include Sufficient Investigation into Energy Conservation Measures
CARE CA commented that the FEIR fails to include sufficient investigation into energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for the Project, as required by the CEQA Guidelines.40 CARE CA’s comments discussed the decision in California Clean Energy Commission v. City of Woodland (“CCEC”),41 in which the Court of Appeal held that an EIR failed to comply with the requirements of Appendix F to the Guidelines by not discussing or analyzing renewable energy options.42
In Response 1-20, the Staff Report suggests that discussion of energy consumption measures is not required for this Project because its energy impacts are less than significant.43 The City continues to make the same error as the lead agency in CCEC because the EIR in that case also identified a less-than-significant energy impact.44 The court held that the EIR must nonetheless analyze energy consumption measures.45
Response 1-20 provides a “CEQA Guidelines Appendix F Energy Analysis” in Table 1-1.46 Table 1-1 addresses factors listed in Appendix F, subdv. II(C), but fails to include any discussion of renewable energy options. As explained in CCEC, an EIR fails to comply with the requirements of Appendix F by not discussing or analyzing renewable energy options.47 And as explained in CARE CA’s prior comments, this FEIR must analyze the feasibility and effectiveness of measures including onsite solar facilities, electric vehicle charging, alternative fuel sources for the backup generators, more stringent idling requirements, and use of existing power sources during construction rather than generators.

The Staff Report contains additional responses regarding energy in Responses 1-21 to 1-25, but none address the feasibility of reducing energy 40 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15126.4(a)(1)(C) (stating “‘Energy conservation measures, as well as other appropriate mitigation measures, shall be discussed when relevant.”). 41 (2014) 225 CA4th 173. 42 Id. at 213. 43 Staff Report, Item D - 2471 of 3296. 44 CCEC, supra, 225 CA4th 173 at 183. 45 Id. at 213. 46 Staff Report, Item D - 2471 of 3296. 47 CCEC, supra, 225 CA4th 173 at 213.

CARE-18
CARE-16
(CONT.)
CARE-17
2947
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
consumption through onsite solar facilities. Response 1-21 states that the City need not evaluate using alternative fuel sources for backup generators because their emissions would be less-than-significant.48 Again, the Staff Report makes the same mistake proscribed in CCEC by assuming no analysis of energy consumption measures is required if the Project’s energy impact is less-than-significant.49 In Response 1-22, the City states that it would be infeasible to set more stringent idling requirements over existing requirements because there is no enforcement mechanism that the City can assure to enforce adherence.50 But the City is authorized under Development Code Section 4.02.025(E) to impose conditions of approval to protect public health and mitigate environmental impacts.

Section 4.02.025(E)(3) states that “All conditions of approval or requirements authorized by this Section are enforceable in the same manner and to the same extent as any other applicable requirement of this Development Code.” Unenforceability is thus not a valid reason not to consider a more stringent idling requirement.

In Response 1-23, the Staff Report states that the FEIR adequately evaluated the feasibility of utilizing existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or alternative fuel generators rather than temporary power generators during construction. The Response seems to misunderstand the nature of CARE CA’s comment by discussing how “new dry utility infrastructure would be installed underground.”51 Instead, the FEIR should have included a discussion on the feasibility of a measuring limiting use of diesel generators during construction.

In Response 1-25, the Staff Report states that it meaningfully addresses Appendix F’s considerations of “whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building's envelope.”52 But neither the Staff Report nor the FEIR contain this analysis.

In sum, the FEIR’s energy analysis remains wholly inadequate. The Staff Report and the FEIR make no attempt to evaluate the feasibility of onsite renewable energy generation and storage, and fail to consider the feasibility of electric vehicle charging beyond existing requirements. And the Staff Report’s 48 Staff Report, Item D - 2473 of 3296. 49 CCEC, supra, 225 CA4th 173 at 213. 50 Staff Report, Item D - 2474 of 3296. 51 Staff Report, Item D - 2474 of 3296. 52 Staff Report, Item D - 2474 of 3296.

