Ontario City Council
November 19, 2024

ATTACHMENT C:

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
3644
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5355 East Airport Drive Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2021090399

Prepared for:

City of Ontario
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Prepared by:

T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
714-505-6360
May 2024
3645
3646
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

CEQA Requirements
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document that includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the changes to the project that it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts. The appropriate reporting or monitoring plan must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code §21081.6).

The City of Ontario will coordinate the monitoring of the mitigation measures and regulatory requirements with each applicable City department or division, while various City departments/divisions would be responsible for monitoring and verifying compliance of specific mitigation measures and regulatory requirements (see the beginning on page 3). Monitoring will include: 1) verification that each mitigation measure and regulatory requirement has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation measure and regulatory requirement; and 3) retention of records in the project file.

Project Objectives
The objectives of the proposed 5355 East Airport Drive Project (the “Project”) include the following:

A. To expand economic development and facilitate job creation in the City of Ontario by redeveloping the property with a new, in-demand industrial use adjacent to an alreadyestablished industrial area.

B. To attract employment-generating businesses to the City of Ontario to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment.

C. To develop industrial buildings with loading bays in close proximity to designated truck routes and the State highway system to avoid or shorten heavy truck-trip lengths on City and regional roads.

D. To attract businesses that can expedite the delivery of goods to consumers and businesses in the City of Ontario and beyond.

E. To develop a project that has architectural design and operational characteristics that complement other existing and planned buildings in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site and minimize conflicts with other nearby land uses.

F. To develop a property that has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities.

Overview of the Project
The Project site is located at 5355 East Airport Drive in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. The Project entails a Development Plan (PDEV22-017). The Project Applicant is proposing to redevelop the site with approximately 270,337 square feet (s.f.) of building floor area, including 3647
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

255,337 s.f. of warehouse space and 15,000 s.f. of mezzanine. Refer to EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, for a detailed description of the Project.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
This MMRP delegates responsibilities for monitoring the implementation of the 5355 East Airport Drive Project mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, and allows responsible City entities flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure or regulatory requirement. The timing for monitoring and reporting is described in the monitoring and reporting summary table, below.

Adequate monitoring requires demonstration of monitoring procedures and implementation of mitigation measures and regulatory requirements.

In order to enhance the effectiveness of the monitoring program, the City will utilize existing systems where appropriate. These inspectors are familiar with a broad range of regulatory issues and will provide first line oversight for much of the monitoring program during construction activities.

Program Changes
If minor changes are required to this MMRP, they will be made in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and would be permitted after further review by the City. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities and/or minor modifications to mitigation measures that achieve the same or better end results. No change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code §21081.6.
3648
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Aesthetics
The Project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to aesthetics. No mitigation is required.

Air Quality
The Project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to air quality. No mitigation is required.

Cultural Resources
MM

4.3-1
Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to
Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities:
a. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a
Native American Monitor from or approved by the
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation.

The monitor shall be retained prior to the
commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity”
for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are
included in the project description/definition and/or
required in connection with the project, such as
public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing
activity” shall include, but is not limited to,
demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring,
grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation,
drilling, and trenching1
Prior to the issuance of
a grading permit.;
Project
Applicant/Project
Archaeologist
During GroundDisturbing Activities;
City of Ontario
Community
Development
Department
(Planning)
1 Tribal monitoring shall cease once all ground disturbance activities have been completed with respect to the property or portion thereof. Example: Once excavation, grading, trenching, etc. have occurred tribal monitoring shall cease. 3649
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
b. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall
be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity,
or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence
a ground-disturbing activity.
c. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs
that will provide descriptions of the relevant grounddisturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing
activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries
of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will
identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including
but not limited to, Native American cultural and
historical artifacts, remains, places of significance,
etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or
“TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American
(ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies
of monitor logs will be provided to the project
applicant/lead agency upon written request to the
Tribe.
d. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the
latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the
project applicant/lead agency that all grounddisturbing activities and phases that may involve ground disturbing activities on the project site or in
connection with the project are complete; or (2) a
determination and written notification by the Kizh to
3650
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
the project applicant/lead agency that no future,
planned construction activity and/or
development/construction phase at the project site
possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
e. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction
activities in the immediate vicinity of thediscovery
shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has
been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh
archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all
discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe
deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and
for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate,
including for educational, cultural and/or historic
purposes.

MM

4.3-2
Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and
Associated Funerary Objects:
a. Native American human remains are defined in
PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation,
and in any state of decomposition or skeletal
completeness. Funerary objects, called associated
grave goods in Public Resources Code Section
5097.98, are also to be treated according to this
statute.
b. If Native American human remains and/or grave
goods discovered or recognized on the project site,
then all construction activities shall immediately
cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
During grading and
excavation operation;
Project Archaeologist/
Native American
Monitor
During grading and
excavation operation;
City of Ontario
Community
Development
Department
(Planning)
3651
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal
material shall be immediately reported to the County
Coroner and all ground disturbing activities shall
immediately halt and shall remain halted until the
coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If
the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those
of a Native American or has reason to believe they
are Native American, he or she shall contact, by
telephone within 24 hours, the Native American
Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98 shall be followed.
c. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be
treated alike per California Public Resources Code
section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
d. Construction activities may resume in other parts
of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away
from discovered human remains and/or burial goods,
if the Kizh determines in its sole discretion that
resuming construction activities at that distance is
acceptable and provides the project manager express
consent of that determination (along with any other
mitigation measures the Kizh monitor and/or
archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5(f))
e. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the
preferred manner of treatment for discovered human
remains and/or burial goods. Any historic
archaeological material that is not Native American
3652
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
in origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los
Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an
institution agrees to accept the material. If no
institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
f. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall
be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

MM

4.3-3
Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains:
a. As the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”), the
Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To
the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses
more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic
times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not
limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the
ceremonial burning of human remains.
b. If the discovery of human remains includes four or
more burials, the discovery location shall be treated
as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be
created.
c. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be
treated in the same manner as bone fragments that
remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects
that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, During grading and
excavation operation;
Project Archaeologist
During grading and
excavation operation;
City of Ontario
Community
Development
Department
(Planning)
3653
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
are reasonably believed to have been placed with
individual human remains either at the time of death
or later; other items made exclusively for burial
purposes or to contain human remains can also be
considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations
will either be removed in bulk or by means as
necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred
materials.
d. In the case where discovered human remains
cannot be fully documented and recovered on the
same day, the remains will be covered with muslin
cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy
equipment placed over the excavation opening to
Energy
The Project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to energy. No mitigation is required.

Geology and Soils
MM

4.5-1
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project
Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of
Ontario that a qualified paleontologist
(“paleontologist”) has been retained by the Project
Applicant or contractor to conduct monitoring of
excavation activities in olde alluvium soils and has
the authority to halt and redirect earthmoving
activities in the event that suspected paleontological
resources are unearthed.

Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit;
Project Applicant
Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit;
City of Ontario
Community
Development
Department
(Planning)
MM

4.5-2
The paleontologist shall conduct full-time monitoring
during grading and excavation operations in
undisturbed Holocene and late Pleistocene old
alluvial fan deposits starting at a depth of five (5) feet During grading and
excavation
operations; Project
Contractor, Project
During grading and
excavation
operations; City of
Ontario Community
3654
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
below the existing ground surface. The paleontologist
shall be equipped to salvage fossils if they are
unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove
samples of sediments that are likely to contain the
remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates.

The paleontologist shall be empowered to
temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the
removal of abundant and large specimens in a timely
manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially
fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon exposure and
examination by the paleontologist to have a low
potential to contain or yield fossil resource.

Paleontologist Development
Department
(Planning)
MM

4.5-3
Recovered specimens shall be properly prepared to a
point of identification and permanent preservation,
including screen washing sediments to recover small
invertebrates and vertebrates, if necessary.

Identification and curation of specimens into the
collections of the Division of Geological Sciences,
San Bernardino County Museum, shall be required
for discoveries of significance as determined by the
paleontological monitor.

During grading and
excavation
operations; Project
Paleontologist
During grading and
excavation
operations; City of
Ontario Community
Development
Department
(Planning)
MM

4.5-4
A final monitoring and mitigation report of findings
and significance shall be prepared, including lists of
all fossils recovered, if any, and necessary maps and
graphics to accurately record the original location of
the specimens. The report shall be submitted to the
City of Ontario prior to issuance of the first
occupancy permit.

Prior to issuance of
first occupancy
permit; Project
Paleontologist
Prior to issuance of
first occupancy
permit; City of
Ontario Community
Development
Department
(Planning)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3655
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
The Project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. No mitigation is required.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM

4.7-1
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project
Applicant shall prepare a Soil Management Plan
(SMP). The SMP shall include explicit instructions
for the appropriate handling, storage, and disposal of
any known or potentially impacted soil during soil
moving activities. The general contractor will be
required to follow the requirements of the SMP and
stop work to make notification to the environmental
team if any potential impacts are observed at any time
the environmental team is not already on-site. The
SMP also requires air monitoring activities to monitor
the air downwind of the Project Site and appropriate
Health and Safety Plans that will be employed by site
workers. The SMP shall identify specific requirements
intended to protect human health when soil in certain
areas of known or suspected impacts are disturbed for
any reason, including, without limitation, as a result of demolition, utility installation/repair, soil excavation, drilling, grading/filling activities, stockpile
generation, soil management, loading, and
transportation. Requirements of the SMP include:
a. Health and Safety Plan (HASP): A HASP will be
prepared and in effect for all activities associated with the SMP and other activities at the Project Site.

Contractors working onsite are expected to be
operating under their own health and safety plans.

Prior to the issuance of
a grading permit;
Project Applicant
Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit;
City of Ontario
Community
Development
Department
(Planning &
Building)
3656
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
b. Environmental Monitoring: In accordance with
SCAQMD Rules, air monitoring will be necessary in
areas where potential PCE contaminated soil are to be
disturbed. Air monitoring for dust may also be
required in other areas. An air monitoring/health and
safety professional will be present during relevant
activities and responsibilities will include recording
monitoring data on field sheets, which will be kept as
part of Project documentation.
c. Soil Monitoring: Soils impacted by PCE that are
encountered during site redevelopment will be
characterized and documented. The monitoring and
sampling activities to be performed include:
· Visual observation performed to detect areas of soil
that may be impacted by PCE or other non-VOC
hazardous materials, if encountered.
· Screening for PCEs using field instruments to
document new or previously undetected sources of
PCEs.
· Soil sampling and chemical testing performed to
evaluate concentrations of PCE.
d. Proper Soil Handling: If impacted soil is
encountered, the area will be delineated as necessary
with cones, caution tape, stakes, chalk, or flagging,
and the area will not be disturbed further until an
environmental professional is onsite for observation
3657
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
and determination of whether testing and/or
excavation work is required. Stockpile staging areas
will be delineated prior to the start of excavation. All excavations will conform to applicable regulations,
including Cal/OSHA Construction Safety Orders. The
specific equipment, means, and methods to be utilized
for soil removal, handling, and disposition will be
selected based on the nature of the work to be
conducted and its location on the site. If excavation is conducted during the rainy season (October through
April), provisions will need to be made to prevent
offsite migration of sediment in runoff.
e. Fugitive Dust and Vapor Control: Appropriate
procedures will be implemented to control the
generation of airborne dust by soil removal activities, including, but not limited to, the use of water as a dust suppressant or stopping activities that have the
potential to generate fugitive dust in the event wind
conditions change creating an uncontrollable
condition.
f. Excavation and Stockpiling: Impacted soil that is
excavated and not immediately removed from the site
will be stockpiled onsite and covered with plastic
sheeting to control dust and minimize exposure to
precipitation and wind. If a stockpile remains onsite
during the rainy season, a perimeter sediment barrier,
constructed of material, such as straw bales or fiber
roll, will also be installed. The stockpiles will be
inspected biweekly at a minimum. During stockpile
3658
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
removal, only the working face of the stockpile will
be uncovered. If the stockpiled impacted soil is to be
transported offsite for disposal or recycling, the soil will be profiled for waste characteristics. Soil samples will be analyzed for parameters required by the
disposal/recycling facility.
g. Responding to Unknown Conditions: If previously
unknown impacted soil is suspected (based on visual
staining, odors, photo ionization detector readings, or other observations), the area will be delineated and
construction activity will cease in this area, and
sampling of the unknown material will occur using
USEPA methodology. Analysis will be conducted for
TPH, metals, and/or VOCs, as appropriate. Analytical
results will be compared to applicable regulatory
screening levels. Based on this comparison, a
determination will be made regarding soil disposition
(reuse on-site, off-site transport, and
disposal/recycling, etc.). Additionally, if any UST or
other subsurface features are encountered, a similar
approach will be taken, and appropriate permitting, as
necessary, will be obtained for the removal of the
feature(s). Any permitted removals will be conducted
withappropriate regulatory oversight, documentation,
and reporting.
h. Imported fill: As appropriate, offsite soils brought to the site for use as backfill (import fill), if necessary, will be tested in general conformance with the DTSC
Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material
3659
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
document.
i. Post-construction Requirements: If contaminated
soil is left in place, the location of this soil will be surveyed or recorded by use of geographic positioning
system equipment. Following the completion of
construction, excavation, and disposition activities, a summary report will be prepared. The report will
include a summary of activities, locations of soil
sources and final disposition of contaminated soil, and estimated quantities of materials. Additionally,
removal of any USTs or other subsurface features, if
encountered, will be conducted under appropriate
permits (if any) and documented in applicable reports
for submittal to the Ontario Fire Department, or other
regulatory agency, as appropriate.

Hydrology and Water Quality
The Project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to hydrology and water quality. No mitigation is required.

Noise
The Project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to noise. No mitigation is required.

Transportation
MM

4.10-1
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the building operator shall prepare and submit for
approval to the City of Ontario Community
Development Department a Transportation Demand
Management Program (TDMP). The TDMP shall
specify measures that the building operator will
Prior to the issuance of
a certificate of
occupancy; Building
operator
Prior to the issuance of
a certificate of
occupancy; City of
Ontario Community
Development
Department (Planning)
3660
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
commit to implementing in an effort to reduce vehicle
miles traveled for its on-site employees. The TDMP
shall include provisions, incentives, and programs for
employee ridesharing programs, carpools, vanpools,
transit use, bike travel, avoidance of peak periods of
traffic congestion, and on-site parking preferences for zero-emission vehicles, among other items that have
reasonable potential of reducing employee reliance on
single-occupant gas-powered vehicles during peak
time travel periods (rush hours).

Tribal Cultural Resources
MM

4.3-1
Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to
Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities:
a. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a
Native American Monitor from or approved by the
Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation.

The monitor shall be retained prior to the
commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity”
for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are
included in the project description/definition and/or
required in connection with the project, such as
public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing
activity” shall include, but is not limited to,
demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring,
grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation,
drilling, and trenching2
Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit.;
Project
Applicant/Project
Archaeologist
During GroundDisturbing
Activities; City of
Ontario Community
Development
Department
(Planning)
2 Tribal monitoring shall cease once all ground disturbance activities have been completed with respect to the property or portion thereof. Example: Once excavation, grading, trenching, etc. have occurred tribal monitoring shall cease. 3661
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
b. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement
shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the
earlier of the commencement of any grounddisturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.
c. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs
that will provide descriptions of the relevant grounddisturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing
activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries
of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will
identify and describe any discovered TCRs,
including but not limited to, Native American
cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of
significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural
resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered
Native American (ancestral) human remains and
burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be
provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon
written request to the Tribe.
d. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the
latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the
project applicant/lead agency that all grounddisturbing activities and phases that may involve ground disturbing activities on the project site or in
connection with the project are complete; or (2) a
determination and written notification by the Kizh to
3662
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
the project applicant/lead agency that no future,
planned construction activity and/or
development/construction phase at the project site
possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
e. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction
activities in the immediate vicinity of thediscovery
shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has
been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh
archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all
discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe
deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and
for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate,
including for educational, cultural and/or historic
purposes.

MM

4.3-2
Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and
Associated Funerary Objects:
a. Native American human remains are defined in
PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation,
and in any state of decomposition or skeletal
completeness. Funerary objects, called associated
grave goods in Public Resources Code Section
5097.98, are also to be treated according to this
statute.
b. If Native American human remains and/or grave
goods discovered or recognized on the project site,
then all construction activities shall immediately
cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
During grading and
excavation operation;
Project Archaeologist/
Native American
Monitor
During grading and
excavation
operation; City of
Ontario Community
Development
Department
(Planning)
3663
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal
material shall be immediately reported to the County
Coroner and all ground disturbing activities shall
immediately halt and shall remain halted until the
coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If
the coroner recognizes the human remains to be
those of a Native American or has reason to believe
they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by
telephone within 24 hours, the Native American
Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98 shall be followed.
c. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be
treated alike per California Public Resources Code
section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).
d. Construction activities may resume in other parts
of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away
from discovered human remains and/or burial goods,
if the Kizh determines in its sole discretion that
resuming construction activities at that distance is
acceptable and provides the project manager express
consent of that determination (along with any other
mitigation measures the Kizh monitor and/or
archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5(f))
e. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the
preferred manner of treatment for discovered human
remains and/or burial goods. Any historic
archaeological material that is not Native American
3664
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
in origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a public,
non-profit institution with a research interest in the
materials, such as the Natural History Museum of
Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such
an institution agrees to accept the material. If no
institution accepts the archaeological material, it
shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
f. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall
be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

MM

4.3-3
Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains:
a. As the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”), the
Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To
the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses
more than human bones. In ancient as well as
historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were
not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and
the ceremonial burning of human remains.
b. If the discovery of human remains includes four
or more burials, the discovery location shall be
treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan
shall be created.
c. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be
treated in the same manner as bone fragments that
remain intact. Associated funerary objects are
objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of
During grading and
excavation operation;
Project Archaeologist
During grading and
excavation
operation; City of
Ontario Community
Development
Department
(Planning)
3665
Lead Agency: City of Ontario SCH No. 2022090006

No. Mitigation Measure
Time Frame and
Responsible Party
for
Implementation
Time Frame and
Responsible
Party for
Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
a culture, are reasonably believed to have been
placed with individual human remains either at the
time of death or later; other items made exclusively
for burial purposes or to contain human remains can
also be considered as associated funerary objects.

Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by
means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of
all sacred materials.
d. In the case where discovered human remains
cannot be fully documented and recovered on the
same day, the remains will be covered with muslin
cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy
equipment placed over the excavation opening to
Utilities and Service Systems
The Project would not result in significant adverse impacts related to utilities and service systems. No mitigation is required.
3666
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-037

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PDEV22-017, 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 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 the Application 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 is in the IH (Heavy Industrial) zoning district and is developed with an industrial gas supplier. The property to the west of the Project site is in the IH (Heavy Industrial) zoning district and is developed with a Verizon facility; and WHEREAS, the proposed building has been situated on the center of the site, and is set back approximately 180 to 200 feet from Airport Drive, 77 feet from the west property line, 72 feet from the east property line, and 40 feet from the north property line; and
WHEREAS, the building is designed to accommodate up to two tenants, with offices located at the southeast and southwest corners of the building, fronting East Airport Drive. Off-street parking is located all around the building, with the heaviest concentration around the office areas; and
WHEREAS, a truck yard area, with 54 dock-high loading doors, is located on the south side of the building (center of building). The loading area will be screened from 3667
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

street views by portions of the building and 14-foot-tall decorative screen walls with decorative tube steel gates, that have been designed to match the building architecture; and
WHEREAS, the Project has provided off-street parking pursuant to the "Warehouse and Distribution" parking standards specified in the Development Code. The Project requires and provides 251 passenger vehicle parking spaces. Additionally, the Project requires 14 tractor-trailer parking spaces and has provided 48 tractor-trailer parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, the proposed industrial warehouse building will be of concrete tilt-up construction and designed in a Contemporary Architectural style that exemplifies the type of high-quality architecture promoted by the Ontario Development Code and The Ontario Plan; and
WHEREAS, the IH (Heavy Industrial) zoning district requires a minimum 10 percent landscape coverage for interior lots, and 12.72 percent will be provided, in compliance with the Ontario Development Code requirements; and WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); 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 interested agencies for review and comment pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject Application; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
3668
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2024, the Development Advisory Board (DAB) conducted a hearing regarding the subject Application and voted to continue the Project to the next available DAB meeting to allow staff to work with the applicant to revise draft conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2024, the DAB conducted a hearing to consider the final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Decision No. DAB24-010, recommending that the Planning Commission approve the final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2024, the DAB conducted a hearing regarding the subject Application and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Decision No. DAB24- 011, recommending the Planning Commission approve the Project, subject to the conditions of approval appended to the attached Resolution; and WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on May 28, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a hearing to consider for the final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, each prepared pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines, and continued the Project for further consideration; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-017), and continued the Project for further consideration; and
3669
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

WHEREAS, on August 27, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-017), and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the decision-making authority for the Project, the Planning Commission finds that based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report.

SECTION 2: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") Compliance.

The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
(1) On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and SECTION 3: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing, 3670
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2, above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed development at the proposed location is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The proposed Project is located within the Industrial land use district of the Policy Plan Land Use Map, and the IH (Heavy Industrial) zoning district. The development standards and conditions under which the proposed Project will be constructed and maintained, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The proposed development is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan, as the Project will contribute to the establishment of a dynamic, progressive city containing distinct neighborhoods and districts that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses (Goal CD1). Furthermore, the Project will promote the City's policy to take actions that are consistent with the City being a leading urban center in Southern California, while recognizing the diverse character of our existing viable neighborhoods (Policy CD1-1); and
(2) The proposed development is compatible with those on adjoining sites in relation to location of buildings, with particular attention to privacy, views, any physical constraint identified on the site and the characteristics of the area in which the site is located. The Project has been designed consistent with the requirements of the City of Ontario Development Code and the IH (Heavy Industrial) zoning district, including standards relative to the particular land use proposed (270,337 square foot industrial warehouse), as-well-as building intensity, building and parking setbacks, building height, number of off-street parking and loading spaces, on-site and off-site landscaping, and fences, walls and obstructions; and (3) 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. The Planning Commission has required certain safeguards, and impose certain conditions of approval, which have been established to ensure that: [i] the purposes of the Development Code are maintained; [ii] the Project will not endanger the public health, safety or general welfare; [iii] the Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts; [iv] the Project will be in harmony with the area in which it is located; and [v] the Project will be in full conformity with the Vision, City Council Priorities and Policy Plan components of The Ontario Plan; and (4) The proposed development is consistent with the development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Development Code, or applicable 3671
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

specific plan or planned unit development. The proposed Project has been reviewed for consistency with the general development standards and guidelines of the Development Code that are applicable to the proposed Project, including building intensity, building and parking setbacks, building height, amount of off-street parking and loading spaces, parking lot dimensions, design and landscaping, bicycle parking, on-site landscaping, and fences and walls, as-well-as those development standards and guidelines specifically related to the particular land use being proposed (industrial warehouse with a 0.47 FAR). As a result of this review, the Planning Commission has determined that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the development standards and guidelines described in the Development Code.

SECTION 4: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 3, above, the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES the herein described Application, subject to each and every condition set forth in the Department reports attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 5: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the Applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

SECTION 6: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

SECTION 7: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3672
3673
3674
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV22-017
August 27, 2024

ATTACHMENT A:

File No. PDEV22-017
Departmental Conditions of Approval
(Departmental conditions of approval to follow this page) 3675

303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420

LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Date Prepared: 5/28/2024
File No: PDEV22-017
Related Files:

Project Description: A Development Plan to construct a 270,337-square-foot industrial building on 13.08 acres of land (0.47 FAR) located at 5355 East Airport Drive, within the IH (Heavy Industrial) zoning district; (APN(s): 0238-052-20 & 0238-052-29); submitted by Prologis.

Prepared By: Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner
Phone: 909.395.2413 (direct)
Email: [email protected]
The Planning Department, Land Development Section, conditions of approval applicable to the above-described Project, are listed below. The Project shall comply with each condition of approval listed below:

1.0 Standard Conditions of Approval. The project shall comply with the Standard Conditions for New Development, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2017-027 on April 18, 2017. A copy of the Standard Conditions for New Development may be obtained from the Planning Department or City Clerk/Records Management Department.

2.0 Special Conditions of Approval. In addition to the Standard Conditions for New Development identified in condition no. 1.0, above, the project shall comply with the following special conditions of approval:

2.1 Time Limits.
(a) Development Plan approval shall become null and void 2 years following the effective date of application approval, unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced, and diligently pursued toward completion, or a time extension has been approved by the Planning Director. This condition does not supersede any individual time limits specified herein, or any other departmental conditions of approval applicable to the Project, for the performance of specific conditions or improvements.

2.2 General Requirements. The Project shall comply with the following general requirements:
(a) All construction documentation shall be coordinated for consistency, including, but not limited to, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, landscape and irrigation, grading, utility and street improvement plans. All such plans shall be consistent with the approved entitlement plans on file with the Planning Department. 3676
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV22-017

(b) The project site shall be developed in conformance with the approved plans on file with the City. Any variation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to building permit issuance. (c) The herein-listed conditions of approval from all City departments shall be included in the construction plan set for project, which shall be maintained on site during project construction.

2.3 Architecture.
(a) Exterior building wall materials, roof types and colors shall be shown on development construction drawings.
(b) Roof access ladders shall be located on the inside of the building. (c) All building drainage gutters, down spouts, vents, etc., shall be completely concealed from public view or shall be architecturally compatible (decorative) with the exterior building design and color.
(d) All tower elements on the building(s) shall be fully walled and finished on all sides and include detailing appropriate to the architectural style proposed, so as to be a fully three-dimensional, four-sided element of the building, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.

The term "tower elements" means architectural elements of the building that are that are substantially taller than the adjacent parapet wall or roof, as determined by the Planning Director. (e) At locations where changes in parapet wall height meet, the taller parapet must return into the building for a minimum distance of 6 FT, so that the actual thickness of the parapet wall cannot be observed or readily discerned.

2.4 Landscaping.
(a) The Project shall provide and continuously maintain landscaping and irrigation systems in compliance with the provisions of Ontario Development Code Division 6.05 (Landscaping).
(b) Comply with the conditions of approval of the Planning Department; Landscape Planning Division.
(c) Landscaping shall not be installed until the Landscape and Irrigation Construction Documentation Plans required by Ontario Development Code Division 6.05 (Landscaping) have been approved by the Landscape Planning Division. (d) Changes to approved Landscape and Irrigation Construction Documentation Plans, which affect the character or quantity of the plant material or irrigation system design, shall be resubmitted for approval of the revision by the Landscape Planning Division, prior to the commencement of the changes.

2.5 Walls and Fences. All Project walls and fences shall comply with the requirements of Ontario Development Code Division 6.02 (Walls, Fences and Obstructions). 3677
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV22-017

(a) Within industrial zoning districts, walls and fences within the front yard building setback area shall not exceed 6 feet in height, with at least 90 percent of the vertical surface open and non-view obstructing and shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet behind the street property line.
(b) Long expanses of fence or wall (50 or more FT in length) adjacent to a public right-of-way shall have offset areas (decorative pilasters or a jog in the wall) along its length and shall be architecturally designed to prevent monotony. Construction plans shall include wall plans and details that show compliance with this condition of approval. (c) The height of a wall or fence shall be measured on the exterior side, at the highest point of the natural ground or finished grade at the base of the fence or wall to the top of the fence or wall above the same base point.
(d) For gated sites, sufficient area shall be provided in front (exterior side) of vehicular access gates, to allow stacking of at least one tractor/trailer outside of the public street right-of-way.
(e) Development plans and construction drawings shall indicate materials, colors, and height of proposed and existing walls/fences and shall include a cross-section of walls/fences indicating adjacent grades. Walls shall be designed as an integral part of the architecture for the development.
(f) Walls shall be treated with a graffiti-proof coating at locations visible to the public.

2.6 Refuse Storage (Trash Enclosures).
(a) All refuse shall be stored in an appropriate container. Furthermore, all refuse containers shall be stored within a City-approved enclosure, which shall be designed so as to be consistent with the building architecture on the project site. (b) The number of enclosures, and their precise locations, dimensions, and design shall be provided consistent with the Solid Waste Department Refuse and Recycling Planning Manual (the manual may be obtain online at
http://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-UtilitiesCompany/planning_manual-2016_update.pdf). (c) Signs clearly identifying all recycling and refuse collection areas, and the materials accepted for recycling shall be posted adjacent to all points of access to each trash enclosure.
(d) Trash enclosures shall be bordered by a minimum 5-FT wide planter and screened with landscaping on all exposed sides, excluding the side with bin access gates.

2.7 Parking, Circulation and Access.
(a) The Project shall comply with the applicable off-street parking, loading and lighting requirements of City of Ontario Development Code Division 6.03 (Off-Street Parking and Loading).
3678
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV22-017

(b) All drive approaches shall be provided with an enhanced pavement treatment. The enhanced paving shall extend from the back of the approach apron, into the site, to the first intersecting drive aisle or parking space. (c) Areas provided to meet the City’s parking requirements, including off-street parking and loading spaces, access drives, and maneuvering areas, shall not be used for the outdoor storage of materials and equipment, nor shall it be used for any other purpose than parking.
(d) The required number of off-street parking spaces and/or loading spaces shall be provided at the time of site and/or building occupancy. All parking and loading spaces shall be maintained in good condition for the duration of the building or use. (e) Parking spaces specifically designated and conveniently located for use by the physically disabled shall be provided pursuant to current accessibility regulations contained in State law (CCR Title 24, Part 2, Chapters 2B71, and CVC Section 22507.8). (f) Implementation and operation of access restrictions such as gates and/or barrier arms shall provide proper access to police, fire, emergency services and waste and recycling collection services, subject to City review and approval. (g) The use of compact parking spaces is not permitted. (h) Wheel stops shall be provided where necessary, to protect structures and parked vehicles.
(i) Striping of parking spaces, aisles, and driveways conforming to the provisions of Development Code Division 6.03 (Off-Street Parking and Loading), and directional signs conforming to the provisions of Development Code Division 8.01 (Sign Regulations), shall be provided.
(j) Bicycle parking facilities, including bicycle racks, lockers, and other secure facilities, shall be provided in conjunction with development projects pursuant to current regulations contained in CALGreen (CAC Title 24, Part 11). Final design and placement of bicycle parking facilities shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval.

2.8 Outdoor Loading and Storage Areas.
(a) Loading facilities shall be designed and constructed pursuant to Development Code Division 6.03 (Off-Street Parking and Loading). (b) Areas designated for off-street parking, loading, and vehicular circulation and maneuvering, shall not be used for the outdoor storage of materials or equipment. (c) Outdoor loading and storage areas, and loading doors, shall be screened from public view pursuant to the requirements of Development Code Paragraph 6.02.025.A.2 (Screening of Outdoor Loading and Storage Areas, and Loading Doors) Et Seq. 3679
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV22-017

(d) Outdoor loading and storage areas shall be provided with gates that are view-obstructing by one of the following methods:
(i) Construct gates with a perforated metal sheet affixed to the inside of the gate surface (50 percent screen); or
(ii) Construct gates with minimum one-inch square tube steel pickets spaced at maximum 2-inches apart.
(e) The development shall maintain a minimum of 47 off-street trailer parking spaces. Dock-high loading zones intended for tractor-trailers shall have a clear dimension of 12 FT wide by 45 FT long. All at-grade loading doors shall have a 12-FT wide by 18-FT deep unobstructed loading zone directly in front of the door, free of access drives. (f) Truck loading and maneuvering areas in front of dock-high loading areas shall require a clear area of 120 FT.
(g) Loading areas shall be designed to provide for backing and maneuvering completely on-site, and not from a public street.
(h) Loading areas shall not encroach into landscape or building setbacks. (i) All loading doors, areas, and activities shall be completely screened from public view, as well as from public, residential, and commercial uses, whether on the same lot or on neighboring properties, by a decorative masonry wall. Chain link fencing with slats or tennis windscreen material shall not be used as screening for storage areas. (j) The height of screen and wing walls shall be determined by a sight-line analysis/wall section plan. The sight-line analysis/wall section plan shall show that all roll-up doors will be screened from view from adjoining parcels and public streets. The following criteria shall apply:
(i) Roll-up doors and openings in the screen wall shall be positioned such that the doors are not visible from the street.
(ii) Screening shall include a combination of screen walls, sightobscuring gates, ornamental landscaping, and/or portions of the building such that the roll-up doors are not visible from the public street.
(iii) Upon Planning Department request, a “horizontal height mockup” shall be constructed for review and approval by Planning Department staff to verify adequacy of screen wall height from the freeway and streets. Mockup should be located at the lowest elevation on the site.
(k) The minimum gate height for screen wall openings shall be established based upon the corresponding wall height, as follows:

Screen Wall Height Minimum Gate Height
14 feet: 10 feet
12 feet: 9 feet
10 feet: 8 feet
3680
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV22-017

Screen Wall Height Minimum Gate Height
8 feet: 8 feet
6 feet: 6 feet

2.9 Site Lighting.
(a) All off-street parking facilities shall be provided with nighttime security lighting pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Section 4-11.08 (Special Residential Building Provisions) and Section 4-11.09 (Special Commercial/Industrial Building Provisions), designed to confine emitted light to the parking areas. Parking facilities shall be lighted from sunset until sunrise, daily, and shall be operated by a photocell switch.
(b) Unless intended as part of a master lighting program, no operation, activity, or lighting fixture shall create illumination on any adjacent property.

2.10 Mechanical and Rooftop Equipment.
(a) All exterior roof-mounted mechanical, heating and air conditioning equipment, and all appurtenances thereto, shall be completely screened from public view by parapet walls or roof screens that are architecturally treated so as to be consistent with the building architecture.
(b) All ground-mounted utility equipment and structures, such as tanks, transformers, HVAC equipment, and backflow prevention devices, shall be located out of view from a public street, or adequately screened through the use of landscaping and/or decorative low garden walls.

2.11 Security Standards. The Project shall comply with all applicable requirements of Ontario Municipal Code Title 4 (Public Safety), Chapter 11 (Security Standards for Buildings).

2.12 Signs.
(a) All Project signage shall comply with the requirements of Ontario Development Code Division 8.1 (Sign Regulations).

2.13 Sound Attenuation. The Project shall be constructed and operated in a manner so as not to exceed the maximum interior and exterior noise levels set forth in Ontario Municipal Code Title 5 (Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct), Chapter 29 (Noise).

2.14 Environmental Requirements.
(a) The environmental impacts of this project were previously reviewed in conjunction with File No. PSP18-001, a Specific Plan for which the Merrill Commerce Center Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2019049079) was previously adopted by the City Council on 2/2/2021. This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts. The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. The previously 3681
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV22-017

adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval and are incorporated herein by this reference.
(b) The Project shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the associated Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Screening Table for this Project. (c) If human remains are found during project
grading/excavation/construction activities, the area shall not be disturbed until any required investigation is completed by the County Coroner and Native American consultation has been completed (if deemed applicable).
(d) If any archeological or paleontological resources are found during project grading/excavation/construction, the area shall not be disturbed until the significance of the resource is determined. If determined to be significant, the resource shall be recovered by a qualified archeologist or paleontologist consistent with current standards and guidelines, or other appropriate measures implemented.

2.15 Indemnification. The applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City of Ontario, whether by its City Council, Planning Commission or other authorized board or officer. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

2.16 Additional Fees.
(a) Within 5 days following final application approval, the Notice of Determination (“NOD”) filing fee shall be provided to the Planning Department. The fee shall be paid by check, made payable to the "Clerk of the Board of Supervisors", which shall be forwarded to the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, along with all applicable environmental forms/notices, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Failure to provide said fee within the time specified will result in the extension of the statute of limitations for the filing of a CEQA lawsuit from 30 days to 180 days. (b) After the Project’s entitlement approval, and prior to issuance of final building permits, the Planning Department’s Plan Check and Inspection fees shall be paid at the rate established by resolution of the City Council.

