Agenda packet — Redlands City Council, July 16, 2024 (part 5 of 10)

1. Written confirmation to the Consulting Tribe[s] from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or

2. A determination and written notification by the Consulting Tribe[s] to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Consulting Tribe[s]TCRs.

54. TCR-2: Native American Monitor. Native American monitor(s) selected by the tribe should be present at the Project kickoff meeting, and shall be provided with a schedule of initial ground-disturbing activities, be on-site at the commencement of ground-disturbing activities related to the Project, and as the Project proceeds adjusting personnel and schedule as needed to provide sufficient oversight. The developer, lead contractor, and all subcontractors shall routinely update the Native American monitor(s) and their scheduling representative(s) regarding scheduling for ground-disturbing activities, and changes to said schedule, such that there is sufficient advance notice that a Native American monitor can be scheduled accordingly.

55. TCR-3: Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)/Pre-Grade Meeting. Prior to commencing construction activities and thus prior to any ground disturbance in the Proposed Project site, the Tribal Monitor(s)shall conduct initial WEAP training/pre-grade meeting for all construction personnel, including supervisors, present at the outset of the Project construction work phase, for which the lead contractor and all subcontractors shall make their personnel available. This WEAP training will educate construction personnel on how to work with the tribal monitor(s) to identify and minimize impacts to tribal cultural resources and maintain environmental compliance and be performed periodically for new personnel coming on to the Project as needed. The retained Consulting Tribe(s) representative(s) shall attend the WEAP meeting with the grading contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring plan.

56. TCR-4: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. The Consulting Tribes request the following specific conditions to be imposed in order to protect any inadvertent discovery of Native American human remains and/or cremations. No photographs are to be taken except by the County Coroner, with written approval by the Consulting Tribe(s) if applicable.

A. Should human remains and/or cremations be encountered on the surface or during any and all ground-disturbing activities (i.e., clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all water supply, electrical, and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind), work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall immediately stop within a 100-foot perimeter of the discovery. The area shall be protected; project personnel/observers will be restricted. The County Coroner is to be contacted within 24 hours of discovery. The County Coroner has Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1099 of 2362
18 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8617 Approving CUP No. 1179 and CRA No. 962 (Carmax).docx-ms 48 hours to make his/her determination pursuant to State and Safety Code §7050.5. and PRC § 5097.98.

B. In the event that the human remains and/or cremations are identified as Native American, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC within 24 hours of determination pursuant to subdivision (c) of HSC §7050.5.

C. The NAHC shall immediately notify the person or persons it believes to be the MLD. The MLD has 48 hours, upon being granted access to the Project site, to inspect the site of discovery and make his/her recommendation for final treatment and disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the remains and all associated grave goods pursuant to PRC §5097.98.

D. If any of the Consulting Tribes has been named the MLD, the Tribe may wish to rebury the human remains and/or cremation and sacred items in their place of discovery with no further disturbance where they will reside in perpetuity. The place(s) of reburial will not be disclosed by any party and is exempt from the California Public Records Act (California Government Code § 6254[r]). Reburial location of human remains and/or cremations will be determined by the Tribe’s MLD, the landowner, and the City Planning Department.

57. TCR-5: Pre-Grade Meeting. A Native American monitor(s) selected by the tribe should be present at the Project kickoff meeting, be provided with a schedule of initial grounddisturbing activities and be on-site at the commencement of ground-disturbing activities related to the Project, and as the Project proceeds adjusting personnel and schedule as needed to provide sufficient oversight. The Consultant, lead contractor, and all subcontractors shall routinely update the Native American monitor and their scheduling representative(s) regarding scheduling for ground-disturbing activities, and changes to said schedule, such that there is sufficient advance notice that a Native American monitor can be scheduled accordingly.

58. TCR-6: Inadvertent Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources and Treatment. In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are unearthed during construction, the Qualified Archaeologist and the Tribal Monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert and/or temporarily halt ground-disturbance operations in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits shall be minimally documented in the field and collected so the monitored grading can proceed.