CARE-21
CARE-18
(CONT.)
CARE-19
CARE-20
2948
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024
May 28, 2024

6752-008acp
printed on recycled paper
responses to proposed energy consumption measures in Responses 1-21 to 1-25 are generally nonresponsive and fail to meet CEQA’s requirements.

III. THE COMMISSION CANNOT MAKE THE REQUISITE FINDINGS TO

APPROVE THE PROJECT
Section 4.02.025(D) of the City of Ontario Municipal Code sets forth findings necessary to approve a development plan. The Code provides that an application for a development plan shall be denied if the following finding (among others) cannot be clearly established: “The proposed development will complement and/or improve upon the quality of existing development in the vicinity of the project and the minimum safeguards necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare have been required of the proposed project.”53
The Project would have a significant and unavoidable VMT impact. And the Project has potentially significant vapor intrusion, health risk, air quality, GHG, and energy impacts which have been underestimated in the FEIR. Because the Project’s impacts on public health, safety and general welfare have not been adequately analyzed and mitigated, the City cannot make the requisite findings to approve the Project. A revised EIR must be recirculated before the Project can be recommended for approval.

IV. CONCLUSION
As is explained herein, the FEIR’s hazards, air quality, health risk, energy, and transportation analyses remain substantially inaccurate and incomplete, failing to comply with the requirements of CEQA. As a result, the FEIR still fails to adequately disclose and mitigate the Project’s significant impacts. As a consequence of these impacts, the City cannot make the requisite findings under CEQA to certify the FEIR or under the City of Ontario Municipal Code to approve the Project’s Development Plan. CARE CA urges the Commission to require the City revise and recirculate the EIR before any further action is taken on the Project.

Sincerely,
Aidan P. Marshall
Attachment
APM:acp
53 Section 4.02.025(D)(3).

CARE-23
CARE-21
(CONT.)
CARE-22
2949
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024

EXHIBIT A
2950
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024

May 28, 2024
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Mr. Aidan Marshall
Subject: Comments On Staff Report For Final Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) 5355 Esat Airport Drive, City of
Ontario, CA SCH No. 202209006
At the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ABJC), Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed materials related to the August 2023 City of Ontario’s (the City) DEIR of the above referenced project.

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

Project Description:

According to the City of Ontario’s Development Advisory Board Decision File No. PDEV22-017 – Draft EIR (dated March 18, 2024), the draft EIR consists of a Development Plan application to construct a 270,337 square-foot industrial building on the 13.08 acres of the Project site. The Project would require the demolition of the existing buildings and structures, on-site landscaping, and on-site parking. The design would also include the installation of site improvements, including drive aisles, landscaping, utility infrastructure, underground storm drain detection facilities, exterior lighting, walls/fencing, and signage along with improvements to East Airport Drive.

Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc.

OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd
Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]
CARE-25
CARE-24
2951
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024

Figure 1: Site Location Map
Under existing conditions, the Project Site is developed with a grain processing company and a corn storage and distribution facility. The eastern portion of the Project Site contains grain storage silos, grain mill area, and five buildings that are used for maintenance and repair, grain storage, and service shop. The western portion of the Project Site contains enclosed grain storage, with an office trailer. A vehicle wash-down area is also present on the northeastern portion of the Site. Several subsurface septic systems are located beneath the Site to serve the existing uses.

CARE-25
(CONT.)
2952
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024

In the Meeting Agenda for the May 28th, 2024 City of Ontario Planning Commission/Historic Preservation Meeting Agenda, the City included responses from T&B Planning (T&B) to comments on the Final EIR for the Project provided by CARE CA. The responses from T&B for the City in total claim that no new information has been provided within the comments. This assertion is not supported by the information provided within the responses from CARE.