2.17 Public Art. The Project is subject to the requirements of the City’s Public Art Ordinance (Ontario Municipal Code Section 5-33.05. Private Art for Public Enjoyment in Commercial and Industrial Development Projects).

2.18 Final Occupancy. The Project Architect of record will certify that construction of each building site and the exterior elevations of each structure shall be completed in compliance with the approved plans. Any deviation to approved plans shall require a resubmittal to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to construction. The Occupancy Release Request Form/Architect Certificate of Compliance shall be provided prior to final occupancy.

After the receipt of this Certification, the Planning Department will conduct a final site and exterior elevations inspection. The Owner’s Representative and Contractor shall be present. 3682
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV22-017

2.19 Additional Requirements.
(a) The Project requires minimum 251 passenger vehicle parking spaces and provides 167 passenger vehicle parking spaces within the passenger vehicle only parking lots on the east and west sides of the proposed building. The remaining 84 parking spaces shall be provided within the truck yard area when required by tenant operations, provided a minimum of 14 trailer parking spaces are maintained.
(b) Cold storage shall not exceed 10 percent of the building floor area. 3683

CITY OF ONTARIO

LANDSCAPE PLANNING DIVISION
303 East “B” Street, Ontario, CA 91764

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Sign Off
08/03/2023
Jamie Richardson, Sr. Landscape Planner Date
Reviewer’s Name:

Jamie Richardson, Sr. Landscape Planner
Phone:
(909) 395-2615
D.A.B. File No.:

PDEV22-017
Case Planner:

Thomas Grahn
Project Name and Location:

Industrial Building
5355 East Airport Drive
Applicant/Representative:

Prologis – John Carter [email protected] (562) 345-9237 3546 Concours Street, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91764
Preliminary Plans (dated 7/14/2023) meet the Standard Conditions for New Development and have been approved considering that the following conditions below be met upon submittal of the landscape construction documents.

Preliminary Plans (dated) have not been approved. Corrections noted below are required before Preliminary Landscape Plan approval.

A RESPONSE SHEET IS REQUIRED WITH RESUBMITTAL OR PLANS WILL BE RETURNED AS INCOMPLETE.

Landscape construction plans with plan check number may be emailed to:
[email protected]
DIGITAL SUBMITTALS MUST BE PREVIOUS COMMENTS – Fourth 10MB Request OR LESS.

Civil/ Site Plans

1. Before permit issuance, stormwater infiltration devices located in landscape areas shall be reviewed and plans approved by the Landscape Planning Division. Any stormwater devices in parkway areas shall not displace street trees.

2. Show and dimension transformers set back 5’ from paving all sides. Coordinate with landscape plans.

3. Note for compaction to be no greater than 85% at landscape areas. All finished grades at 1 ½” below finished surfaces. Slopes to be maximum 3:1.

4. Dimension, show and call out for step-outs at parking spaces adjacent to planters; a 12” wide monolithic concrete curb, DG paving or pavers with edging.

5. Add Note to Grading and Landscape Plans: Landscape areas where compaction has occurred due to grading activities and where trees or stormwater infiltration areas are located shall be loosened by soil fracturing. For trees, a 12’x12’x18” deep area; for stormwater infiltration, the entire area shall be loosened. Add the following information on the plans: The backhoe method of soil fracturing shall be used to break up compaction. A 4” layer of Compost is spread over the soil surface before fracturing is begun. The backhoe shall dig into the soil lifting and then drop the soil immediately back into the hole. The bucket then moves to the adjacent soil and repeats. The Compost falls into the spaces between the soil chunks created. Fracturing shall leave the soil surface quite rough with large soil clods. These must be broken by additional tilling. Tilling in more Compost to the surface after fracturing per the soil report will help create an A horizon soil. Imported or reused Topsoil can be added on top of the fractured soil as needed for grading. The Landscape Architect shall be present during this process and provide 3684
certification of the soil fracturing. For additional reference, see Urban Tree Foundation – Planting Soil Specifications
Landscape Plans

6. During plan check, coordinate with Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) to submit irrigation plans for recycled water systems to [email protected]. OMUC shall review and approve irrigation systems utilizing recycled water prior to final landscape approval.

Submit an electronic approval letter or memo from OMUC with resubmittal of the landscape package.

7. Landscape construction plans shall meet the requirements of the Landscape Development Guidelines. See http://www.ontarioca.gov/landscape-planning/standards

8. After a project’s entitlement approval, the applicant shall pay all applicable fees for landscape plan check and inspections at a rate established by resolution of the City Council.

Landscape construction plans with building permit number for plan check may be emailed to:
[email protected]
3685

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING
ĔēĘĎĘęĊēĈĞĊęĊėĒĎēĆęĎĔēĊĕĔėę
Project File No.:

Address:

APN:

Existing Land
Use:

Proposed Land
Use:

Site Acreage:

ONT-IAC Project Review:

Airport Influence Area:

This proposed Project is: Exempt from the ALUCP Consistent Consistent with Conditions Inconsistent Reviewed By:

Date:

Contact Info:

Project Planner:

CD No.:

PALU No.:

The project is impacted by the following ONT ALUCP Compatibility Zones:

Safety Noise Impact Airspace Protection Overflight Notification Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
75+ dB CNEL
70 - 75 dB CNEL
65 - 70 dB CNEL
60 - 65 dB CNEL
High Terrain Zone
FAA Notification Surfaces
Avigation Easement
Dedication
Recorded Overflight
Notification
Real Estate Transaction
Disclosure
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5
Airport Planner Signature:

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
Proposed Structure Height:

Airspace Avigation
Easement Area
Allowable
Height:

Airspace Obstruction
Surfaces
The project is impacted by the following Chino ALUCP Safety Zones:

Zone 6
Allowable Height:

PDEV22-017
5355 East Airport Drive
0238-052-29 & 20
Grain manufacturing
Development Plan to construct 270,337 SF industrial building

13.08 N/A
ONT
The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport (ONT) and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for ONT.
✔
✔
Lorena Mejia
909-395-2276
Thomas Grahn
1/30/2023
2022-061
N/A
50 FT
170 FT
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700

Q:\40000 ENGINEERING\44000 Land Development\P\2022\PDEV22-017\01_ENT\DPR4 #9409\PDEV22-017 - DPR4(Rev03) COAs - Utilities Eng COAs(#9409).docx

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 10, 2023
TO: Angela Truong, Engineering Department
Fred Addison, Engineering Department
CC: Thomas Grahn, Planning Department
FROM: Jeff Krizek, Utilities Engineering Division (QCR: HY) SUBJECT: DPR4 (Sub04 Rev03) & Utilities Engineering Conditions of Approval (COAs) (#9409) PROJECT NO.: PDEV22-017
BRIEF DESCRIPTION:

PDEV22-017: PDEV22-017 - A Development Plan to construct a 270,337-square-foot industrial building on 13.08 acres of land (0.47 FAR) located at 5355 East Airport Drive, within the IH (Heavy Industrial) zoning district (APNs:
0238-052-29 and 0238-052-20).

OMUC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) Utilities Engineering Division recommends this application for approval subject to the Conditions of Approval outlined below and compliance with the City’s Design Development Guidelines, Specifications Design Criteria, and City Standards. The Applicant shall be responsible for the compliance with and the completion of all the following applicable Conditions of Approval prior to the following milestones and subject to compliance with City’s Design Development Guidelines, Specifications Design Criteria, and City Standards:

General Conditions:

1. Standard Conditions of Approval: Project shall comply with the requirements set forth in the Amendment to the Standard Conditions of Approval for New Development Projects adopted by the City Council (Resolution No. 2017-027) on April 18, 2017, or as amended or superseded by Council Resolution; as well as project-specific conditions/requirements as outlined below.

Prior to Issuance of Any Permits (Grading, Building, Demolition and Encroachment), unless other timeline milestones are specified by individual conditions below, the Applicant Shall:

General Conditions (Section 2.A, Other conditions): The Applicant shall comply with the following:

2. Inherited Requirements and Conditions of Approval: Not Applicable.

3. Final Utilities Systems Map (USM): Submit a Final Utilities Systems Map (USM) as part of the precise grading plan submittal that meets all the City’s USM requirements. These requirements include to show and label all existing and proposed utilities (including all appurtenances such as backflow devices, DCDAs, etc.), sizes, points of connection, and any easements. The final utility design shall comply with all Division of Drinking Water (CCR §64572) Separation Requirements. See Utility Systems Map (USM) Requirements document for details.

4. Unused Service Abandonment: All adjacent water services (along with connected appurtenances) and sewer laterals and main stubs along the frontages of the project site not used to provide service to this Development Project shall be abandoned back to the main in accordance with City Standards and Practices. 3701

Q:\40000 ENGINEERING\44000 Land Development\P\2022\PDEV22-017\01_ENT\DPR4 #9409\PDEV22-017 - DPR4(Rev03) COAs - Utilities Eng COAs(#9409).docx
Sanitary Sewer Conditions (Section 2.C): The Applicant shall comply with the following:

5. Sanitary Sewer Main Improvements:
a. Install 8-inch Public Sewer Main in Airport Drive connecting to existing public sewer manhole west of the Project site and extend easterly in Airport Drive to a point that will serve the entire Project.

6. Sanitary Sewer Service:
a. Each building and its onsite private sewer system shall discharge wastewater to the Public Sanitary Sewer System through a Public Sewer Lateral per Standard #2003. The quantity of Public Sewer Laterals for each building shall be limited to the minimum necessary to meet all of the conditions of approved and as limited by the City.
b. Public Sewer Laterals and Storm Water Quality Improvements: No storm water quality improvements (infiltration, detention, retention, bioswale, etc) shall be installed above or within 5 feet of any Public Sewer Lateral.

7. Private Onsite Sewer System and Plumbing: The Onsite Sewer System shall be privately maintained by the property owner and shall meet the following requirements:
a. For wastewater flows for non-residential uses:
i. The Onsite sewer system and building plumbing shall be designed in such a way that the sanitary domestic wastewater flows leave the building separately from non-sanitary wastewater flows (industrial, process, or kitchen, etc.) and the line for non-sanitary wastewater flows can be upgraded in the future to have pretreatment equipment and devices on it, as required by a Wastewater Discharge Permit.
ii. Each building and each connection from the Onsite Sewer System to the Public Sewer System shall have an onsite monitoring manhole prior to the point of connection with the Public Sewer System.
b. Private Onsite Sewer and Storm Water Quality Improvements: No storm water quality improvements (infiltration, detention, retention, bioswale, etc) shall be installed above or within 5 feet of any Private Onsite Sewer pipes.

8. Wastewater Discharge: For Non-Residential Uses: each Occupant of the building, or units, as applicable, shall apply for a Wastewater Discharge Permit for their Establishment, and shall comply with all the requirements of their Wastewater Discharge Permit. Requirements of Wastewater Discharge Permit may include, but not limited to include installing a monitoring manhole, clarifier, interceptor, or other wastewater pretreatment equipment.

9. Septic Systems:
a. Abandon any existing septic tank(s) on the property per State, County, and City standards. b. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) are not allowed. Entire Project shall connect to Public Sewer.

Potable Water Conditions (Section 2.D): The Applicant shall comply with the following:

10. Potable Water Service:
a. Domestic Service:
i. Each building shall have its own potable water service and meter with backflow prevention device connected to the Public Potable Water System.
b. Irrigation Service: For landscape irrigation uses that are not served by Recycled Water, the landscape irrigation uses shall have a separate irrigation water service and meter with backflow prevention device connected to the Public Potable Water System separate from the domestic water uses and the onsite plumbing systems shall be also separate from each other. i. Community Service District (CFD) Maintained Irrigation Areas: Any irrigated areas that are to be maintained by a Community Service District (CFD) and not by the property owner or owners association require irrigation services and meters separate from those that are maintained by the property owner or owners association.
c. Backflow Prevention: Each Meter connected to the Public Potable Water System that serves any use that is more than one (1) single family residential unit or any non-residential use requires a backflow prevention device.
3702

Q:\40000 ENGINEERING\44000 Land Development\P\2022\PDEV22-017\01_ENT\DPR4 #9409\PDEV22-017 - DPR4(Rev03) COAs - Utilities Eng COAs(#9409).docx
d. Fire Water Service: For onsite private Fire System uses:
i. Where the domestic water service and meters connected to the Public Potable Water System that serves any use that is more than one (1) single family detached residential unit, or any non-residential use: if an onsite private fire system is required, then a separate Fire Service with Double Check Detector Assembly (DCDA) per City Standard #4208 connected to the Public Potable Water System is required, to serve the onsite private fire system. The onsite fire system and onsite domestic water plumbing system shall be separate. e. Fire Hydrants:
i. Fire Hydrants along Public Potable Water Mains shall be installed to be spaced a maximum of 300 feet apart or per Fire Department Standards/Requirements, whichever is closer. ii. Existing Public Fire Hydrants along the Project frontage that do not meet current City Standards shall be abandoned back to main and replaced with new Fire Hydrants that meet current City Standards.
f. Private Onsite Water System and Plumbing: The Onsite Water Systems (Domestic, Fire, Irrigation) shall be privately maintained by the property owner.
g. Relocated Services: For any existing service with appurtenances to be relocated, the service shall be abandoned back to the main connection and the service and appurtenances shall be installed new per related City Standards.

Recycled Water Conditions (Section 2.E): The Applicant shall comply with the following:

11. City Ordinance 2689: This development shall comply with City Ordinance 2689 and make use of recycled water for all approved uses, including but not limited to landscape irrigation for HOA maintained areas and parks.

Appropriately sized public and private mains shall be installed throughout the Project to meet this requirement, as approved by the City.

12. Recycled Water Mains Improvements:
a. Install 8-inch Recycled Water main in Airport Drive connecting to the existing IEUA Recycled Water west of Wineville Avenue and extending easterly in Airport Drive to the easterly property line of the Project.

13. Recycled Water Service: In order to comply with City Ordinance 2689:
a. Recycled Water Services with Meters:
i. Private Property Owner Maintained Uses: Each parcel/lot shall have its own separate Recycled Water Service with Meter serving the parcel/lot for Private Property Owner Maintained Landscape Irrigation Uses. If Recycled Water is going to be used for uses other than Landscape Irrigation, then a second separate Recycled Water Service with Meter is required to serve the non-Landscape Irrigation uses.
ii. Community Service District (CFD) Maintained Irrigation Areas: Any irrigated areas that are to be maintained by a Community Service District (CFD) and not by the property owner or owners association require irrigation services and meters separate from those that are maintained by the property owner or owners association

14. RW Program Requirements: In order to receive RW service, the applicant shall comply with each of the following:
a. Prior to Precise Grading Plan Approval and Building Permits Issuance:
i. Provide two hard copies and the digital files (in PDF and AutoCAD format) for both on-site and offsite utility plans, including landscape and irrigation improvements. ii. Submit an Engineering Report (ER) to the City detailing recycled water usage for review and approval by the City and the State. The review process for the ER is typically 3 months. City will coordinate the State’s approval of the ER.
iii. For details, contact [email protected]. b. Prior to Occupancy Release/Finalizing:
i. Pass start-up and cross-connection test successfully. ii. Provide evidence demonstrating the training of on-site supervisor or designee as determined in the ER.
3703

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM
FROM: Heather Lugo, MA, Police Department
DATE: March 6, 2024 REVISED March 26, 2024
SUBJECT: PDEV22-017 - A Development Plan to construct a 270,337-square-foot industrial building on 13.08 acres of land (0.47 FAR) located at 5355 East Airport Drive, within the IH (Heavy Industrial) zoning district (APNs: 0238-052-29 and 0238-052- 20).

The “Standard Conditions of Approval” contained in Resolution No. 2017-027 apply. The applicant shall read and be thoroughly familiar with these conditions, including, but not limited to, the requirements below. • Required lighting for all walkways, driveways, doorways, parking lots, hallways and other areas used by the public shall be provided. Lights shall operate via photosensor. Photometrics shall be provided to the Police Department and include the types of fixtures proposed and demonstrate that such fixtures meet the vandal-resistant requirement. Planned landscaping shall not obstruct lighting.
• Rooftop addresses shall be installed on the buildings as stated in the Standard Conditions. The numbers shall be at a minimum 6 feet tall and 2 foot wide, in reflective white paint on a flat black background, and oriented with the bottom of the numbers towards the addressed street. Associated letters shall also be included.
• The Applicant shall comply with construction site security requirements as stated in the Standard Conditions.
• Per conversation with John Carter – Prologis is building the “shell” of the building. Cameras would be added during the tenant build of the project. Applicant shall install a video surveillance system on the site. Cameras shall cover at a minimum all entry doors, all cash registers, and at least one camera shall capture any vehicle utilizing the drive-thru. Cameras shall be positioned to maximize the coverage of patrons and vehicles in these areas. Cameras shall record at least 15 frames per second and at a minimum of 640x480 lines of resolution. Recordings shall be stored for a minimum of 30 days and made available upon request to any member of the Ontario Police Department. • All exterior electrical outlets shall be secured and locked. • All exterior water spigots / water supply sources shall be secured and locked. • Trash enclosure shall be fully secured/enclosed by locks, mesh, and screen grate to reduce crime and encampment opportunities for homeless persons.

The Applicant is invited to contact Heather Lugo at (909) 408-1074 with any questions or concerns regarding these conditions.
3704
3705

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM
TO: Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner
Planning Department
FROM: Paul Ehrman, Sr. Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal
Fire Department
DATE: October 3, 2023
SUBJECT: PDEV22-017 - A Development Plan to construct a 270,337-square-foot industrial building on 13.08 acres of land (0.47 FAR) located at 5355 East Airport Drive, within the IH (Heavy Industrial) zoning district (APNs:
0238-052-29 and 0238-052-20). (Revision 3).