If a potentially significant cultural resource(s) is discovered, work shall stop within a 60- foot perimeter of the discovery and an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) physical demarcation/barrier constructed. All work shall be diverted away from the vicinity of the find, so that the find can be evaluated by the Qualified Archaeologist and Tribal Monitor[s]. The Archaeologist shall notify the Lead Agency and consulting Tribe[s] of said discovery. The Qualified Archaeologist, in consultation with the Lead Agency, the consulting Tribe[s], and the Tribal Monitor, shall determine the significance of the Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1100 of 2362
19 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8617 Approving CUP No. 1179 and CRA No. 962 (Carmax).docx-ms discovered resource. A recommendation for the treatment and disposition of the Tribal Cultural Resource shall be made by the Qualified Archaeologist in consultation with the Tribe[s] and the Tribal Monitor[s] and be submitted to the Lead Agency for review and approval. Below are the possible treatments and dispositions of significant cultural resources in order of CEQA preference:

A. Full avoidance.

B. If avoidance is not feasible, Preservation in place.

C. If Preservation in place is not feasible, all items shall be reburied in an area away from any future impacts and reside in a permanent conservation easement or Deed Restriction.

D. If all other options are proven to be infeasible, data recovery.

59. TCR-7: Final Report. The final report(s) created as a part of the project (AMTP, isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be submitted to the Lead Agency and Consulting Tribe(s) for review and comment, to the extent permitted by law.

After approval of all parties, the final reports are to be submitted to the local repository (Eastern Information Center or SCCIC), as well as providing follow-up reports of any finds to the Eastern Information Center or SCCIC, as required, and the Consulting Tribe(s) if authorized by law.

Building & Safety Division

60. When the Entitlement Review is approved, submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations, soils report, and energy calculations to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the California Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards which are effective at the time of Plan Check Submittal.

61. Disabled access for the site and buildings must be in accordance with the State of California and ADA regulations.

62. Accessible EVC parking spaces for future and required EVCS as per the California Green Code is required.

63. The Underground Storage Tank (UST) requires a City of Redlands building permit, fire operational permit, and permits through San Bernardino County (CUPA – Certified Unified Program Agency).

Fire Department

64. Fire Department Access & Water Supply (Fire Master Plan) A. Fire Department Access & Water Supply plan is required to be formally submitted to Redlands Fire Department as a separate permit application prior grading & building permits.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1101 of 2362
20 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8617 Approving CUP No. 1179 and CRA No. 962 (Carmax).docx-ms Review Note: Preliminary Site Fire Master included in project packet accounts for major aspects of the Fire Department Access & Water Supply plan. Details and specifics to be reviewed in the separate permit identified above.

65. Two Points of Connection for On-Site Fire Protection Water Supply A. Acknowledging the inherent high fire fuel load associated with the proposed amount of vehicles present, this project is required to provide a looped design for the on-site fore protection water supply with two points of connection to the public water mains.

66. Fuels Management and Weed Abatement
A. From the present time until project construction phase, property owner is responsible to maintain compliance with Redlands Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 regarding Weed Abatement and Fuels Management.

B. Weeds and annual grasses shall be maintained at 4 inches of growth or less.

C. Tumbleweeds and similar uncultivated vegetation shall be removed.

Other City Departments/Divisions:

67. Conditions of Approval from the following City Departments/Divisions are applicable to the project, and are hereby incorporated by reference:

A. Land Use Engineering Division (Exhibit B)
___________________________
Brian Desatnik
Development Services Director
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1102 of 2362
21 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8617 Approving CUP No. 1179 and CRA No. 962 (Carmax).docx-ms

EXHIBIT B

LAND USE ENGINEERING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
[ Attached ]
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1103 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1104 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1105 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1106 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1107 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1108 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1109 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1110 of 2362
City Council Meeting J. 4.

DATE: 07/16/2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Public hearing to consider Planned Development No. 7; Lot Merger No. 8
(Mayor to declare meeting as public hearing)
Construction of a 357,610 square-foot warehouse (including 6,000 square feet of office space) and related site
improvements including parking lots, loading docks,
landscaping, walls and fences, lighting, stormwater drainage facilities, and utility connections on approximately 16 net acres located at 1101 California Street on the west side of California Street between Lugonia Avenue and Interstate 10 (APNs:
0292-033-11-0000 and 0292-033-13-0000);
A.

Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the project in accordance with Section 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines; and the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study prepared for the
project in accordance with Measure U (Development Services Director Desatnik)
B.

PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING:

1. Mayor declares the meeting open as a public hearing.

2. Mayor calls upon Department Director for report.

Mayor calls for questions/comments from members of the City Council.