Specific Comments

1. Comment 1-12: The City’s Air Quality Analysis Did Not Incorporate Building Downwash In The AERMOD Analysis.

T& B claims that building downwash is not appropriate for volume or area sources. This is incorrect. The choice to model the idling trucks, which are movable discrete point sources onsite below the line of the building roof, is a controllable feature in the AERMOD model. Volume sources are defined in the AERMOD Users Guide as included a variety of industrial sources, such as building roof monitors, multiple vents, and conveyor belts.1 Volume sources are characterized as having a defined specific release height above the ground, an initial lateral dimension of the volume, and an initial vertical dimension. While the assumption that roadways and idling trucks in the Health Risk Assessment can be modeled as a line of volume sources, it must be pointed out that emissions from idling trucks and moving trucks will come from the exhaust pipe(s) to the engine, releasing diesel particulate matter (DPM) from a raised pipe at a specific rate (a point source). Therefore, the use of building downwash in the model to ensure that the modeled concentrations are not underestimated is appropriate. Omission of the building downwash effect underestimates the exposure point concentrations for receptors near the building(s). T&B, in Response 1-12, states that the Project’s Air Quality Impact Analysis experts (Technical Appendix B1 of the Draft EIR) have concluded that truck idling emissions sources resulting from the Project would not be materially affected by downwash, but it is important to note that the HRA does not quantify the effects of downwash. The City should address the impact of this issue in a Revised DEIR.

2. Comment 1-41: The Air Quality Analysis Relies On An Input Value From AP-42 That 1 U.S. EPA. 2023. User's Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). Pg 3-68 CARE-26
CARE-27
2953
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024

Is Rated As Poor And Maybe Unreliable
T&B’s response that the impact from a poorly rated AP-42 value is incorporated into the analysis is not new evidence is not supported by the evidence in the FEIR. As was noted in my prior comments, the CalEEMOD analysis of the construction emissions incorporates various factors from U.S. EPA’s Emission Factors Handbook (AP-42). The AP-42 emission factor for crushing stones used in the CalEEMOD analysis is rated E. This is the worst rating in AP-42, which according to U.S.

EPA may not represent a random sample of the industry. The City’s response to the questioning of the rating of the emission factor was qualitative at best, failing to show any quantitative analysis of the potential impacts. The City should assess the impacts of this variable in a Revised DEIR.

3. Comment 1-16: The Average Truck Trip Length Of 40 Miles Used In The Air Quality Analysis Does Not Match The Length(s) Used To Support Other Warehouse Projects.

According to T&B’s response, the Project is proposed as a speculative development and the user(s) of the building. T&B goes on to state that it is unknown and speculative at this time whether trucks serving the Project would travel to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach as a trip origin or designation, given the complexities of supply chain routing and transportation geography. This line of reasoning clearly conflicts with the goals of CEQA to analyze the foreseeable and reasonable emissions from the Project.

This statement also does not comport with the reality of where warehoused materials will ship from in the region. The 40-mile distance is insufficient to allow vehicles to travel to the major ports in the Southern California region – Los Angeles and Long Beach. These Ports are the largest source(s) of containerized products, and therefore the primary sources of heavy-duty truck traffic, on the West Coast of the United States are the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. “In 2020, the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland collectively accounted for over 34% of all United States international container trade. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach alone generate about 35,000 container truck trips every day. Accordingly, the South Coast Air Basin now contains approximately 3,000 warehouses of over 100,000 square feet each, with a total warehouse capacity of approximately CARE-29
CARE-28
2954
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024

700 million square feet, an increase of 20 percent over the last five years”), 2 citing data from the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Container TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent Units)3 from 2020, the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland combined for 14.157 million TEUs, 34% of 41.24 million TEUs total nationwide.
4 The distance from the Port of LA to the Project site is approximately 62 miles via Interstate 15 to Route 91 to Interstate 710.

Using the 62-mile daily truck trip will nearly double the daily emissions of pollutants associated with the Project, increasing the regional burden and resulting in a potentially significant impact. The City must address the impact of this issue in a R-FEIR.