The plan does adequately address Fire Department requirements at this time.

Standard Conditions of Approval apply, as stated below.

SITE AND BUILDING FEATURES:

A. 2019 CBC Type of Construction: III-B
B. Type of Roof Materials: Panelized
C. Ground Floor Area(s): 255,337 Sq. Ft.

D. Number of Stories: 1 w/ Mezzanine
E. Total Square Footage: 270,337 Sq. Ft.

F. 2019 CBC Occupancy Classification(s): S-1
3706
2 of 4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 The following are the Ontario Fire Department (“Fire Department”) requirements for this development project, based on the current edition of the California Fire Code (CFC), and the current versions of the Fire Prevention Standards (“Standards.”) It is recommended that the applicant or developer transmit a copy of these requirements to the on-site contractor(s) and that all questions or concerns be directed to the Bureau of Fire Prevention, at (909) 395-2029.

For copies of Ontario Fire Department Standards please access the City of Ontario web site at www.ontarioca.gov/Fire/Prevention.

1.2 These Fire Department conditions of approval are to be included on any and all construction drawings.

2.0 FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

2.1 Fire Department vehicle access roadways shall be provided to within 150 ft. of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building, unless specifically approved. Roadways shall be paved with an all-weather surface and shall be a minimum of twenty-four (24) ft. wide.

See Standard #B-004.

2.2 In order to allow for adequate turning radius for emergency fire apparatus, all turns shall be designed to meet the minimum twenty five feet (25’) inside and forty-five feet (45’) outside turning radius per Standard #B-005.

2.3 Fire Department access roadways that exceed one hundred and fifty feet (150’) in length shall have an approved turn-around per Standard #B-002.

2.4 Access drive aisles which cross property lines shall be provided with CC&Rs, access easements, or reciprocating agreements, and shall be recorded on the titles of affected properties, and copies of same shall be provided at the time of building plan check.

2.5 "No Parking-Fire Lane" signs and /or red painted curbs with lettering are required to be installed in interior access roadways, in locations where vehicle parking would obstruct the minimum clear width requirement. Installation shall be per Standard #B-001.

2.6 Security gates or other barriers on fire access roadways shall be provided with a Knox brand key switch or padlock to allow Fire Department access. See Standards #B-003, B-004 and H001.

2.7 Any time PRIOR to on-site combustible construction and/or storage, a minimum twenty-four (24) ft. wide circulating all weather access roads shall be provided to within 150 ft. of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building, unless specifically approved by fire department and other emergency services.
3707
3 of 4

3.0 WATER SUPPLY

3.1 The required fire flow per Fire Department standards, based on the 2019 California Fire Code, Appendix B, is 4000 gallons per minute (g.p.m.) for 4 hours at a minimum of 20 pounds per square inch (p.s.i.) residual operating pressure.

3.2 Off-site (public) fire hydrants are required to be installed on all frontage streets, at a minimum spacing of three hundred foot (300’) apart, per Engineering Department specifications.

3.3 Buildings that exceed 100,000 square feet in floor area shall provide an onsite looped fire protection water line around the building(s.) The loops shall be required to have two or more points of connection from a public circulating water main.

3.4 The water supply, including water mains and fire hydrants, shall be tested and approved by the Engineering Department and Fire Department prior to combustible construction to assure availability and reliability for firefighting purposes.

4.0 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

4.1 On-site private fire hydrants are required per Standard #D-005, and identified in accordance with Standard #D-002. Installation and locations(s) are subject to the approval of the Fire Department. An application with detailed plans shall be submitted, and a construction permit shall be issued by the Fire Department, prior to any work being done.

4.2 Underground fire mains which cross property lines shall be provided with CC & R, easements, or reciprocating agreements, and shall be recorded on the titles of affected properties, and copies of same shall be provided at the time of fire department plan check. The shared use of private fire mains or fire pumps is allowable only between immediately adjacent properties and shall not cross any public street.

4.3 An automatic fire sprinkler system is required. The system design shall be in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 13. All new fire sprinkler systems, except those in single family dwellings, which contain twenty (20) sprinkler heads or more shall be monitored by an approved listed supervising station. An application along with detailed plans shall be submitted, and a construction permit shall be issued by the Fire Department, prior to any work being done.

4.5 Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be located on the address side of the building within one hundred fifty feet (150’) of a public fire hydrant on the same side of the street. Provide identification for all fire sprinkler control valves and fire department connections per Standard #D-007. Raised curbs adjacent to Fire Department connection(s) shall be painted red, five feet either side, per City standards.

4.6 A fire alarm system is required. The system design shall be in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 72. An application along with detailed plans shall be submitted, and a construction permit shall be issued by the Fire Department, prior to any work being done.
3708
4 of 4

4.7 Portable fire extinguishers are required to be installed prior to occupancy per Standard #C001. Please contact the Fire Prevention Bureau to determine the exact number, type and placement required.

5.0 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FEATURES

5.1 The developer/general contractor is to be responsible for reasonable periodic cleanup of the development during construction to avoid hazardous accumulations of combustible trash and debris both on and off the site.

5.2 Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Multitenant or building projects shall have addresses and/or suite numbers provided on the rear of the building. Address numbers shall contrast with their background. See Section 9-1 6.06 of the Ontario Municipal Code and Standards #H-003 and #H-002.

5.6 Knox ® brand key-box(es) shall be installed in location(s) acceptable to the Fire Department.

All Knox boxes shall be monitored for tamper by the building fire alarm system. See Standard #H-001 for specific requirements.

5.7 Placards shall be installed in acceptable locations on buildings that store, use or handle hazardous materials in excess of the quantities specified in the CFC. Placards shall meet the requirements of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 704.

6.0 OTHER SPECIAL USES

6.1 The storage, use, dispensing, or handling of any hazardous materials shall be approved by the Fire Department, and adequate fire protection features shall be required. If hazardous materials are proposed, a Fire Department Hazardous Materials Information Packet, including Disclosure Form and Information Worksheet, shall be completed and submitted with Material Safety Data Sheets to the Fire Department along with building construction plans.

6.2 Any High Piled Storage, or storage of combustible materials greater than twelve (12’) feet in height for ordinary (Class I-IV) commodities or storage greater than six feet (6’) in height of high hazard (Group A plastics, rubber tires, flammable liquids, etc.) shall be approved by the Fire Department, and adequate fire protection features shall be required. If High Piled Storage is proposed, a Fire Department High Piled Storage Worksheet shall be completed and detailed racking plans or floor plans submitted prior to occupancy of the building.

6.3 Underground fuel tanks, their associated piping and dispensers shall be reviewed, approved, and permitted by Ontario Building Department, Ontario Fire Department, and San Bernardino County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division. In fueling facilities, an exterior emergency pump shut-off switch shall be provided.
3709
Rev. 07.08.2024
303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420 Appeal Application Form
Dear Applicant:

In an effort to improve customer service and ensure development projects are processed as quickly as possible, the Planning Department finds it necessary to remind its clients that complete application submittals are crucial to the plan review process. In the past, accepting incomplete applications has led to errors and time delays at the end of the review process. I do not want this to happen to you.

Consequently, the Planning Department staff will only accept complete applications at time of submittal. All items listed on the enclosed application form must be provided before the Planning Department counter staff can accept your application for filing.

Please review these minimum requirements prior to submitting your application, as counter staff do not have the authority to waive these requirements.

Please remember that failure to provide all of the required plans and information will result in significant time delays in the processing of your application. If you have any questions regarding the necessity of any particular item requested on the application form, please feel free to contact the Planning Department counter supervisor to discuss your questions.

The Planning Department looks forward to a continued efficient and professional relationship with you in the future. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact the Planning Department at (909) 395- 2036.

Respectfully,
Henry K. Noh
Planning Director
3710
ATTENTION!
The City of Ontario strives to provide you with efficient and effective service in a businesslike manner. We are committed to the principle that every interaction you have with the City must be based on honesty and integrity.

City employees are prohibited by law from soliciting or accepting money, services, or gifts of any kind in connection with the discharge of their duties.

If you are approached or are aware of any violation of this policy, please immediately contact any of the following:

Scott Ochoa, City Manager ....................(909) 395-2396 or [email protected] Mike Lorenz, Police Chief ........................ (909) 395-2710 or [email protected] Ethics Line ................................................................................................(800) 500-0333 3711
Rev. 07.08.2024

303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420 Appeal Application Form

GENERAL INFORMATION (PRINT OR TYPE)
Appellant:

Address:

Phone:

Email:

Appellant’s Representative:

Address:

Phone:

Email:

SUBJECT OF APPEAL
This application is hereby filed pursuant to Ontario Development Code Division 2.04 (Appeals), appealing a decision or action of the following Authority:

Department/Agency Head Development Advisory Board Zoning Administrator Historic Preservation Subcommittee Historic Preservation Commission Planning Commission Instructions:

1. Pursuant to Ontario Development Code Division 2.04 (Appeals), any person having legal standing may appeal and action or decision to the Appeal Authority, including but not limited to an applicant, resident, business owner, or any person owning real property within the City, that is aggrieved by an interpretation, action, or decision made by any City agency or department, or by an Approving Authority.

2. Within 10 days following the action or decision being appealed, an appeal request must be filed with the Planning Department on an Appeal Application Form, along with the required filing fees. The appeal request must include a statement identifying the specific action or decision that is being appealed, the specific grounds for the appeal, and the relief requested from the Appeal Authority.

3. An appeal of an action or decision made by an Approving Authority following a hearing, is limited to those matters raised during the hearing and contained in an appeal statement. The Appeal Authority cannot consider any matter that was not raised during the hearing before the Approving Authority and contained in the appeal statement.

4. The Appeal Authority that will hear the appeal request is limited to taking testimony and making its decision based solely on the specific grounds specified by the appellant in the Appeal Application Form, insofar as they make an adequate claim pursuant to Ontario Development Code Section 2.04.010. When the decision of an Approving Authority is appealed, you are limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the hearing before the Approving Authority and stated in the Appeal Application Form.
(For staff use only)
File No(s):

Date:

Rec’d by:

Fees Paid:
 Cash  Check (# )
 Credit Card
Receipt No.:

Date Paid:
3712
Appeal Application Form

Project File No(s).: Date of Action/Decision:

The application being appealed requests the following (attach additional sheets as necessary):

List the specific action(s) or decision(s) that is/are being appealed (attach additional sheets as necessary):

APPEAL STATEMENT
Please check the box that best describes your reason(s) for the appeal:

Abuse of discretion.

Decision was not supported by the record.

Abuse of discretion and decision was not supported by the record.

State the specific grounds for the appeal and the relief requested (please be specific and attach additional sheets if necessary):
3713
Appeal Application Form

APPELLANT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the statements and information provided in this Appeal Application Form, and in any attached exhibits, present the data and information required for this application to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Date: Signature:

Name (print or type):
3714

303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420 Appeal Application Form —
Minimum Filing Requirements Checklist

MINIMUM FILING REQUIREMENTS
The following submittal documents are required to be submitted through our Citizen Portal Access website at https://automation.ontarioca.gov/onlinePermits or over the counter to the Planning Department at Ontario City Hall.

Completed Appeal Application Form.

Filing fee (see Planning Department Fee Schedule found here: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/Applications). This fee will be invoiced upon confirmation by staff that all minimum filing requirements were provided. 3715
6752-011acp
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
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
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
September 5, 2024
Via Online Portal Submission
Ontario City Council
Mayor Paul S. Leon
Mayor pro tem Debra Porada
City Council Members
Online Portal: https://automation.ontarioca.gov/onlinePermits Email: [email protected]
Via Email and Overnight Mail
Attn: Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner
City of Ontario Planning Department
303 E B St, Ontario, CA 91764
Email: [email protected]
Re: Appeal to City Council of Planning Commission Approval of the 5355 East Airport Drive Project (File No. PDEV22-017; SCH No. 2022090006)
Dear Mayor Leon, Mayor pro tem Porada, City Council Members, Mr. Grahn:

On behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”), we submit this appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission’s (“Commission”) August 27, 2024 approvals of the 5355 East Airport Drive Project (File No. PDEV22-017; SCH No. 2022090006) (“Project”), proposed by Prologis Inc. (“Applicant”).

The scope of the Commission’s determination for File No. PDEV22-017 includes certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 202209006) (“FEIR”), including the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, in conjunction with approval of a Development Plan to construct a 270,337-square-foot industrial building on 13.08 acres of land located at 5355 East Airport Drive, and related findings.
3716
September 5, 2024

6752-011acp
printed on recycled paper
CARE CA submitted comments on the Project’s Draft EIR (“DEIR”) on October 5, 2023 during the public review period required by Section 15087 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines.1 CARE CA’s comments on the DEIR demonstrated that the DEIR failed to comply with CEQA by failing to accurately disclose potentially significant health risk, air quality, GHG, energy, and soil contamination impacts, failing to support its significance findings with substantial evidence, and failing to mitigate the Project’s significant impacts to the greatest extent feasible, in violation of CEQA.

The City subsequently prepared the FEIR, which the City claims fully resolves the issues identified in CARE CA’s comments and by other commenters.

But CARE CA submitted comments demonstrating that the FEIR fails to meet CEQA’s requirements. Staff reports prepared for the Planning Commission erroneously claim that that the FEIR has adequately addressed CARE CA’s comments. This is incorrect. The staff reports mainly reiterate the flawed reasoning and conclusions of the FEIR. As such, although the City has prepared several documents which purport to respond to CARE CA’s comments, the City has not resolved the issues raised in CARE CA’s comments and the FEIR remains in violation of CEQA. The Planning Commission’s approval of the Project and certification of the FEIR violated CEQA and land use laws because the City has not complied with its duty to disclose and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant environmental and land use impacts, and the Planning Commission’s approval findings were not supported by substantial evidence.

CARE CA hereby appeals all actions taken by the Commission with regard to the Project under File No. PDEV22-017. This appeal is timely filed in compliance with the Ontario Development Code.2 The reasons for this appeal are set forth herein and in the attachments, which include CARE CA’s comments on the DEIR,3 FEIR,4 and two letters to the Planning Commission responding to staff reports 114 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.; see Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq. 2 Section 2.04.010(B)(1). 3 Attachment A: Letter from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (“ABJC”) to City re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for 5355 East Airport Drive Project (SCH No. 2022090006; File No. PDEV22-017) (October 5, 2023). 4 Attachment B: Letter from ABJC to City re: Agenda Item B – File No. PDEV22-017: 5355 East Airport Drive Project (SCH No. 2022090006) (April 15, 2024). 3717
September 5, 2024

6752-011acp
printed on recycled paper
prepared for the Project.5 We incorporate by reference the attached comments and exhibits, which are in the City’s record of proceedings for the Project.6 The Commission abused its discretion and failed to proceed in the manner required by law by approving the Project in reliance on a deficient CEQA document and without substantial evidence to support the approval findings.7 CARE CA respectfully requests that the City Council vacate the Commission’s approval of the Project.

A. Standing to Appeal and Statement of Interest
Section 2.04.010(B)(1) of the Ontario Development Code provides that the decision of the Approving Authority may be appealed within 10 days of the action or decision. Because the Planning Commission approved the Project on August 27, the final day to submit an appeal is September 6. Thus, this appeal is timely filed.

Section 2.04.005 of the Code provides that “[a]ny person having legal standing, including but not limited to an applicant, resident, business owner, or any person owning real property within the City, that is aggrieved by an interpretation, action or decision made pursuant to this Development Code by any City agency or department, or by an Approving Authority, may appeal such action to the Appeal Authority in accordance with the provisions of this Division.” CARE CA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker 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’s comments on the DEIR, FEIR, to the Planning Commission, and this appeal, detail the specific issues over which CARE CA is aggrieved by the Planning Commission’s decision. 5 Attachment C: Letter from ABJC to City Re: Agenda Item D – File No. PDEV22-017: 5355 East Airport Drive Project (SCH No. 2022090006) (May 28, 2024); Attachment D: Letter from ABJC to City Re: Agenda Item B – File No. PDEV22-017: 5355 East Airport Drive Project (SCH No. 2022090006) (August 27, 2024).
6 We reserve the right to supplement these comments at later hearings and proceedings on the Project. Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121, 7 Code Civ. Proc § 1094.5(b); Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515.
3718
September 5, 2024

6752-011acp
printed on recycled paper
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.

B. The Commission’s Certification of the FEIR Was Contrary to Law and Unsupported by the Record
As summarized below, and demonstrated fully in the attached comments, the FEIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the project’s potentially significant impacts.

The FEIR 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 2.6 times more trips than analyzed). The City has argued that the Project is not envisioned as a parcel hub and its design would not support use as a parcel hub, but the Project plainly meets the description of a potential high cube parcel hub in Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) land use code 156 (the Project would have adequate parking, square footage, and ceiling height). Any claim that the Project is not envisioned as a parcel hub is not supported by substantial evidence because the City has acknowledged that the Project is proposed as a speculative development and the user(s) of the building is not known at this time. Thus, the FEIR must be revised to analyze the heightened environmental impacts from the Project’s potential use as a parcel hub. 3719
September 5, 2024

6752-011acp
printed on recycled paper
Similarly, the FEIR fails to analyze reasonably foreseeable truck trips to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which are longer than the trips analyzed in the FEIR. Longer truck trips are associated with greater emissions of criteria air pollutants and GHG emissions. CARE CA presented numerous comment letters from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) recommending that warehouses just like this one analyze trips to the Ports, and presented studies showing that trips to the Ports are a reasonably foreseeable consequence for a warehouse in the City of Ontario.