3. Mayor calls upon applicant, or his/her representative, for comments and testimony.

4. Mayor calls for comments/questions/testimony from members of the public
(3 minutes per speaker).

5. Mayor calls upon City Clerk to note any written comments received.

6. Mayor calls upon the applicant, or representative, for rebuttal comments (5 minutes).

7. Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1111 of 2362
comments (5 minutes).

8. Mayor closes the public hearing.

9. City Council considers the motion and votes.

MOTION(S):

If the City Council desires to deny the application, the following motion is provided:

I move that the City Council adopts Resolution No. 8619 denying Planned Development No. 7 and Lot Merger No. 8.

Alternatively, if the City Council desires to approve the application, the following motion is provided:

I move that the City Council adopts Resolution No. 8620 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program; adopt a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study; and approve Planned Development No. 7 and Lot Merger No. 8.

RECOMMENDATION:

At its regular meeting on June 11, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the project applications and voted 7–0 recommending that the City Council deny the project.

Prior to the meeting, the City received a total of 72 written public comments (all opposed to the project). The primary concerns raised in the comments include the possible impacts on traffic congestion and air pollution resulting from the project, the proximity of the proposed warehouse to nearby receptors such as the Kaiser medical building to the north, as well as expressing opposition to the proliferation of warehousing in general.

During the public hearing on June 11, 2024, a total of 15 individuals addressed the Planning Commission (nine spoke in opposition to the project and four in support). The primary concerns raised during the hearing include project impacts on traffic, air pollution and public health, as well as general concerns about the suitability of the site for a warehouse based on its incompatibility with surrounding uses. Comments in support of the project largely focused on the economic benefits created by temporary jobs during construction.

During deliberation, the Commission expressed various concerns about the proposed development including its incompatibility with surrounding land uses and being out of character with the surrounding community, the cumulative impact of local and regional warehousing development, the proximity of sensitive receptors including the adjacent Kaiser facility, and various inconsistencies with Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1112 of 2362
receptors including the adjacent Kaiser facility, and various inconsistencies with the General Plan (see "Findings" section of this report for further discussion of the Commission's deliberation). The Commission concluded that they could not make the required findings for approval of the Planned Development application and directed staff to prepare denial findings and forward their recommendation to the City Council for consideration. On June 25, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution containing denial findings and (Attachment E) recommending that the City Council deny the project.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report to the Planning Commission (Attachment F), staff recommends approval of the project because the project:

Substantially conforms to the General Plan's "Commercial/Industrial" land use designation of the subject site and is consistent with a number of General Plan objectives and policies, particularly those concerning the East Valley Corridor; and

1. Complies with all applicable development standards of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan and Municipal Code; and

2. Would not conflict with traffic Level of Service (LOS) standards nor cause adverse socio-economic or fiscal impacts under Measure U; and

3. Would not result in significant adverse environmental effects upon implementation of feasible mitigation measures.

4. BACKGROUND:

The subject property was formerly occupied by an amusement park ("Pharoah's Lost Kingdom" and "Splash Kingdom Waterpark") which was demolished in 2021. The site is now vacant except for the remnant improvements and footings from former park attractions and parking lots.

Surrounding land uses include: Kaiser medical office building (directly to the north across Lugonia Ave.) and large warehouses to the north; office buildings, retail, and San Bernardino County Museum to the east; large warehouse/distribution facilities and light industrial uses to the west; Interstate 10 abutting the project site on the south side, and retail uses further to the south (within the City of Redlands) and City of Loma Linda further to the south.

PROPOSAL:

The applicant proposes to merge two parcels totaling approximately 16.0 net acres and construct a 357,610 square-foot warehouse building and related site Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1113 of 2362
improvements including parking lots, loading areas, landscaping, screen walls, lighting, stormwater drainage facilities, and utility connections. The project site is located at 1101 California Street, on the west side of California Street, between Lugonia Avenue and the westbound Interstate 10 on-ramp.

ANALYSIS:

A summary of staff's analysis is provided below. Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment F) for the detailed analysis.

General Plan: The proposed development complies with all applicable zoning and development standards (under the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan and Municipal Code) and is consistent with the "Commercial/Industrial" General Plan land use designation of the subject site. Staff believes the project is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:

Action: 3-A.4: Encourage and attract businesses that support industry clusters for demand occupations in technology, healthcare, business services, education, and logistics.

Principle 4-P.7: Provide a diversity of compatible land uses throughout the city, providing opportunities for the development of a range of businesses, services, residential types, and public facilities to meet the needs of the community.

Principle 4-P.10: Ensure that the scale and character of new development is appropriate for surrounding terrain and the character of existing development.