4. Additional Comments On The FEIR
a. The Truck Route Assumed For The Project Site Ignores The Traffic Constraints Of The Project Site
The truck route assumed in the FEIR assumes traffic will only exit the Project Site and turn left on East Airport Drive to S. Etiwanda Avenue. This route requires the trucks using the Project Site to cross (turn left out of the Project Site) Airport drive and to cross South Etiwanda Drive (turn left onto S. Etiwanda Avenue). The assumed distance to the 10 freeway is approximately 0.8 mile. An alternate route for traffic was not assessed in the FEIR which is longer than the primary route, but would have fewer traffic challenges for the drivers. Assuming trucks exit the Project Site and turn right (avoiding the delay getting across Airport Drive) then turn right on South Milliken Avenue, the vehicles will also be able to reach the 10 Freeway. The distance for this route is approximately 1.6 miles and is closer to the residential properties identified in the FEIR. The City must consider this alternate route and the air quality impacts in a R-FEIR. b. The HRA And Air Quality Analysis Failed To Assess A Receptor Closer To The Project Site Than The Residential Properties To The Northwest – The San Bernardino County West Valley Detention Center
2 Available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf 3 https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Container-TEU/x3fb-aeda/ 4 U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Operations Support – Port Peak Pricing Program Evaluation (2020), available at https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09014/sect2.htm CARE-29
(CONT.)
CARE-30
2955
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024

The HRA and Air Quality Analysis failed to consider a significant receptor near the Project Site. The San Bernardino County West Valley Detention Center is located approximately 5,600 feet north northeast of the Project Site at 9500 Etiwanda Ave in Rancho Cucamonga. The Detention Center houses approximately 3,347 inmates and 600 workers.

The Detention Center is nearly 3,000 feet closer to the Project Site, and is nearer the proposed truck route, than the residential property identified in the HRA. The City must assess the impacts of the Project emissions on this receptor center in a revised DEIR. c. The Cumulative Analysis Of The Project Failed To Consider The Significant Number Of Existing Warehouse Projects In The Vicinity
Based on the current analysis of warehouse projects within a 5-kilometer radius (3.1 miles) of the Project Site, there are 595 current warehouses, totaling 126,400,000 square feet of floor space.

CARE-32
CARE-31
2956
5355 East Airport Drive (PDEV22-017) – Response to May 28, 2024 Comment Letter from CARE CA August 8, 2024

Those projects account for 85,000 truck trips per day, which emit 117.6 lbs of DPM and 13, 243 lbs of NOx per day. There is an additional 7,400,000 square feet of warehousing that is either approved or undergoing CEQA review (includes the Airport Site). The cumulative impacts must be considered in a revised DEIR.

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

Sincerely,
CARE-32
(CONT.)
CARE-33
2957
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-036

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE 5355 EAST AIRPORT DRIVE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
NO. 2022090006) FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A
270,337 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 13.08 ACRES OF LAND FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5355 EAST AIRPORT DRIVE,

WITHIN THE IH (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT, AND ADOPT

ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF—APNS: 0238-052-29 AND 0238-052-20.

WHEREAS, PROLOGIS ("Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Development Plan, File No. PDEV22-017, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Application applies to 13.08 acres of land located at 5355 East Airport Drive, within the IH (Heavy Industrial) zoning district, and is presently improved with five industrial structures. All existing structures and improvements will be demolished to allow for construction of the 270,337 square-foot industrial warehouse building; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 2022, the Applicant submitted a Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-017) to construct a 270,337 square-foot industrial building on 13.08 acres of land located at 5355 East Airport Drive, within the IH (Heavy Industrial) zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the property abutting the Project site to the north is a Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, and properties beyond are developed with existing industrial land uses within the IH (Heavy Industrial) zoning district of the Shea Business Center. The property to the south of the Project site (across Airport Drive Street) is zoned IH (Heavy Industrial) and consists of two existing warehouse buildings. The property to the east of the Project site in the IH (Heavy Industrial) zoning district and is developed with an industrial gas supplier. The property to the west of the Project site in the IH (Heavy Industrial) zoning district and is developed with a Verizon facility; and WHEREAS, the 5355 East Airport Drive Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2022090006) was prepared (hereinafter referred to as "final EIR"), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and WHEREAS, the final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations was made available to the public and to all 2958
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV22-017 - FEIR
August 27, 2024