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. CARE CA’s comments discussed the decision in California Clean Energy Commission v. City of Woodland (“CCEC”),8 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.9 Here, the FEIR fails to analyze the feasibility and effectiveness of measures including onsite solar facilities, electric vehicle charging, and others discussed in CARE CA’s comments. The City maintains that discussion of energy consumption measures is not required for this Project because its energy impacts are less than significant, but makes the same error as the lead agency in CCEC because the EIR in that case also identified a less-than-significant energy impact.10 The FEIR’s analysis of cumulative air quality impacts is inadequate because it fails to consider the Project’s impacts in the context of the numerous other warehouses existing and planned in the area. The City’s approach to cumulative impacts, relying on 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. CARE CA’s comments demonstrated that this approach fails to meet CEQA’s standards in light of the controlling caselaw,11 the Attorney General’s recent litigation on this issue in People of the State of California v. City of Fontana,12 and pending updates to the SCAQMD significance thresholds for cumulative impacts in response to this litigation. At no point have the City’s responses meaningfully addressed the caselaw proscribing the City’s invalid approach to cumulative impacts. The responses primarily reiterate that the City is complying with current SCAQMD guidance (as opposed to the pending updates to 8 (2014) 225 CA4th 173.
9 Id. at 213.
10 CCEC, supra, 225 CA4th 173 at 183. 11 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; 12 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; 3720
September 5, 2024

6752-011acp
printed on recycled paper
the guidance). The FEIR must be revised to include a legally adequate discussion of cumulative impacts.

Regarding the Project’s individual health risk impacts, CARE CA’s air quality expert presented substantial evidence demonstrating that the FEIR’s quantified health risk analysis underestimates impacts. For example, the HRA only analyzes trucks travelling east along Airport Drive, away from sensitive receptors located west of the Project. CARE CA’s air quality expert also demonstrated that the HRA failed to account for building downwash and relied on unreliable input values. The City has not revised its HRA to address these flaws and others identified in Dr. Clark’s comments.

Regarding hazards, the FEIR identifies significant vapor intrusion impacts due to PCE contamination, but improperly defers formulation of mitigation measures. The FEIR fails to specify whether passive/engineered vapor intrusion mitigation may be employed as opposed to removal of all impacted soil, does not quantify the impacts associated with each form of mitigation (e.g. construction impacts associated with excavation, removal and backfilling contaminated soil versus impacts of installing vapor intrusion barriers), and does not commit the City or the Applicant to specific binding mitigation. The body of the FEIR also fails to disclose potentially significant impacts resulting from ethylbenzene concentrations in excess of the commercial/industrial screening level of 163 micrograms per cubic meter.

As a result of these issues and others raised in CARE CA’s prior comments, the FEIR is deficient as a matter of law and its conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence. Rather, substantial evidence demonstrates that the Project’s significant impacts are greater than analyzed in the FEIR. As such, the Commission’s certification of the FEIR was contrary to law and unsupported by the record. The Planning Commission’s approval decision must be vacated, and the EIR must be revised and recirculated in compliance with CEQA.

C. The Commission’s Approval of the Development Plan Was Contrary to Law and Unsupported by the Record
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 3721
September 5, 2024

6752-011acp
printed on recycled paper
minimum safeguards necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare have been required of the proposed project.”13
The Project would have a significant and unavoidable VMT impact. And the Project has potentially health risk, air quality, GHG, energy, and soil contamination 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 lacked substantial evidence to make the requisite findings to approve the Project. A revised EIR must be recirculated before the Project can be approved.

D. CONCLUSION
CARE CA respectfully requests that the City set a hearing on this appeal, and that the City Council uphold this appeal, vacate the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project, and direct staff to revise and recirculate the EIR to comply with CEQA before the Project can be reconsidered for approval.

Sincerely,
Aidan P. Marshall
Attachments
APM:acp
13 Section 4.02.025(D)(3).
3722

ATTACHMENT A
3723
6752-004j

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
T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

A T T O RN E Y S A T L A W
6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 - 7 0 3 7 ___________
T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2
a m a r s h a l l @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m printed on recycled paper
October 5, 2023
Via Overnight Mail and Email
Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner
City of Ontario Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Email: [email protected]
Via Email Only
Rudy Zeledon, Planning Director
Email: [email protected]
Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for 5355 East Airport Drive Project (SCH No. 2022090006; File No. PDEV22-017) Dear Mr. Grahn and Mr. Zeledon:

We are writing on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”) to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) prepared by the City of Ontario (“City”) for 5355 East Airport Drive Project (SCH No. 2022090006; File No. PDEV22-017) (“Project”), proposed by Prologis. Inc (“Applicant”).

The Project site is located on 13.08 acres at 5355 East Airport Drive in the City of Ontario, in San Bernardino County, California (Assessor Parcel Numbers:
0238-052-29 and 0238- 052-20). The Project proposes to demolish all existing on-site structures and redevelop the site as a warehouse distribution facility with approximately 270,337 square feet (sf”) of building area and 54 south-facing loading dock doors. Of the total building square footage, the Project design allocates 255,337 sf for ground floor space and 15,000 sf for mezzanine space. Development of the Project site would require demolition of the existing buildings and structures, onsite landscaping, and on-site parking. The proposed building would be a one-story, 49-foot-tall speculative warehouse/distribution facility with ancillary office space. 3724
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
The Project design includes surface parking with 251 parking spaces including 126 standard automobile parking stalls, 7 accessible parking stalls, 25 electric vehicle parking stalls, 93 additional standard stalls within the truck court, and 48 truck trailer parking spaces.

Based on our review of the DEIR and supporting documentation, we conclude that the DEIR fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)1. The DEIR fails to adequately analyze the Project’s cumulative impacts in light of the community’s existing pollution burden resulting from similar warehouse projects, and fails to propose feasible and enforceable mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level, as required by CEQA. The DEIR also underestimates potentially significant air quality, greenhouse gas (“GHG”), and energy impacts by failing to concretely describe the Project – which may have significantly greater cold storage uses, transport refrigeration units (“TRUs”), and backup generators than disclosed in the DEIR. The DEIR also impermissibly fails to identify specific and effective mitigation to reduce the Project’s significant Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) impact to the greatest extent feasible before declaring the impact significant and unavoidable.
2 The DEIR’s transportation analysis also underestimates VMT and resultant GHG emissions. We reviewed the DEIR and its technical appendices with the assistance of transportation expert Norm Marshall.
3 We reserve the right to
supplement these comments at a later date, and at any later proceedings related to this Project.4
As explained in these comments, the DEIR lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions with regard to the Projects’ impacts relating to air quality, health risks, greenhouse gases, energy, and transportation. The City may not approve the Project until the City revises and recirculates the Project’s DEIR to adequately analyze the Project’s significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, and incorporates all feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize these impacts to the greatest extent feasible.
1 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs (“CEQA Guidelines”) §§ 15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”).
2 Pub. Resources Code, § 21081(a)(3), (b); Covington v. Great Basin Unif. Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 879-883.
3 Mr. Marshall’s technical comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
3725
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
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 health and safety hazards, and the environmental impacts of the Project. The coalition includes 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 Fontana 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. LEGAL BACKGROUND
CEQA requires public agencies to analyze the potential environmental impacts of their proposed actions in an EIR.5 “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.”6
5 PRC § 21100.
6 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal (“Laurel Heights I”) (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 (internal quotations omitted).
3726
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decisionmakers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project.7 “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’”8 The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.”9 As the CEQA Guidelines explain, “[t]he EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected.”10
Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring consideration of environmentally superior alternatives and adoption of all feasible mitigation measures.11 The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.”12 If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment” to the greatest extent feasible and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.”13 While courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.”14 As the courts have explained, a 7 Pub. Resources Code § 21061; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(a)(1); 15003(b)-(e); Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 517 (“[T]he basic purpose of an EIR is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect [that] a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.”). 8 Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at p. 564 (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 392). 9 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810; see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v.

Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”) (purpose of EIR is to inform the public and officials of environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made). 10 CEQA Guidelines § 15003(b).
11 CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2), (3); see also Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at p. 564.
12 CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2).
13 PRC § 21081(a)(3), (b); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15090(a), 15091(a), 15092(b)(2)(A), (B); Covington v.

Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 883. 14 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409, fn. 12).
3727
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.”15 “The ultimate inquiry, as case law and the CEQA guidelines make clear, is whether the EIR includes enough detail ‘to enable who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’”16 III. THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INADEQUATE
The DEIR does not meet CEQA’s requirements because it fails to include an accurate and complete Project description, rendering the entire analysis inadequate.

California courts have repeatedly held that “an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.”17 CEQA requires that a project be described with enough particularity that its impacts can be assessed.18 Without a complete project description, the environmental analysis under CEQA is impermissibly limited, thus minimizing the project’s impacts and undermining meaningful public review.19 Accordingly, a lead agency may not hide behind its failure to obtain a complete and accurate project description.20
CEQA Guidelines section 15378 defines “project” to mean “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.”21 “The term “project” refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term project does not mean each separate governmental approval.”22 15 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355; see also San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v.

County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722 (error is prejudicial if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process); Galante Vineyards, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1117 (decision to approve a project is a nullity if based upon an EIR that does not provide decision-makers and the public with information about the project as required by CEQA); County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 946 (prejudicial abuse of discretion results where agency fails to comply with information disclosure provisions of CEQA). 16 Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at p. 516 (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 405). 17 Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1, 17; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (“CBE v. Richmond”) (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 85– 89; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (3d Dist. 1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193. 18 14 CCR § 15124; see, Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376, 192-193. 19 Id.
20 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (“Sundstrom”) (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311. 21 CEQA Guidelines § 15378.
22 Id., § 15378(c).
3728
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
Courts have explained that a complete description of a project must “address not only the immediate environmental consequences of going forward with the project, but also all “reasonably foreseeable consequence[s] of the initial project.”23 “If a[n]…EIR…does not adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope of the project for intelligent weighing of the environmental consequences of the project, informed decisionmaking cannot occur under CEQA and the final EIR is inadequate as a matter of law.”24
A. The DEIR Fails to Describe the Project’s End Uses with Sufficient Particularity to Adequately Evaluate Trips
Generated by the Project
The DEIR assumes that the Project would include approximately 27,034 sf of high-cube cold storage uses (10% of the building space), with remaining portions of the building consisting of warehouse uses.25 The DEIR explains that the Project’s end users are unknown.26 In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the proposed Project, trip-generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) Trip Generation Manual for the proposed Project’s land uses was utilized.27 For purposes of the trip generation assessment, the DEIR used ITE land use code 150 (Warehousing) and ITE land use code 157 (High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse). Transportation expert Norm Marshall explains that these land use codes are just one of many land use codes potentially applicable to the Project.28 The figure below shows other warehousing land use codes and compares trips generated by each land use.
23 Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 398 (emphasis added); see also Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 449-50. 24 Riverwatch v. Olivenhain Municipal Water Dist. (2009) 170 Cal. App. 4th 1186, 1201. 25 DEIR, pg. 3-13.
26 DEIR, pg. 4.7-17.
27 DEIR, pg. 4.10-5.
28 Marshall Comments, pg. 4.
3729
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
Figure 1: Trip Generation Rates for Different Warehouse Categories (Trips Per 1000 Square Feet per Day)29
The DEIR fails to address why the other land use codes shown above are inapplicable to the Project. And the DEIR fails to provide sufficient information about the Project’s expected uses and configuration for the public and decisionmakers to ascertain which of these end uses are possible for the Project.

This informational defect affects the entire DEIR, as different types of warehousing have different environmental impacts.

Mr. Marshall explains that the land use code selected by the DEIR may drastically underestimate the Project’s GHG and VMT impacts. Specifically, 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.30 A greater number of trips generated results in greater traffic impacts and greater emissions of GHGs. Given the large uncertainty in the trips generated by the Project, the DEIR fails to meet CEQA’s requirement that a project be 29 Marshall Comments, pg. 5.
30 Id.

1.40 1.71 1.81

2.12 4.63

6.44 1.75
Transload and
Short-Term
Storage
Warehouse
Warehousing Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Non-Sort
Cold Storage
Warehouse
Parcel Hub
Warehouse
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Sort
Rate Used in
DEIR
3730
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
described with enough particularity that its impacts can be assessed.31 Mr.

Marshall recommends two approaches to resolve this issue: 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.32 The City should revise and recirculate the DEIR to correct these deficiencies and to present a revised trip generation analysis which reflects reasonably foreseeable conditions at the Project site, or condition Project approval on the limitations assumed in the DEIR.

B. The DEIR Fails to Substantiate Its Estimate that Just 10% Percent of the Project Will be Used for Cold Storage
The DEIR assumes, without support, that the Project would only include approximately 27,034 sf of high-cube cold storage uses (10% of the building space), with remaining portions of the building consisting of warehouse uses. 33 The DEIR
states that a limitation of 10% of the building for potential cold storage is based on the Project Applicant’s understanding of the cold storage market demand. 34 However, this assumption, even if based on a reasonable interpretation of current market conditions, is subject to fluctuate during the life of the Project and is not otherwise reflected in any enforceable conditions related to Project use.

In order for the City to rely on the Applicant’s 10% cold storage assumption in the CEQA document, the DEIR would need to include binding measures or conditions which limit warehouse use at the Project to no more than 10% cold storage. Absent such a restriction, the DEIR may substantially estimate the air quality, public health, and energy impacts of cold storage use at the Project site.

Cold storage warehouse generates greater environmental impacts than a high cube warehouse. Cold storage generates more trips per square foot and has higher energy impacts due to the low temperatures required by the facility’s transport refrigeration units (“TRUs”) and on-site storage. TRUs are refrigeration systems powered by integral diesel engines.35 The refrigeration systems are used to control the environment of temperature-sensitive products transported in insulated 31 14 CCR § 15124; see, Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376, 192-193. 32 Marshall Comments, pg. 5.
33 DEIR, pg. 3-13.
34 Id.
35 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 1, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
10/CARB%202022%20TRU%20Technology%20Assessment%2010-14-22.pdf. 3731
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
trucks, trailers, shipping containers, or railcars. The California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) states that TRUs emit diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), fine particulate matter (“PM2.5”), oxides of nitrogen (“NOx”), and GHGs while in transit and during stationary operation at refrigerated warehouses or distribution centers, grocery stores, seaport facilities, intermodal railyards, and other locations of operation.

CARB explains that communities near facilities where TRUs operate bear a disproportionate health burden:

PM2.5 pollution contributes to more fatalities than other air pollutants and can lodge deep in the lungs or pass through the lungs to enter the blood stream and affect the heart, brain, and other organs. Adverse health effects from long-term exposure to PM2.5 pollution include increased risk of heart attacks and heart disease, impaired lung development in children, the development and exacerbation of asthma, and premature death. NOx is a precursor to ozone, which can cause irritation and damage lung tissue, worsen asthma and chronic illnesses including obstructive pulmonary disease and reduce lung function.36
CARB also explains that TRUs’ emissions of GHGs contribute towards climate change,37 and that TRUs generate noise impacts: “TRU operations produce noise that can be problematic when deliveries that often occur late evening or early morning are near residential neighborhoods, hotels, hospitals, and elder care facilities… One study conducted by LSA Associates found that a diesel-powered TRU operating at high idle produces an A-weighted decibel (dBA) noise rating of 104 dBA, while a diesel truck at idle produces a noise rating of 96 dBA.”38 By assuming the Project will only include 10% cold storage, the DEIR may drastically underestimate the Project’s impacts in each of these areas. The DEIR does not provide supporting evidence demonstrating that cold storage uses would be limited to 10% of the Project site for the duration of the Project’s life. Due to everincreasing population and market demands in Southern California, it is also reasonably foreseeable that the Project may attract end users, either now or in future years of the Project’s life, which require more than 10% cold storage. As a result, the DEIR’s assumption is not supported by substantial evidence. 36 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 10. 37 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 10. 38 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 17-18. 3732
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
In the California Attorney General’s (“AG”) guidance for warehouse projects, the AG recommends that, unless a developer adopts mitigation measures limiting cold storage impacts, the developer should record a covenant on the title of the underlying property to ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space.
39 The City should include such a title restriction for the Project unless the DEIR’s 10% cold storage assumption is revised to analyze and mitigate impacts associated with a more conservative and fact-based cold-storage use percentage.

C. The Project Description Fails to Include Reasonably
Foreseeable Backup Generators
The DEIR fails to disclose potential backup/emergency stationary generators for the Project’s operations. The DEIR’s project description does not address whether backup generators are a reasonably foreseeable component of the Project, and the DEIR’s technical analyses assume no backup generators will be installed for operations. The DEIR does not disclose any conditions or mitigation measures that limit or prevent use of backup generators. Thus, the DEIR must disclose and analyze the potential use of backup generators because (1) they a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project, and (2) the use of backup generators will expand the Project’s environmental effects.40
In East Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland,
41 the Court of Appeal
upheld an EIR’s analysis of emissions from backup generators. The EIR’s analysis assumed that generators would operate for 50 hours of testing and maintenance annually, while allocating no time for actual emergency use. In discussing the lead agency’s duty to analyze backup generator emissions, the Court stated that “if the annual need for emergency generator use is reasonably foreseeable, the EIR was not entitled to disregard such use merely because it would occur at unpredictable times.”42 The Court explained that use of a generator was reasonably foreseeable because, “[a]s noted in the EIR, some parts of the Bay Area are subject to 39 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Updated September 2022), pg. 9, available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf (“Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the underlying property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space, constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and requiring truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs when at loading docks.”). 40 Id.
41 (2023) 889 Cal. App. 5th 1226.
42 Id. at 1252.
3733
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
predictable, sustained power outages undertaken to reduce the risk of fire.”43 Thus, “[t]he EIR was required to make neither a generally applicable nor a worst-case assumption; rather it was required to make a reasonable estimate of likely annual use of the generators at the project site.”44
Here, as in East Oakland Stadium Alliance, back-up generators are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project due to increasingly common Public Safety Power Shutoff (“PSPS”) events and extreme heat events. Extreme heat events (“EHE”) are defined as periods where in the temperatures throughout California exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit.45 From January 2019 through December 2019, Southern California Edison reported 158 of their circuits underwent a PSP event.46 In Los Angeles County, two circuits had 4 PSPS events during that period, lasting an average of 35 to 38 hours. The total duration of the PSPS events lasted between 141 hours to 154 hours in 2019. According to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) de-energization report47 in October 2019, there were almost 806 PSPS events that impacted almost 973,000 customers (~7.5% of households in California) of which ~854,000 of them were residential customers. The California Air Resources Board estimates that with 973,000 customers impacted by PSPS events in October 2019, approximately 125,000 back-up generators were used by customers to provide electricity during power outage.48 The widespread use of backup generators to adapt to PSPS and EHE events suggests that back-up generators are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project.