Principle 4-P.13: Provide for the concentration of office, industrial, and commercial uses in appropriate locations near transportation corridors to encourage the development of employment centers and reduce the potential for land use conflicts with sensitive uses.

Action 4-A.27: Provide space for expansion of existing industries and protect them from encroachment by inharmonious uses, but encourage most new industries to locate in the East Valley Corridor where impacts on residential areas will be minimized.

Principle 5-P.29: Prioritize goods movement along specific routes in the city, consistent with the layered network, to foster efficient freight logistics.

East Valley Corridor Specific Plan: The project site is located in the Special Development (EV/SD) district of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (EVCSP) according to the zoning map (Attachment C). The purpose of the EV/SD district is to provide regulatory, land use, and design flexibility to attain economical and efficient use of land (EVCSP Section EV3.1101). The EV/SD district allows any Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1114 of 2362
uses that are permitted in the following specific plan districts:

Administrative/Professional (EV/AP), General Commercial (EV/CG), Commercial Industrial (EV/IC), and Public/Institutional (EV/IP). Warehousing is permitted in the EV/IC district and is, by extension, also permitted in the EV/SD district.

RMC Chapter 18.156 (Warehouse Regulations): The proposed facility also complies with the provisions of Ordinance No. 2955, now codified in RMC Chapter 18.156, Article XII.

Measure 'U' Traffic Standards and Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study: Measure 'U' is a growth management initiative approved by Redlands voters in 1997, and establishes several principles of managed development including a general requirement that a Level of Service (LOS) grade of "C" or better must be maintained at roadway intersections. Based on the traffic impact analysis prepared for the project in December 2023, intersections in the project study area presently operate at acceptable LOS. The study further concludes that the projected increase in traffic levels caused directly by the project is not expected to reduce the performance of study intersections below the Measure U threshold of LOS C. The proposed development is estimated to generate 1,132 passenger-car equivalent (PCE) daily trips, with 111 total trips modeled in the AM peak hour and 114 total trips modeled in the PM peak hour. Based on the forecasted "existing plus project" traffic conditions, nearby intersections are expected to continue functioning at acceptable performance levels under project operating conditions. Project traffic is not anticipated to adversely affect the performance of nearby intersections below LOS 'C' and, therefore, no mitigating roadway system improvements are identified as necessary.

The developer will dedicate a portion of the southeast corner of the project site (abutting the I-10 on-ramp) to Caltrans in order to accommodate one new additional free right-turn lane that will be constructed in the future. In addition, the project will also re-stripe the existing median on Lugonia Avenue to accommodate a new westbound left-turn lane for truck access into the proposed Driveway 1.

Measure 'U' requires a socio-economic cost/benefit study for projects involving new structures larger than 5,000 square feet. A Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study has been prepared for this project (see Attachment H). According to the Cost/Benefit Model used by the City, the project is projected to result in annual non-residential revenues of $197,250 to the City upon project implementation and annual ongoing costs of $17,672. The surplus is $179,578 and the cost/benefit ratio is +11.16.

FINDINGS:

Findings for Planned Development
In considering a Planned Development application, the City Council must make Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1115 of 2362
the following two findings in order to grant approval. The Planning Commission was unable to make either of the two required findings. After each finding below there is a discussion as to why the Planning Commission was unable to make the finding as well as a discussion as to why staff believes that the findings can be made.

The proposed Planned Development is in conformity with the General Plan of the City.

Planning Commission
The Planning Commission determined this finding cannot be made for the following reasons. The proposed Planned Development does not conform to the General Plan of the City because it conflicts with several General Plan objectives and policies concerning the City's overall character and land use planning principles. Specifically, the Livability Element of the General Plan provides several policies intended to (1) maintain a land use pattern of various uses designed and arranged to protect and enhance Redlands' unique character; (2) provide for buffers and transitions between low- and high-intensity land uses; and (3) ensure that the scale and character of new development is appropriate for surrounding terrain and the character of existing development. The proposed development of a major warehouse on the subject site does not maintain a land use pattern that protects and enhances community character, which is characterized by a heterogeneous distribution of compatibly located land uses. The proposed development would expand industrial land uses eastward toward existing commercial development, thereby degrading community character as a result. Furthermore, the subject site is located between existing land use of different intensities (industrial to the west; commercial to the north and south), and the proposed development does not adequately provide for buffers or land use transitions that would contribute to harmonious and orderly development of the area.

Staff
The General Plan land use designation of the subject site is "Commercial/Industrial" which provides for certain types of commercial and light industrial uses, including flex commercial space as well as business parks, that may be compatibly located. As a warehousing facility, the proposed development is consistent with both the General Plan land use designation and applicable General Plan goals and policies, particularly those concerning the East Valley Corridor. Designated truck routes are abutting and available to the subject site, and the proposed development abuts the Interstate 10 freeway and California Street interchange. No abutting, adjacent or nearby sensitive receptors are located in proximity to the project site or the necessary truck routes that serve the proposed facility.

1. Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1116 of 2362
The proposed Planned Development would not adversely affect the surrounding area or the Redlands community in general.

2. Planning Commission
The Planning Commission determined this finding cannot be made for the following reasons. The proposed Planned Development would adversely affect the surrounding area because surrounding properties to the north and east are developed with commercial buildings that should be protected from the encroachment of incompatible and impactful uses including warehousing. The proposed development is incompatible with surrounding uses and is inconsistent with the existing pattern of development in the vicinity. The proposed development would adversely impact surrounding non-industrial uses, particularly the site of the existing medical office building to the north across Lugonia Avenue on which the development of a regional hospital complex is reasonably foreseeable based on recent filing of development applications. Furthermore, the subject site is in close proximity to planned future transit-oriented development (south of Interstate 10 on California St.) identified as the Transit Villages Concept within the 2035 General Plan. Development of the subject site with a warehouse would unduly increase the potential for future land use conflicts to occur in these sensitive areas.

Staff
The subject site is generally surrounded by existing industrial and commercial developments, and no existing or reasonably foreseeable land use conflicts or other detrimental effects are present in the vicinity.

Vehicular access and freeway access (for large trucks and tractor-trailers) are adjacent to the subject site, and several ramps access Interstate 10 near the project site and elsewhere in the vicinity. The project will dedicate land to widen and improve the westbound California Street on-ramp to Interstate 10 abutting the project site. Truck traffic to and from the proposed warehouse facility will have minimal effect on the local street network. Furthermore, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare, and will not be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area and all improvements necessary to adequately serve the new development are existing or will be constructed as required by the conditions of approval.

Findings for Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
The Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study prepared for the project concludes that the proposed development would result in a positive cost/benefit ratio exceeding

1.0, and the project will not create or result in any significant unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services in the community. Thus, the Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1117 of 2362
physical blight or overburden public services in the community. Thus, the following findings for adoption of the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study can be made:

The project will not create unmitigated physical blight within the City or overburden public services including, without limitation, the sufficiency of police and fire protection services.

The Project will neither create unmitigated physical blight within the City of Redlands nor overburden public services, including the sufficiency of police and fire protection services, because the proposed development: features attractive and well-designed architecture and perimeter landscaping and will serve as a positive addition to the East Valley Corridor; existing public service capacity is sufficient to serve the new development; and the expected increase in public revenue generated by the proposed development more than offsets the expected public cost of serving the proposed development. The Project will not create significant unmitigable physical blight in the City of Redlands or overburden public services, including without limitation police and fire protection services. The Project site is adjacent to or abuts primarily industrial, office, and commercial developments, and is located within an area designated in the General Plan for industrial development.

The Project site is located in an area designated in the General Plan as Commercial/Industrial. The Project provides improvements to blend in with and enhance the surrounding community through use of architectural treatment and landscaped buffers along the public right-of-way, screen walls, and preservation of existing mature landscape trees as well as planting of new trees. Moreover, the Project will contribute or provide funding for a public art installation that is valued at a minimum of one (1) percent of the total Project value.

1. The benefits to the City resulting from the development of the project outweigh any direct cost to the City that may result.

According to the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, the proposed development is projected to generate annual revenues of approximately $197,250.50 and have approximately $17,672.30 in costs. Therefore, the project will result in a positive balance of $10,373 (or a positive cost/benefit ratio of 11.16). For every one dollar the City will spend in providing services to the project, the City will receive $11.16 in revenue. The project would provide revenue to the City through increased property tax assessment, sales tax and the payment of development impact fees. These fees may provide for cultural enhancements, downtown district enhancements, park enhancements, public safety (Police and Fire) enhancements, and traffic enhancements. In addition, customers and guests will also contribute additional revenue to the City’s General Fund through local sales tax generation, including the new 1.0% local sales tax (Measure T) approved

2. Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1118 of 2362
generation, including the new 1.0% local sales tax (Measure T) approved by Redlands voters.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1119 of 2362
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

According to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Therefore, the City Council may deny the project entitlements and determine the adoption of the resolution is exempt from environmental review.