Further demonstrating that backup generators are reasonably foreseeable is that the DEIR assumes that 10% of the building (27,034 sf) would be cold storage.49 A cold storage warehouse has the ability to keep temperature sensitive items in a 43 Id. at 1253.
44 Id.
45 Governor of California. 2021. Proclamation of a state of emergency. June 17, 2021. 46 SCAQMD. 2020. Proposed Amendment To Rules (PARS) 1110.2, 1470, and 1472. Dated December 10, 2020. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1110.2/1110- 2_1470_1472/par1110-2_1470_wgm_121020.pdf?sfvrsn=6.
47 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/deenergization/ as cited in CARB, 2020. Potential Emission Impact of Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS), Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage associated With Power Outage..
48 California Air Resources Board, Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage Associated with Power Outage (January 30, 2020), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/emissions-impact-generator-usage-during-psps. 49 DEIR, pg. 3-2 (Although the future tenant(s) of the proposed building is unknown at this time, for purposes of analysis within this EIR it is assumed that the building would include approximately 27,034 s.f. of high-cube cold storage uses (10% of the building space), with remaining portions of the building consisting of warehouse uses).
3734
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
temperature-controlled environment, which requires a constant energy supply to power refrigeration. Cold storage warehouses thus commonly utilize backup generators.50 Backup generators commonly rely on fuels such as natural gas or diesel,51 and thus can significantly impact air quality, GHG emissions, and public health through toxic DPM emissions.52 Since the Project may include cold storage, it is reasonably foreseeable that the Project would require on-site backup generators.

Generators can emit criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and toxic air contaminants (“TACs”). Backup generators commonly rely on fuels such as natural gas or diesel,53 and thus can significantly impact public health through DPM 50 California Air Resources Board, Comments re: Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the United States Cold Storage Hesperia Project (Project) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2020069036 (July 24, 2020), available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//toxics/ttdceqalist/uscoldstorage.pdf (stating that the HRA prepared for the Project should account for all potential health risks from Project-related diesel PM emission sources such as backup generators, TRUs, and heavy-duty truck traffic); Kusing Power Generator, http://ksdieselgenerator.com/2019/backup-generator-for-cold-storage-room.html, last visited 6/21/2021 (“Backup power supply is necessary for cold storage room to remain functional to avoid deterioration of high value-added goods such as vegetables and food stored in the room after long period of power failure”); East Coast Power Systems, Electrical Power Systems for Warehouses, https://www.ecpowersystems.com/resources/electrical-power-systems/electrical-power-systems-forwarehouses/ (explaining that some warehouses that deal with refrigeration have to have multiple power backup generators by law).
51 SCAQMD, Fact Sheet on Emergency Backup Generators,
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/emergency-generators (“Most of the existing emergency backup generators use diesel as fuel”).
52 California Air Resources Board, Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage Associated with Power Outage (January 30, 2020), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/emissions-impact-generator-usage-during-psps (showing that generators commonly rely on gasoline or diesel, and that use of generators during power outages results in excess emissions); California Air Resources Board, Use of Back-up Engines for Electricity Generation During Public Safety Power Shutoff Events (October 25, 2019), available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/use-back-engines-electricity-generation-during-publicsafety-power-shutoff (“When electric utilities de-energize their electric lines, the demand for back-up power increases. This demand for reliable back-up power has health impacts of its own. Of particular concern are health effects related to emissions from diesel back-up engines. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant, composed of carbon particles and numerous organic compounds, including over forty known cancer-causing organic substances. The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs and make them more susceptible to injury.

Much of the back-up power produced during PSPS events is expected to come from engines regulated by CARB and California’s 35 air pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts)”).
53 SCAQMD, Fact Sheet on Emergency Backup Generators,
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/emergency-generators (“Most of the existing emergency backup generators use diesel as fuel”).
3735
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
emissions.54 Diesel back-up generators emit significant amounts of Nitrogen Oxides (“NOx”), sulfur dioxides (“SO2”), particulate matter (“PM10”), carbon dioxide (“CO2”), carbon monoxide (“CO”), and volatile organic compounds (“VOC”).55 Omission of a generator system results in an underestimation of the Project’s air quality, greenhouse gas, and health risk impacts.

In sum, omission of the Project’s generator results in an underestimation of the Project’s air quality, greenhouse gas, energy, and health risk impacts. The DEIR must be revised to resolve this project description inconsistency and correct the affected impacts analyses to accurately disclose the Project’s potentially significant impacts.

IV. THE DEIR FAILS TO DISCLOSE, ANALYZE AND MITIGATE

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
An EIR must fully disclose all potentially significant impacts of a Project and implement all feasible mitigation to reduce those impacts to less than significant levels. The lead agency’s significance determination with regard to each impact 54 California Air Resources Board, Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage Associated with Power Outage (January 30, 2020), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/emissions-impact-generator-usage-during-psps (showing that generators commonly rely on gasoline or diesel, and that use of generators during power outages results in excess emissions); California Air Resources Board, Use of Back-up Engines for Electricity Generation During Public Safety Power Shutoff Events (October 25, 2019), available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/use-back-engines-electricity-generation-during-publicsafety-power-shutoff (“When electric utilities de-energize their electric lines, the demand for back-up power increases. This demand for reliable back-up power has health impacts of its own. Of particular concern are health effects related to emissions from diesel back-up engines. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant, composed of carbon particles and numerous organic compounds, including over forty known cancer-causing organic substances. The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs and make them more susceptible to injury.

Much of the back-up power produced during PSPS events is expected to come from engines regulated by CARB and California’s 35 air pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts)”).
55 University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering—Center for Environmental Research and Technology, Air Quality Implications Of Backup Generators In California, (March 2005), pg. 8, available at
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=84c8463118e4813a117db3d768151 a8622c4bf6b; South Coast AQMD, Fact Sheet on Emergency Backup Generators (“Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) from diesel-fired emergency engines are 200 to 600 times greater, per unit of electricity produced, than new or controlled existing central power plants fired on natural gas.

Diesel-fired engines also produce significantly greater amounts of fine particulates and toxics emissions compared to natural gas fired equipment.”), available at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/emergency-generators#Fact2. 3736
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
must be supported by accurate scientific and factual data.56 An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.57 Moreover, the failure to provide information required by CEQA is a failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA.58 Challenges to an agency’s failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA, such as the failure to address a subject required to be covered in an EIR or to disclose information about a project’s environmental effects or alternatives, are subject to a less deferential standard than challenges to an agency’s factual conclusions.59 In reviewing challenges to an agency’s approval of an EIR based on a lack of substantial evidence, the court will “determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures, scrupulously enforcing all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements.”60 Additionally, CEQA requires agencies to commit to all feasible mitigation measures to reduce significant environmental impacts.61 In particular, the lead agency may not make required CEQA findings, including finding that a project impact is significant and unavoidable, unless the administrative record demonstrates that it has adopted all feasible mitigation to reduce significant environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible.62 Even when the substantial evidence standard is applicable to agency decisions to certify an EIR and approve a project, reviewing courts will not ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’”63
56 CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b).
57 Kings Cty. Farm Bur. v. Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 732. 58 Sierra Club v. State Bd. Of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236. 59 Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.
60 Id., Madera Oversight Coal., Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 48, 102. 61 CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2).
62 PRC § 21081(a)(3), (b); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15090, 15091; Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 883. 63 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355.
3737
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
A. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Cumulative Impacts
An EIR must evaluate a cumulative impact if the project’s incremental effect combined with the effects of other projects is “cumulatively considerable.”64 This determination is based on an assessment of the project’s incremental impacts “viewed in connection with the effects of past project, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”65 Proper cumulative impact analysis is vital because “the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.”66

1. The DEIR Fails to Provide a List of Cumulative Projects The CEQA Guidelines set forth two methods for satisfying the cumulative impacts analysis requirement: the list of projects approach and the summary of projections approach.67 Under the former, an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts requires “a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts…”68 Relevant factors when compiling a list of related projects include the environmental resource being examined and the location and type of the project.69 The Guidelines expressly recognize that project type may be important “when the impact is specialized, such as a particular air pollutant or mode of traffic.”70
Here, the DEIR states that it uses a combination of the two methods as appropriate for each impact analysis:

The summary of projections approach is used in this EIR, except for the evaluation of cumulative transportation effects (for purposes of demonstrating General Plan policy compliance) and vehicular-related air 64 CEQA Guidelines § 15130(a).
65 Id., §§ 15065(a)(3), 15355(b).
66 Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114.
67 CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(b)(1) and (2).
68 Id., § 15130(b)(1)(A).
69 Id., § 15130(b)(2).
70 Id.
3738
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
quality, greenhouse gas, and noise impacts, for which the analysis combines the summary of projections approach with the manual addition of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects (“combined approach”). The City determined the combined approach to be appropriate because long-range planning documents contain a sufficient amount of information to enable an analysis of cumulative effect for all subject areas, with the exception of transportation (and vehicular-related air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise effects), which requires a greater level of detailed study.71 However, the DEIR fails to provide a list of cumulative projects. And the appendices containing the air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise analyses do not consider past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. The air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise analyses should be revised to include consideration of cumulative projects, as recommended by the DEIR itself.

2. The DEIR’s Cumulative Air Emissions Analysis Does Not Comply with CEQA or Attorney General Warehouse
Guidance
The DEIR fails to adequately analyze the Project’s cumulative air quality emissions. The DEIR asserts that, under South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) guidance, any exceedance of a regional or localized threshold for criteria pollutants also is considered to be a cumulatively-considerable effect, while air pollutant emissions that fall below applicable regional and/or localized thresholds are not considered cumulatively-considerable.72 The DEIR fails to note that SCAQMD’s approach is outdated, as evidenced by its ongoing process to update its cumulative impacts guidance.73 The DEIR’s approach has been also rejected by the courts for failing to comply with CEQA’s requirement that a project mitigate impacts that are “cumulatively considerable.”74 The City’s failure to actually examine the Project’s cumulative air quality impacts violates CEQA’s requirement to analyze cumulative impacts. 71 DEIR, pg. 4-2.
72 DEIR, Appendix B, pg. 53.
73 See e.g., http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm-3_20230124.pdf?sfvrsn=6. 74 PRC § 21083(b)(2); 14 CCR § 15130; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.

App. 3d 692, 719-21.
3739
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
The leading case on this issue is Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford.
75 In Kings County, the city prepared an EIR for a 26.4-megawatt coal-fired cogeneration plant. Notwithstanding the fact that the EIR found that the project region was out of attainment for PM10 and ozone, the city failed to incorporate mitigation for the project’s cumulative air quality impacts from project emissions because it concluded that the Project would contribute “less than one percent of area emissions for all criteria pollutants.”76 The city reasoned that, because the project’s air emissions were small in ratio to existing air quality problems, that this necessarily rendered the project’s “incremental contribution” minimal under CEQA. The court rejected this approach, finding it “contrary to the intent of CEQA.” The court stated:

We find the analysis used in the EIR and urged by GWF avoids analyzing the severity of the problem and allows the approval of projects which, when taken in isolation, appear insignificant, but when viewed together, appear startling. Under GWF's "ratio" theory, the greater the over-all problem, the less significance a project has in a cumulative impacts analysis. We conclude the standard for a cumulative impacts analysis is defined by the use of the term "collectively significant" in Guidelines section 15355 and the analysis must assess the collective or combined effect of energy development. The EIR improperly focused upon the individual project's relative effects and omitted facts relevant to an analysis of the collective effect this and other sources will have upon air quality.77
The DEIR’s analysis is similarly flawed because while the DEIR admits that the Project region is out of attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, the City fails to analyze or mitigate the Project’s emissions’ cumulative air quality impacts.78 Given that there are multiple existing large warehouses immediately adjacent to the proposed Project site,79 as well as the proliferation of warehouse projects in the region and San Bernardino County, the DEIR is inadequate in its analysis of the Project’s potentially significant cumulative air quality impacts. 75 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692 (“Kings County”); see also, Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 832, 841-42. 76 Id. at 719.
77 Id. at 721.
78 DEIR, pg. 5.2-17.
79 DEIR, pg. 2-4, Figure 2-1.
3740
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
The SCAQMD approach used in the DEIR also directly conflicts with the AG recent guidance document setting forth best practices for evaluating the environmental impacts of warehouse projects like this one under CEQA.80 With respect to cumulative air quality and GHG emissions analysis, the Attorney General’s guidance states that best practices include “[w]hen analyzing cumulative impacts, thoroughly considering the project’s incremental impact in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, even if the project’s individual impacts alone do not exceed the applicable significance threshold [emphasis added].”81
The DEIR’s cumulative air quality impacts analysis does not comply with CEQA. The City must prepare a revised EIR that properly evaluates and mitigates such impacts.

3. The DEIR’s Health Risk Analysis Fails to Consider the Health Impacts of Cumulative Emissions from Nearby
Warehouses
The DEIR’s analysis of cumulative health risks is flawed for the same reason as the air quality analysis. The DEIR points to guidance from SCAQMD to reason that emissions of TACs are considered significant if a quantified health risk analysis (“HRA”) shows an increased risk of greater than 10 in 1 million. 82 And the
DEIR provides that Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable, and vice versa. 83 This approach is inadequate because it fails to analyze the Project’s cumulative effects with the existing and proposed warehouses surrounding the Project site.

CEQA provides that the incremental effects of an individual project are cumulatively considerable if the effects are significant when “viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”84 Courts have held that where a community already 80 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Updated September 2022), available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf . 81 Id., pg. 7.
82 DEIR, Appendix B2, pg. 5.
83 Id.
84 CEQA requires a lead agency consider whether the combined effects from both the proposed project and other projects would be “cumulatively considerable.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (a).) The incremental effects of an individual project are cumulatively considerable if the effects are 3741
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
bears a high pollution burden, a lead agency must consider “whether any additional amount” of pollution caused by the project “should be considered significant in light of the serious nature” of the existing problem.85
Here, the DEIR’s approach of using a project-level analysis as a substitute for a cumulative impacts analysis fails to address that the Project would be impacting a community already bearing a high pollution burden. The DEIR’s CalEEMod output sheets show the community’ pollution burden as scoring 91.1 in AQ-Ozone, 95.7 in AQ-PM, and 96.6 in AQ-DPM.
86 A high score reflects a higher pollution burden
compared to other census tracts in the state, with a maximum CalEnviroScreen score of 100.87 Despite this high pollution burden, the DEIR concludes that the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts because its own impacts would result in an increased risk of less than 10 in 1 million. This analysis violates principles of Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford and guidance from Attorney General. The City must revise and recirculate a DEIR that analyzes the Project’s potentially significant cumulative health risk impacts.

B. The DEIR’s Quantified Health Risk Analysis Underestimates Operational Mobile Source Impacts
The DEIR includes an HRA addressing the Project’s construction and operational impacts. The operational HRA is flawed because it omits analysis of TRUs.88
As explained above, TRUs emit DPM, PM2.5, NOx, and GHGs while in transit and during stationary operation at refrigerated warehouses or distribution centers, grocery stores, seaport facilities, intermodal railyards, and other locations of operation.89 CARB explains that communities near facilities where TRUs operate bear a disproportionate health burden:
significant when “viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Id., §§ 15065, subd. (a)(3), 15355, subd. (b).) 85 Kings County Farm Bureau, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at 718; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Ctr. v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 720. 86 DEIR, Appendix B2, PDF pg. 64-65.
87 Id.
88 DEIR, Appendix B2, pg. 13-18.
89 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 1, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
10/CARB%202022%20TRU%20Technology%20Assessment%2010-14-22.pdf. 3742
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
PM2.5 pollution contributes to more fatalities than other air pollutants and can lodge deep in the lungs or pass through the lungs to enter the blood stream and affect the heart, brain, and other organs. Adverse health effects from long-term exposure to PM2.5 pollution include increased risk of heart attacks and heart disease, impaired lung development in children, the development and exacerbation of asthma, and premature death. NOx is a precursor to ozone, which can cause irritation and damage lung tissue, worsen asthma and chronic illnesses including obstructive pulmonary disease and reduce lung function.90
Thus, the omission of TRUs in the DEIR’s HRA results in an underestimate of the Project’s health risk impacts. The DEIR’s significance findings are thus not supported by substantial evidence. The DEIR must be revised to adequately disclose the health risk impacts from TRUs.

C. The DEIR Underestimates Project VMT and Mobile Source GHGs
Transportation expert Norm Marshall explains that the DEIR potentially underestimates average trip lengths for both trucks and passenger vehicles. 91 Longer trip lengths results in greater impacts (including air quality, GHGs, and VMT). As a result, the analyses that rely on these trip lengths lack the support of substantial evidence. The DEIR air quality analysis relies on the follow trip lengths:

To determine emissions from trucks for the proposed industrial uses, the analysis incorporated the SCAQMD recommended truck trip length of 15.3 miles for 2-axle (LHDT1, LHDT2), 14.2 miles for 3-axle (MHDT) trucks, and 40 miles for 4+-axle (HHDT) trucks and weighting the average trip lengths using traffic trip percentages.92
The DEIR states that these truck trip distances are recommended by SCAQMD, but Mr. Marshall explains that SCAQMD does not make a recommendation that these trip distances be used for warehouse project EIRs.93 Rather, the AG’s guidance document for warehouse projects states:
90 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 10. 91 Marshall Comments, pp. 6-7.
92 DEIR, Appendix B1, pg. 37.
93 Marshall Comments, pg. 6-7.
3743
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
CEQA requires full public disclosure of a project’s anticipated truck trips, which entails calculating truck trip length based on likely truck trip destinations, rather than the distance from the facility to the edge of the air basin, local jurisdiction, or other truncated endpoint. All air pollution associated with the project must be considered, regardless of where those impacts occur.94
In contrast to the approach recommended by the AG, the DEIR’s estimated trip distances did not account for the Project’s likely trip destinations. Mr. Marshall explains that, while it may be too early to determine specific truck trip origins and destinations, it is notable that important major freight origins and destinations are considerably further away than the trip lengths assumed in the DEIR.95 These include the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach – approximately 60 miles away.

The DEIR’s analysis thus likely underestimates trip distances.

The DEIR also underestimates lengths of passenger trips generated by the Project. Mr. Marshall observes that CalEEMod trip lengths were used for passenger trips.
96 But in the DEIR’s VMT analysis, the DEIR acknowledges that the Project’s VMT per service population, i.e., the VMT per worker, is significantly higher than the average for the City of Ontario, and therefore, also significantly higher than the regional average.97 Mr. Marshall explains that the average auto trip lengths should be increased from the default values to account for the VMT-inefficient project location. Thus, the DEIR’s analysis lacks the support of substantial evidence, and must be revised.

D. The DEIR Fails to Identify All Feasible VMT Mitigation Measures
The DEIR concludes that the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable VMT impact despite mitigation included in the DEIR. Specifically, the DEIR estimates 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.98 The DEIR identifies the following mitigation for this significant impact:
94 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Updated September 2022), pg. 7. 95 Marshall Comments, pg. 7.
96 Id.; DEIR, Appendix F, pg. 56
97 Marshall Comments, pg. 7.
98 Marshall Comments, pg. 1.
3744
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
MM 4.10-1: Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the building operator shall prepare and submit for approval to the City of Ontario Community Development Department a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDMP). The TDMP shall specify measures that the building operator will commit to implementing in an effort to reduce vehicle miles traveled for its on-site employees. The TDMP shall include provisions, incentives, and programs for employee ridesharing programs, carpools, vanpools, transit use, bike travel, avoidance of peak periods of traffic congestion, and on-site parking preferences for zero-emission vehicles, among other items that have reasonable potential of reducing employee reliance on single-occupant gas-powered vehicles during peak time travel periods (rush hours).99
This measure fails to meet CEQA’s standards for mitigation. CEQA provides that if the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment” to the greatest extent feasible and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.”100 Further, EIRs must mitigate significant impacts through measures that are “fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.”101 Deferring formulation of mitigation measures is generally impermissible.102 If identification of specific mitigation measures is impractical until a later stage in the Project, specific performance criteria must be articulated and further approvals must be made contingent upon meeting these performance criteria.103 Mitigation that does no more than allow approval by a county department without setting enforceable standards is inadequate.104 Here, the measure improperly defers identification of specific VMT-reducing mitigation measures to a future date. MM 4.10-1 does not commit to any particular measures to reduce VMT. Nor does the DEIR articulate specific performance criteria to ensure that impacts would be mitigated to the greatest extent feasible.

Mr. Marshall notes that, while MM 4.10-1 lists potential measures to reduce VMT, 99 DEIR, pg. S-24.
100 PRC § 21081(a)(3), (b); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15090(a), 15091(a), 15092(b)(2)(A), (B); Covington v.

Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 883. 101 CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(2).
102 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308-309; Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.
103 Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1393; Quail Botanical, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at pg. 1604, fn. 5.
104 Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange, (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794. 3745
October 5, 2023

6752-004j
there is no clear commitment or description of the measures.105 Mr. Marshall explains that the measures listed in MM 4.10-1 can be formulated in a variety of ways that determine the magnitude of VMT reductions.106 MM 4.10-1 is thus improperly deferred mitigation that does no more than allow approval by a county department without setting enforceable standards.
107
As a result of this improper deferral of mitigation, the DEIR also fails to comply with CEQA’s requirement to reduce all significant effects on the environment to the greatest extent feasible. MM 4.10-1 must be revised to clearly require the all feasible VMT-reducing measures be adopted until the expected

28.47% excess VMT is mitigated.

V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the DEIR for the Project is inadequate under CEQA. It must be revised to provide legally adequate analysis of, and mitigation for, all of the Project’s potentially significant impacts. These revisions will necessarily require that the DEIR be recirculated for additional public review.

Until the DEIR has been revised and recirculated, as described herein, the City may not lawfully approve the Project.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project.

Sincerely,
Aidan P. Marshall
APM:ljl
105 Marshall Comments, pg. 2.
106 Id.
107 Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange, (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794. 3746

EXHIBIT A
3747
1 794 Sawnee Bean Road
Thetford Center VT 05075
Norman Marshall, President
(802) 356-2969
[email protected]
October 4, 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,
I have 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 make 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.
3748
2 Significant and Unavoidable VMT impact
The DEIR states that the project would have a “Significant and Unavoidable [VMT] Impact.” (DEIR, p. S24) DEIR Appendix J, “IE Distribution Center #14 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis,” evaluates the project relative to the City of Ontario’s VMT screens and concludes:
• TPA [Transit Priority Area] screening criteria is not met. • Low VMT Area screening criteria is not met.
• Project Type screening criteria is not met.

As the project fails these screens, a full VMT analysis was performed using the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM). The table below copied from DEIR Appendix J, p. 9 summarizes the results of this analysis.

As shown in the reproduced table, the proposed project would exceed the City’s VMT threshold by

22.56% in the baseline year and by an even larger 28.47% in the buildout year (2050).

The VMT Mitigation Described in the VMT is Inadequate
The City of Ontario’s VMT Resolution adopted June 16, 2020, reiterates General Plan Mobility Element M1-2: “Mitigation of impacts. We require development to mitigate its traffic impacts.” In the case of the proposed project, full mitigation would reduce VMT to below the threshold, i.e., the

28.47% excess VMT in the horizon year would be eliminated. The EIR should quantify the expected VMT reduction from mitigation. Unless the reduction is sufficient to achieve the VMT threshold, the EIR should justify why greater mitigation is infeasible.

The VMT mitigation described in the DEIR is:

MM 4.10-1 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the building operator shall prepare and submit for approval to the City of Ontario Community Development Department a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDMP). The TDMP shall specify measures that the building operator will commit to implementing in an effort to reduce vehicle miles traveled for its on-site employees. The TDMP shall include provisions, incentives, and programs for employee ridesharing programs, carpools, vanpools, transit use, bike travel, avoidance of peak periods of traffic congestion, and on-site parking preferences for zero-emission vehicles, among other items that have reasonable potential of reducing employee reliance on single-occupant gas-powered vehicles during peak time travel periods (rush hours). (DEIR, p. S-24) 3749
3 The above wording is ambiguous. Is this a commitment to include all the measures listed, or only to a subset of the measures. For the included measures, what are the magnitudes of the different incentives.

Are the included measures voluntary or mandatory? Is monitoring included? What is the total VMT reduction from the package, and is this reduction sufficient to adequately address the expected 28.47% excess VMT in the horizon year? If the planned reduction is not achieved, what are the consequences? The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) provides on quantifying VMT mitigation measures in its publication Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers (Final Draft, December 2021). It states:

The Handbook builds on CAPCOA’s previous efforts to provide accurate and reliable quantification measures. In 2010, CAPCOA published Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures: A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emissions Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (hereafter referred to as the “2010 Handbook”). Since that time, climate science has evolved and GHG reduction practices have advanced in sophistication. New priorities have also arisen, such as strengthening climate resilience and infusing health and equity into integrated planning efforts.

Therefore, CAPCOA decided it was time to develop an updated and expanded resource to provide the latest data and methods to quantify GHG emissions reductions, climate change vulnerability reductions, and equity improvements in a single resource: The Handbook. (p. 2-3)
The Handbook makes a critical distinction between voluntary and mandatory Commuter Trip Reduction (“CTR”) programs:

T-5 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Voluntary) – up to 4% VMT reduction:

Voluntary CTR programs must include the following elements to apply the VMT reductions reported in literature. ▪ Employer-provided services, infrastructure, and incentives for alternative modes such as ridesharing (Measure T-8), discounted transit (Measure T-9), bicycling (Measure T-10), vanpool (Measure T-11), and guaranteed ride home. ▪ Information, coordination, and marketing for said services, infrastructure, and incentives (Measure T-7). (Handbook, p. 83)
T-5 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Mandatory Implementation and Monitoring) – 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)
3750
4 A 26% reduction at this site may be impossible given the relatively poor transit , bicycle and walk accessibility plus long commute distances that making walking and biking impractical. The DEIR states:

Public transit service in the region is provided by Omnitrans, a public transit agency that serves various jurisdictions within San Bernardino County. There are no public transit routes that run adjacent to the Project Site under existing conditions. The nearest transit routes to the Project Site are Route 61 which has a stop located along Fourth Street, approximately 0.9 mile north of the Project Site and Route 82 which has a stop located at South Etiwanda and Jurupa Avenue, approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the Project Site. There are no existing bicycle facilities within the vicinity of the Project Site.

The closest bike route to the Project Site is a Class III bike route located along Ontario Mills Parkway, approximately 0.4 mile north of the Project Site. There are no sidewalks on either side of East Airport Drive, with the exception of a small portion along the adjacent development frontage directly to the west at 5351 East Airport Drive. (DEIR, p. 2-11)
Furthermore, ridesharing and vanpooling would be complicated by a geographically dispersed workforce and likely multiple shifts.

Joining with other employers would be beneficial. The more employers that support these VMT reduction programs, the stronger these programs will be, and the regional benefit of participating may be greater than just the onsite VMT reductions. For example, a vanpool could include multiple employers IE Commuter, a program of the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority in partnership with the Riverside County Transportation Commission, offers a full range of services to help employers set up and manage VMT reduction programs.1
Achieving significant VMT mitigation for this project may be impossible – but mitigation must be fully specified and quantified for the project to be properly evaluated.

Project Trip Generation Could Be Much Higher Than Assumed The project is comprised of a 270,377 square feet warehouse building. (DEIR, Appendix K, p. 1) The tenants have not been identified, and the nature of the operations are unknown at this time. For the purpose of estimating project trip generation, the DEIR assumes a mix of 90% warehousing and 10% high-cube cold storage. (DEIR, Appendix K, p. 1) This mix is highly speculative, and the project may not even include either of the assumed trip generation categories.

The DEIR estimates trip generation based on the rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) Trip Generation manual. Trip Generation includes other categories of warehouses. As shown in the figure below, the trip generation rates applied in the DEIR are much lower than rates for some other warehouse categories.
1 https://www.iecommufter.org/rp2/home/EmployerSupport
3751
5 Trip Generation Rates for Different Warehouse Categories (Trips Per 1000 Square Feet per Day) 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.

A 2019 study of warehouse trip generation done by WSP for the Western Riverside COG documented even higher trip generation rates.
2 This study was based on counts at 16 warehouses, segmented between 11 fulfillment centers and 5 parcel hubs.

The observed trip generation rates at two of the parcel hub sites are even higher than the rates shown in the figure above.. As shown in the figure below, the highest trip generation rates were observed at two of the parcel hubs, with rates of about 14 trips per 1000 square feet per day, i.e., 8 times the rate used in the DEIR.

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.
2 https://wrcog.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02212019-292

1.40 1.71 1.81

2.12 4.63

6.44 1.75
Transload and
Short-Term
Storage
Warehouse
Warehousing Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Non-Sort
Cold Storage
Warehouse
Parcel Hub
Warehouse
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Sort
Rate Used in
DEIR
3752
6 Project VMT and GHG Emissions Could Be Much Higher Than Assumed Any underestimate of trip generation translates into underestimated GHG emissions. It is likely that the DEIR also underestimates average trip lengths.

The DEIR air quality analysis (Appendix B1) states:

To determine emissions from trucks for the proposed industrial uses, the analysis incorporated the SCAQMD recommended truck trip length of 15.3 miles for 2-axle (LHDT1, LHDT2), 14.2 miles for 3-axle (MHDT) trucks, and 40 miles for 4+-axle (HHDT) trucks and weighting the average trip lengths using traffic trip percentages. (DEIR, Appendix B1, p. 37)
The DEIR misstates that these truck trip distances are “recommended” by SCAQMD. 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.
3 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 3 www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/fbmsm-docs/pr-2305_sr_2nd-draft_4-7-21_clean.pdf 3753
7 use beyond this single document. The 40-mile heavy truck trip length also appears in a 2014 slide presentation.4In neither case, are these numbers presented as general recommendations for warehouse EIRs.

The Attorney General’s September 2022 guidance: Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act5states:

CEQA requires full public disclosure of a project’s anticipated truck trips, which entails calculating truck trip length based on likely truck trip destinations, rather than the distance from the facility to the edge of the air basin, local jurisdiction, or other truncated endpoint. All air pollution associated with the project must be considered, regardless of where those impacts occur. (p. 7)
While it is too early to determine truck trip origins and destinations, 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 DEIR states that CalEEMod trip lengths were used for passenger trips:

In order to determine emissions from passenger car vehicles, CalEEMod defaults for trip length and trip purpose were utilized. (DEIR, Appendix F, p. 56) In the VMT analysis, the DEIR documents that the project’s VMT per service population, i.e., the VMT per worker, is significantly higher than the average for the City of Ontario, and therefore, also significantly higher than the regional average. Therefore, the average auto trip lengths should be increased from the default values to account for the VMT-inefficient project location.

Underestimating truck and passenger vehicle VMT translates to underestimating GHG as well.

Sincerely,
Norman L. Marshall
4 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-trip-rate-study-for-airquality-analysis/sclc_warehouse-presentation-final.pdf 5 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf 3754
8 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 3755
9 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. 3756
10 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) 3757

ATTACHMENT B
3758
6752-007acp

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
April 15, 2024
Via Email and Overnight Mail
Scott Ochoa, City Manager
Members of the City of Ontario Development Advisory Board 303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Email: [email protected]
Via Email Only
Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner
City of Ontario Planning Department
Email: [email protected]
Re: Agenda Item B – File No. PDEV22-017: 5355 East Airport Drive Project (SCH No. 2022090006)
Dear Mr. Ochoa, Development Advisory Board 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”), including the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) prepared by the City of Ontario (“City”). The FEIR and development plan will be considered at the April 15, 2024 Development Advisory Board meeting as Agenda Item B. The Board will make a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding certification of the EIR and approval of the Development Plan application.1 CARE CA submitted comments on the Draft EIR (“DEIR”) on October 5, 2023, accompanied by expert comments, showing that the DEIR failed to comply with the requirements of CEQA by failing to accurately disclose and mitigate potentially significant cumulative impacts, air quality and public health impacts, 1 Staff Report, pg. 1. The Staff Report incorrectly states that the Board recommendation to the Planning Commission is to “adopt the draft EIR.” (pg. 8). However, the operative CEQA document for the Project is currently the FEIR, which includes both the Draft EIR and the City’s responses to comments on the Draft EIR.
3759
April 15, 2024

6752-007acp
printed on recycled paper
greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, energy and transportation impacts. We reviewed the Board Staff Report, the FEIR, and its technical appendices with the assistance of transportation expert Norm Marshall2 and air quality expert Dr.

James Clark.3 The FEIR contains responses to CARE CA’s comments. However, it fails to meaningfully address or correct major flaws CARE CA and its experts identified in the DEIR.

As explained herein, the FEIR still underestimates the number of trips generated by the Project and the distance of Project-related truck trips, thus continuing to underestimate the severity of the Project’s public health, air quality, GHG, and transportation impacts. The FEIR also continues to assume that cold storage uses would be limited to 10% of the Project, reasoning that a condition of approval will limit cold storage to 10% of the Project’s square footage, but no such condition of approval is included in the conditions of approval attached to the Staff Report. The FEIR still fails to provide an adequate cumulative impacts analysis that considers the Project’s combined impacts with other existing and proposed industrial developments near the Project, in violation of CEQA. And the FEIR’s quantified health risk analysis still underestimates impacts. 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 “draft EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project” and complies with CEQA.4 The Staff Report recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the draft EIR5 and approve the Project’s Development Plan Application.6 These recommendations are unsupported due to the major flaws in the Project’s environmental review.

CARE CA urges the Board to recommend that 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 Mr. Marshall’s technical comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3 Dr. Clark’s technical comments and curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit B. 4 Staff Report, PDEV22-017 – Draft Environmental Impact Report, pg. 7, Part 3: Decision, Section 1. 5 Id., pg. 8, Part 3, Section 4. 6 Staff Report, PDEV22-017, Part 3, Section 5.
3760
April 15, 2024

6752-007acp
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.

A. CARE CA Has a Direct Interest in Enforcing Compliance with CEQA and Land Use Laws
The City, in FEIR Response A-3, claims that CARE CA’s “primary interest is securing jobs through a project labor agreement.”7 This statement is an improper ad hominem attack on members of the public who submitted comments on the Draft EIR. It is also incorrect, unsupported by any facts in the record, and contrary to the purpose of an FEIR’s responses to comments, which is to “describe the disposition of each significant environmental issue that is raised by commenters,”8 not to attack the commenter.

The FEIR’s statement appears intended solely to influence City decisionmakers to disregard the valid environmental concerns raised in CARE CA’s 7 FEIR, pg. 2-37.
8 Pub Res. Code §21091(d); 14 Cal Code Regs §§15088(c), 15132(d), 15204(a); City of Long Beach v Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 889, 904. 3761
April 15, 2024

6752-007acp
printed on recycled paper
comments, and distract from the substantial evidence presented by CARE CA’s experts regarding the Project’s unmitigated environmental and public health impacts. This is an improper use of an FEIR, which is intended to ensure that “public participation in the environmental review process is meaningful.”9 It is also irrelevant, because community groups, labor organizations, and other members of the public have standing under CEQA to participate in the public comment period required by law, and California courts have explained that ad hominem responses are irrelevant.10
The FEIR’s statement is also factually incorrect. For decades, labor organizations like the union members of CARE CA have relied on the CEQA process to enforce environmental and public health protections – including worker health protections – for new development projects as a means of ensuring a safe working and living environment for the public, including themselves and their families.