Alternatively, if the City Council wishes to approve the project, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared for the project must be adopted as required by the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with Section 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration on June 11, 2024, and did not express any concerns or opposition to the document itself.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (see Attachment I-1) prepared for the project is based on the CEQA Guidelines and includes analysis of all standard environmental factors (i.e., those listed in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G). The document was prepared using the appropriate criteria and thresholds for an IS/MND in compliance with CEQA.

Public Review & Comment Period: The required minimum 30-day public review and comment period began on March 28, 2024, and ended on April 29, 2024.

The Notice of Intent was published in a local newspaper as well as posted to OPR’s State Clearinghouse website for CEQA documents (SCH No. 2024031107). The Initial Study and related documents are also posted on the City’s website for environmental documents
at'www.cityofredlands.org/post/environmental-documents'.

Mitigation Measures: The Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (Attachment I-2) includes mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology & Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources. After mitigation, no potentially significant impacts were identified as a result of the project, and the mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project as mandatory conditions of approval.

Public Comments: A total of eleven (11) public comments were received from interested parties and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD). South Coast AQMD requested clarification on technical documents and modeling information (air quality, health risks, and greenhouse gas analysis) and provided general information concerning regulatory compliance. There is no information or evidence identifying any potentially significant impacts as a result of the project, and the City’s environmental consultant has provided a written response to the comments (see Attachment I-3). The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental determination for this Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1120 of 2362
project.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may continue the public hearing and direct staff to address any issues or bring back additional information.

SUBMITTED BY:

Brian Desatnik, Development Services Director
RECOMMENDED BY:

Charles M. Duggan, Jr., City Manager
REVIEWED BY:

Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Christopher Boatman, Assistant City Manager
Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director
PREPARED BY:

Kevin Beery, Senior Planner
Attachments
Attachment A: Location Map and Aerial
Attachment B: General Plan Land Use Map
Attachment C: Zoning Map
Attachment D-1: Cover Sheet, Site Plan, Floor Plan
Attachment D-2: Elevations, Sections, Color Renderings
Attachment D-3: Preliminary Landscaping Plan
Attachment D-4: Preliminary Grading Plan
Attachment E: PC Resolution No. 1678 (Reference)
Attachment F: Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment G: Planning Commission Public Comments
Attachment H: Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Attachment I-1: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment I-2: Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Attachment I-3: MND Comments & Response to Comments
Attachment J: Resolution No. 8619 (Denial of Project)
Attachment K-1: Resolution No. 8620 (Approval of Project) Attachment K-2: Land Use Engineering Conditions of Approval Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1121 of 2362

CALIFORNIA ST

W LUGONIA AVE

SEVERN ST

NEW JERSEY ST
TU
DO
R
CT

BRYN MAWR AVE
ORA
N
G
E
T
R
E
E
L
N
E 10 FRWY
W 10 FRWY
Copyright nearmap 2015
Vicinity Map
OneStop.mxd
0 260 520
Feet
Scale
This map was produced by the City of Redlands,
Geographic Information System.

The City of Redlands assumes no warranty or
legal responsibility for the information contained
on this map.

The data used to generate this map is dynamic
in nature, therefore the information shown may
or may not be the most current.

March 14, 2024 .1101 California Street Warehouse Lot Merger No. 8 Planned Development No. 7 Attachment A
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1122 of 2362

CALIFORNIA ST

W LUGONIA AVE

ORANGE TREE LN
Copyright nearmap 2015
Aerial Map
OneStop.mxd
0 90 180
Feet
Scale
This map was produced by the City of Redlands,
Geographic Information System.

The City of Redlands assumes no warranty or
legal responsibility for the information contained
on this map.

The data used to generate this map is dynamic
in nature, therefore the information shown may
or may not be the most current.

March 14, 2024 .1101 California Street Warehouse Lot Merger No. 8 Planned Development No. 7 Attachment A
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1123 of 2362

CG CG CALIFORNIA ST

W LUGONIA AVE SEVERN ST

CARDIGAN PL

TUDOR CT

NEW JER
SEY
ST

ORANGE TREE LN
E 10 FRWY
W 10 FRWY

COMMERCIAL
(C)

COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
(CI)

COMMERCIAL
(C)

COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
(CI)

AGRICULTURE
(A)

AGRICULTURE (A)

COMMERCIAL
(C)

PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL
(PI)

COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
(CI)

COMMERCIAL
(C)

COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
(CI)

COMMERCIAL
(C)

PARKS/GOLF COURSES (PG)

COMMERCIAL
(C)

AGRICULTURE (A)

COMMERCIAL
(C)
General Plan Map
OneStop.mxd
0 260 520
Feet
Scale
This map was produced by the City of Redlands,
Geographic Information System.

The City of Redlands assumes no warranty or
legal responsibility for the information contained
on this map.

The data used to generate this map is dynamic
in nature, therefore the information shown may
or may not be the most current.

May 28, 2024
.
1101 California Street WarehouseLot Merger No. 8Planned Development No. 7Attachment B Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1124 of 2362

CALIFORNIA ST

W LUGONIA AVE SEVERN ST

CARDIGAN PL

TUDOR CT

NEW JER
SEY
S
T

ORANGE TREE LN
E 10 FRWY
W 10 FRWY
Public
Institutional
(EV/PI)
General
Commercial
(EV/CG)
Special Development
District (EV/SD)
Planned
Development
3 (PD3)
Concept
Plan 1
(CP-1)
Specific
Plan 29
(SP29)
General
Commercial
(EV/CG)
Open Space
District
(EV/OS)
Planned
Development
1 (PD1)
Public
Institutional
(EV/PI)
General
Commercial
(EV/CG)
General
Commercial
(EV/CG) Specific
Plan 25
(SP25)
General Commercial
(EV/CG)
Specific
Plan 25
(SP25)
General
Commercial
(EV/CG)
General
Commercial
(EV/CG)
Zoning Map
OneStop.mxd
0 260 520
Feet
Scale
This map was produced by the City of Redlands,
Geographic Information System.

The City of Redlands assumes no warranty or
legal responsibility for the information contained
on this map.

The data used to generate this map is dynamic
in nature, therefore the information shown may
or may not be the most current.