CEQA is especially important to union members who construct projects because they are the first in line to be exposed to health and safety impacts that exist onsite – impacts like soil contamination, air pollution from construction equipment, and excess noise. For many, CEQA has become the only place where communities of color, which includes workers represented by labor unions, have a voice in the process of developing projects in their communities.

California unions regularly participate as interested members of the public in the CEQA process. Their participation has led to decades of stronger air quality and toxic material controls at construction sites and housing developments, lowered emissions at industrial sites, increased electrification and renewable gas and fuels, reductions in GHG emissions, reduced construction noise and traffic in residential areas, improved water quality, water conservation, and protections for natural landscapes and sensitive biological resources. Union participation in the CEQA process has resulted in improved analysis and mitigation in agencies’ CEQA documents, and, in some cases, successful litigation requiring agencies to comply with CEQA where the issues unions raised were not resolved during the administrative process. In short, union participation in the CEQA process leads to cleaner, safer, and more sustainable development in the State. This is exactly what CEQA is designed to accomplish – protecting people and the environment through active public engagement in the environmental process. 9 City of Long Beach, 176 Cal. App. 4th at 904.
10 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1196 (“[W]e will not dignify with extended comment [developer]'s complaint that BCLC is just a ‘front’ for a grocery worker's union whose disgruntled members feel threatened by nonunionized Wal-Mart's entry into the grocery business. As will be explained, BCLC has standing to pursue this litigation and it exhausted its administrative remedies. This is sufficient.”) 3762
April 15, 2024

6752-007acp
printed on recycled paper
Public agencies have also acknowledged unions for their valuable contribution to the environmental review process. For example, when approving the Elk Hills project, the California Energy Commission Presiding Commissioner Michal Moore praised and thanked union coalition California Unions for Reliable Energy (“CURE”) for its participation in the proceeding: “We never would’ve gotten to some of the places that we did, and the resolution that we did, if it hadn’t been for the – the dogged efforts of [CURE]…we came to a good place, and probably couldn’t have gotten to that good place without some of the tension and – and rigor that was applied. So, thank you very much.”11 During the evidentiary hearings, a Commissioner “thank[ed] CURE for the technical help that Phyllis Fox [CURE expert] offered us, and certainly offered me an education that I wasn’t going to get any other place.”12 Some unions work on constructing and operating projects after they participate in the environmental permitting process. Some developers and critics allege this means that unions are using CEQA to induce developers to enter into project labor agreements, then abandon the environmental issues – just as the FEIR does here. These allegations are not only false, they demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of union participation. When the unions work on projects they have challenged, they do not walk away from the environmental and public health issues they raise. They enforce them through binding mitigation and environmental settlement agreements. This is consistent with CEQA’s environmental purpose, and with the historic values of organized labor to solve problems, engage in civic discourse and activism, advocate for safe working conditions, and effect changes that improve their members’ lives and communities.13
CARE CA asks that the City revise the EIR to remove this inaccurate and improper statement about CARE CA, and any other unsupported statements of dislike made about other members of the public who commented on the DEIR. 11 Elk Hills Power Project, Docket No. 99-AFC-1, CEC Business Meeting Transcript, pp. 24-25 (Dec. 6, 2000).)
12 Elk Hills Power Project, Docket No. 99-AFC-1, Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing, pg. 61 (Oct. 26, 2000).
13 See U.S. Department of Labor, Unions 101, available at https://www.dol.gov/general/workcenter/unions-101 (last visited 5/21/23); Economic Policy Institute, How Today’s Unions Help Working People: Giving Workers The Power To Improve Their Jobs And Unrig The Economy, August 24, 2017, available at https://www.epi.org/publication/how-todaysunions-help-working-people-giving-workers-the-power-to-improve-their-jobs-and-unrig-the-economy/ (last visited 5/21/23).
3763
April 15, 2024

6752-007acp
printed on recycled paper
II. THE FEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE, QUANTIFY, AND MITIGATE THE PROJECT’S POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
An EIR must fully disclose all potentially significant impacts of a project and implement all feasible mitigation to reduce those impacts to less than significant levels. The lead agency’s significance determination with regard to each impact must be supported by accurate scientific and factual data.14 An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.15 Moreover, the failure to provide information required by CEQA is a failure to proceed in the manner required by law.16 Challenges to an agency’s failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA, such as the failure to address a subject required to be covered in an EIR or to disclose information about a project’s environmental effects or alternatives, are subject to a less deferential standard than challenges to an agency’s factual conclusions.17 In reviewing challenges to an agency’s approval of an EIR based on a lack of substantial evidence, the court will “determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures, scrupulously enforcing all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements.”18 Even when the substantial evidence standard is applicable to agency decisions to certify an EIR and approve a project, reviewing courts will not ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’”19
CEQA requires that a lead agency evaluate and prepare written responses to comments in an FEIR.20 Agencies are required to provide “detailed written response to comments . . . to ensure that the lead agency will fully consider the environmental consequences of a decision before it is made, that the decision is well informed and open to public scrutiny, and the public participation in the environmental review process is meaningful.”21 When a comment raises a “significant environmental issue,” the written responses must describe the 14 14 CCR § 15064(b).
15 Kings Cty. Farm Bur. v. Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 732. 16 Sierra Club v. State Bd. Of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236. 17 Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.
18 Id.; Madera Oversight Coal., Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 48, 102. 19 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355.
20 PRC § 21091(d); 14 CCR §§ 15088(a), 15132. 21 City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.4th 889, 904. 3764
April 15, 2024

6752-007acp
printed on recycled paper
disposition of each such issue raised by commentators.22 Specifically, the lead agency must address the comment “in detail giving reasons why” the comment was “not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice.”23 A. The FEIR Still Fails to Adequately Evaluate Trips Generated by the Project
CARE CA’s comments on the DEIR showed that the DEIR underestimated trips generated by the Project by relying on inappropriate Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) land use codes, thus underestimating the Project’s GHG and VMT impacts. Specifically, the DEIR relied on ITE land use code 150 (Warehousing) and ITE land use code 157 (High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse), when other land use codes are applicable to the Project that have much higher trip generation rates. In particular, Mr. Marshall explained that 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.24
The FEIR responds that the Project’s design would not support a high-cube (sort) fulfillment center or high-cube parcel hub, pointing to the Project’s square footage and number of parking spaces.25 The FEIR states that the Project’s anticipated use and size (270,377 sf) most closely aligns with the ITE Warehousing land use category. But Mr. Marshall explains that the Project’s size equally aligns with ITE Land Use 156: High Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse, which accounts for warehouses with at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area.26 Mr. Marshall also explains that the Project’s proposed number of parking spaces would further enable the Project to function as a High Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse.

In sum, the FEIR offers no support for is continued reliance on low trip generation rates. As a result, the City continues to rely on potentially underestimated trip generation rates which do not accurately reflect the Project’s operational impacts. To the contrary, substantial evidence shows that trip generation rates could be 2.6 times greater than analyzed. To ensure adequate analysis and mitigation of this impact, Mr. Marshall recommends either applying a 22 PRC §21091(d); 14 CCR §§15088(c), 15132(d), 15204(a). 23 14 CCR § 15088(c); see Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1124 (“Laurel II”); The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 603, 615.
24 Marshall FEIR Comments, pg. 3.
25 FEIR, pg. 2-38, 39.
26 Marshall FEIR Comments, pg. 4.
3765
April 15, 2024

6752-007acp
printed on recycled paper
significantly more conservative trip generation rate, or implementing a condition of approval that trip generation will not exceed the number assumed in the EIR.27 The EIR must be revised and recirculated to provide an accurate analysis of trip generation.

B. The FEIR Still Fails to Substantiate Its Estimate that Just 10% Percent of the Project Will be Used for Cold Storage
CARE CA’s comments on the DEIR showed that the City lacked substantial evidence to assume that the Project would only include approximately 27,034 sf of high-cube cold storage uses (10% of the building space).28 In Response A-7, the FEIR states that the City has added a condition of approval to the Project limiting cold storage to 27,034 sf (10% of the total sf).29 But there is currently no indication any such condition of approval will be required. The April 15, 2024 Development Advisory Board agenda packet contains a Draft Development Advisory Board decision,30 Land Development Division conditions of approval,31 Landscape Planning Division conditions of approval,32 Engineering Division conditions of approval,33 and City of Ontario memoranda containing conditions of approval.34 None of these documents contain a condition limiting the Project’s cold storage uses.

The FEIR’s conclusion that the environmental impacts associated with cold storage would be limited to just 10% of the Project site therefore remains unsupported.

As explained in CARE CA’s comments on the DEIR, cold storage warehouses generate greater environmental impacts than other types of warehouse.35 CARE CA urges the City to revise and recirculate the EIR to analyze the impacts of additional cold storage use at the Project site, or to add a mitigation measure with a title restriction limiting cold storage to 10%.

C. The FEIR Still Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Cumulative Impacts
CARE CA commented that the DEIR fails to consider the cumulative impacts of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative 27 Marshall FEIR Comments, pg. 4.
28 DEIR, pg. 3-13.
29 FEIR, pg. 2-39.
30 April 15, 2024 Agenda Packet, pg. 3044.
31 Id. at 3073.
32 Id. at 3081.
33 Id. at 3084.
34 Id. at 3098, 3100.
35 CARE CA DEIR Comments, pg. 8-10.
3766
April 15, 2024

6752-007acp
printed on recycled paper
impacts. The DEIR’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.36 CARE CA’s comments explained that rote application of SCAQMD significance thresholds without analysis of the context in which the Project is being proposed fails to satisfy the analytical and information requirements of CEQA, per caselaw such as Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford.37 CARE CA also explained that SCAQMD’s cumulative impacts significance thresholds, adopted in 2003, are being revised to reflect current conditions. The updated cumulative impacts significance thresholds will reflect projects’ existing background MATES cancer risk and additional criteria such as whether the project would generate a high volume of diesel-fueled trucks.38 CARE CA also discussed the Attorney General’s guidance on cumulative impacts, which states that best practices include “thoroughly considering the project’s incremental impact in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, even if the project’s individual impacts alone do not exceed the applicable significance threshold [emphasis added].”39
In Responses 14, 15, and 16, the FEIR responds that “The Draft EIR and underlying technical studies were prepared in a matter consistent to the SCAQMD recommendation for determining cumulative impacts.” The FEIR’s response is nonresponsive because it does not address the City’s failure to comply with CEQA’s legal standards for evaluating cumulative impacts that were discussed in CARE CA’s comments. The FEIR also does not address the pending updates to SCAQMD’s cumulative impacts methodology, which are statedly prepared in response to recent CEQA cases such as People of the State of California v. City of Fontana.40 In People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, the Attorney General’s petition for writ of mandate challenged a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) 36 DEIR, Appendix B, pg. 53.
37 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692 (“Kings County”); see also, Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 832, 841-42. 38 SCAQMD Working Group Meeting # 4, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects (June 6, 2023) https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm4_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/defaultsource/ceqa/documents/wgm-5-20240320-final.pdf?sfvrsn=20. 39 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Updated September 2022), pg. 7, available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf. 40 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; 3767
April 15, 2024

6752-007acp
printed on recycled paper
that erroneously applied SCAQMD guidance in the same way as the instant EIR.

The petition explained:
[T]he MND’s cumulative air quality impact analysis does not account for—or even acknowledge—the multitude of other warehouses near the Project.

Rather than consider the environmental setting within which the Project will be situated, the MND simply states that the Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions because the Project’s individual air quality impacts will be less than significant. The MND even applies this reasoning to its analysis of health impacts from localized emissions, despite making no attempt to determine or disclose the severity of the existing health impacts from localized emissions in the community.41 The petition further explained that merely citing to SCAQMD guidance does not justify a failure to analyze a Project’s cumulative impacts:

The MND cites Appendix D of an August 2003 white paper published by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) entitled “White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution” (“2003 SCAQMD White Paper”). To the extent that the 2003 SCAQMD White Paper asserts that any project with less than significant individual air quality impacts also necessarily has less than significant cumulative air quality impacts, it is inconsistent with CEQA for at least the reasons stated above. Moreover, the 2003 SCAQMD White Paper lacks substantial evidence to support such a contention, and thus the MND’s reliance on it violates CEQA. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.7, subd. (c).) The MND further violated CEQA by failing to provide substantial evidence to support its reliance on the 2003 SCAQMD White Paper, Appendix D as “guidance.” (Ibid.) Finally, even if the MND’s reliance on the 2003 SCAQMD White Paper were proper and supported by substantial evidence, the MND did not consider other evidence—such as public comments and the existence of many other sources of pollution near the Project site—showing that the Project could have a significant cumulative air quality impact. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064, subd. (b).) [emphasis added]42
41 People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, Case No. CIVSB2121829, Petition for Writ of Mandate, pg. 9, paragraph 32, available at https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/casedocuments/2021/20210723_docket-CIVSB2121829_petition-for-writ-of-mandate.pdf. 42 People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, Case No. CIVSB2121829, Petition for Writ of Mandate, pg. 13, paragraph 49.
3768
April 15, 2024

6752-007acp
printed on recycled paper
The Attorney General’s litigation resulted in a settlement which requires compliance with an ordinance adopted on April 12, 2022 that establishes sustainability standards for warehouses in Fontana, including standards intended to address cumulative air quality impacts. For example, the standards include requirements that rooftop solar panels supply 100% of power for non-refrigerated portions of facilities with buildings over 400,000 square feet, trees in automobile parking areas, zero emission motorized operational equipment, other equipment electrification requirements, and solar-ready buildings roofs.43 These are just a few examples of feasible mitigation available to reduce cumulative air quality impacts, in compliance with CEQA.

The FEIR for the instant Project suffers from the same lack of analysis and legal errors as the MND in the Attorney General’s Fontana litigation. As a result of its refusal to analyze cumulative impacts, the FEIR fails to disclose or mitigate potentially significant local and regional cumulative impacts. In sum, the FEIR has not responded to CARE CA’s comments on this issue and fails to remedy the City’s inadequate cumulative impacts analysis. The Project cannot be approved until the City revises and recirculates an EIR that analyzes the Project’s potentially significant cumulative impacts.

D. The FEIR’s Quantified Health Risk Analysis Underestimates Impacts
The City prepared a Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment (“HRA”) to analyze health risk impacts on residential and non-residential (worker) receptors in the vicinity of the Project.44
The HRA underestimates the Project’s operational health risk impacts on residential receptors and workers by failing to account for building downwash in the AERMOD analysis.45 Dr. Clark explains that building downwash occurs as the wind flows over and around buildings and impacts the dispersion of pollution.46 This downwash effect leads to higher ground-level concentration of chemicals emitted from sources.47
43 Id., Stipulation For Entry Of Final Judgment On Consent, available at https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2022/20220414_docketCIVSB2121605-CIVSB2121829_stipulation.pdf. 44 DEIR, Appendix B2, pg. 25. 45 Clark Comments, pg. 3.
46 Id.
47 Id.
3769
April 15, 2024

6752-007acp
printed on recycled paper
The HRA also underestimates the Project’s health risk impacts by relying on non-standard daily breathing rates for sensitive receptors. Dr. Clark explains that the HRA unjustifiably relies on breathing rates lower than recommended by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.48 CEQA requires an accurate analysis of human health impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4) provides that the City is required to find a project will have a significant impact on the environment and require an EIR if the environmental effects of a project will cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings. The Supreme Court has also explained that CEQA requires the lead agency to disclose the health consequences that result from exposure to a project’s air emissions.49 Courts have held that an environmental review document must disclose a project’s potential health risks to a degree of specificity that would allow the public to make the correlation between the project’s impacts and adverse effects to human health.50
Because the City’s analysis underestimates the Project’s health risk impacts, the City fails to meet CEQA’s requirement to accurately disclose the Project’s impacts on public health and support its conclusions with substantial evidence. A revised HRA must be included in a recirculated EIR.

E. The FEIR Still Underestimates Truck Trip Lengths and Resultant Impacts
CARE CA commented that the DEIR underestimates truck trip lengths by applying a truck trip length of 15.3 miles for 2-axle trucks, 14.2 miles for 3-axle trucks, and 40 miles for 4+-axle trucks. The DEIR states that these truck trip distances are recommended by SCAQMD, but Mr. Marshall explained that the City must consider the reasonably foreseeable distance to the Project’s likely trip destinations.51 These include the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach – approximately 60 miles away. The FEIR responds in Response A-18:

The commenter fails to provide any evidentiary basis for the arbitrary number of 60 miles it suggests using… In fact, these recommendations are in direct opposition of the SCAQMD’s recommended truck travel distance for warehousing projects within its jurisdiction (based on SCAG regional travel 48 Id. at 5.
49 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516, 523. 50 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184. 51 Marshall Comments, pg. 7.
3770
April 15, 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 3771
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.
3772
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.
3773
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.
3774
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.
3775
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.
3776

EXHIBIT A
3777
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.
3778
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 3779
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 3780
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.
3781
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
3782
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 3783
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. 3784
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) 3785

EXHIBIT B
3786
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]
3787
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. 3788
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.
3789
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
3790
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 3791
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 3792
7 | Page
3793
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]
3794
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. 3795
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.
3796
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.
3797
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 3798
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.
3799
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 3800
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 3801
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.
3802
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 3803
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. 3804
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 3805
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.
3806
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. 3807
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. 3808
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.
3809
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 3810
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.
3811

EXHIBIT C
3812
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.
3813
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 3814
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. 3815
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.
3816
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
3817
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.
3818
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.
3819
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
3820
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 3821
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
3822
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
3823
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 3824
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.
3825
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 3826
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.
3827
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.
3828
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
3829
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 3830
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). 3831
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.
3832
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 filters5similar 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 .
3833
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.
3834
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 3835
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 3836
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-2During 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 3837
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 . 3838
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. 3839
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
3840
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 3841
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.
3842
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/ . 3843
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.
3844
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. 3845
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 3846
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 .
3847

ATTACHMENT C
3848
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). 3849
May 28, 2024