May 28, 2024
.
1101 California Street WarehouseLot Merger No. 8Planned Development No. 7Attachment C Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1125 of 2362
Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100 hpa, inc. 22446 SLM 03/05/24 CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"X42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT Civil: Structural: Mechanical: Plumbing: Electrical: Landscape: Soils Engineer: Fire Protection: huitt-zollars---- emerald-- 1101 CALIFORNIA ST. CITY OF REDLANDS, CA 1330 FACTORY PLACE, STE 105 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 1101 CALIFORNIA ST. TITLE SHEET DAB-A1.0 CIVIL ENGINEER: OWNER/APPLICANT: LANDSCAPE: AREA JUSTIFICATION: BUILDING & PLANNING DEPT. PROJECT DATA: ZONING: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: City of Redlands, CA 1101 CALIFORNIA STREETCODE: HUITT-ZOLLARS, INC. 3990 CONCOURS, SUITE 330 ONTARIO, CA 91764 PHONE: 909.941.7799 CONTACT: DAVID WHITE EMERALD DESIGN 305 N. HARBOR BLVD., SUITE 222 FULLERTON, CA 92832 TEL: 714.680.0417 CONTACT: CHARLES LAMB BUILDING ADDRESS ARCHITECT: HPA, INC. IRVINE, CA 92612 PHONE: 949.966.7769 CONTACT: SHA MAHONEY 18831 BARDEEN AVE., SUITE 100 WIND SPEED DESIGN CRITERIA: ALL DESIGN SHOULD MEET WIND SPEED DESIGN CRITERIA PER CODE. NORTH, EAST, WEST SIDE - 60' MIN. SIDE YARD ALONG FOUR SIDES OF THE BUILDING EXTERIOR WALL. 44'-0" TO 50'-0" S1 = 70,000 S.F./ B = 76,000 S.F. YES 357,610 S.F. III-B BUILDING OCCUPANCY: S-1/B FIRE SPRINKLERS (AUTOMATIC): (ESFR) ACTUAL AREA: ACTUAL PARAPET HEIGHT: ALLOWABLE AREA (BASIC): CONSTRUCTION TYPE: CODE ANALYSIS BASED ON 2022 CBC PLANNING: TBD ALLOWABLE AREA (ACTUAL): UNLIMITED, PER CBC 2019 SEC. 507 ARCHITECTURAL DAB-A1.0 TITLE SHEET DAB-A1.1 OVERALL SITE PLAN DAB-A1.1B OVERALL SITE FENCE PLAN DAB-A1.1F OVERALL FIRE ACCESS PLAN DAB-A2.1 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN DAB-A3.1 ELEVATIONS DAB-A3.2 ELEVATIONS DAB-A4.1 DETAILS LANDSCAPE NUMBER OF STORIES 1 NOTE: WHEN THERE IS A DISCREPANCY IN PLANS, THE GREATER QUANTITY & GREATER QUALITY SHALL GOVERN UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE. SITE 0292-033-11 0292-033-13 CIVIL C1 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN LC-1 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPING PLAN LC-2 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPING PLAN CRP/NPP REDLANDS INDUSTRIAL OWNER, LLC 1330 FACTORY PLACE, SUITE 105 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 CONTACT: BRIAN WONG / PETE WILLIAMS PHONE: (310) 242-1612 / (818) 468-0566 1101 CALIFORNIA STREET, REDLANDS, CA 92374 OWNER/APPLICANT: CRP/NPP REDLANDS INDUSTRIAL OWNER, LLC 1330 FACTORY PLACE, SUITE 105 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 CONTACT: BRIAN WONG / PETE WILLIAMS PHONE: (310) 242-1612 / (818) 468-0566 CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION - EV/SD WILL CONVERT TO PD#_ UPON APPROVAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (ENTITLEMENTS) 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CITY OF REDLANDS MUNICIPAL CODE Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1126 of 2362
SITE PLAN KEYNOTES SITE LEGEND SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES OVERALL SITE PLAN DAB-A1.1 Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100 hpa, inc. 22446 SLM 03/05/24 CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"X42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT Civil: Structural: Mechanical: Plumbing: Electrical: Landscape: Soils Engineer: Fire Protection: huitt-zollars---- emerald-- 1101 CALIFORNIA ST. CITY OF REDLANDS, CA 1330 FACTORY PLACE, STE 105 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 1101 CALIFORNIA ST.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1127 of 2362
FIRE ACCESS PLAN DAB-A1.1B Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100 hpa, inc. 22446 SLM 03/05/24 CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"X42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT Civil: Structural: Mechanical: Plumbing: Electrical: Landscape: Soils Engineer: Fire Protection: huitt-zollars---- emerald-- 1101 CALIFORNIA ST. CITY OF REDLANDS, CA 1330 FACTORY PLACE, STE 105 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 1101 CALIFORNIA ST. LEGEND SITE PLAN KEYNOTES COLOR SCHED. - ELEVATIONS Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1128 of 2362
FIRE MASTER PLAN DAB-A1.1F Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100 hpa, inc. 22446 SLM 03/05/24 CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"X42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT Civil: Structural: Mechanical: Plumbing: Electrical: Landscape: Soils Engineer: Fire Protection: huitt-zollars---- emerald-- 1101 CALIFORNIA ST. CITY OF REDLANDS, CA 1330 FACTORY PLACE, STE 105 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 1101 CALIFORNIA ST. Fire Pump
DCDA Public
F.H
PublicF.H
PublicF.H
DCDAWith FDC Public
F.H
PrivateF.H
PrivateF.H
Riser
PrivateF.H
PrivateF.H
Riser Riser Riser Riser Riser Riser Riser Riser Private F.H Private F.H Private F.H Public F.H Private F.H Private F.H Private F.H

FIRECONTROLROOM

FIRE CONTROLPANEL LOCATION
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1129 of 2362
KETNOTES - FLOOR PLAN GENERAL NOTES-FLOOR PLAN FLOOR SLAB AND POUR STRIPS REQ. OVERALL FLOOR PLAN DAB-A2.1 Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100 hpa, inc. 22446 SLM 03/05/24 CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"X42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT Civil: Structural: Mechanical: Plumbing: Electrical: Landscape: Soils Engineer: Fire Protection: huitt-zollars---- emerald-- 1101 CALIFORNIA ST. CITY OF REDLANDS, CA 1330 FACTORY PLACE, STE 105 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 1101 CALIFORNIA ST.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1130 of 2362
ELEVATIONS DAB-A3.1 KEYNOTES - ELEVATIONS GENERAL NOTES - ELEVATIONS GLAZING LEGEND COLOR SCHED. - ELEVATIONS Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100 hpa, inc. 22446 SLM 03/05/24 CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"X42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT Civil: Structural: Mechanical: Plumbing: Electrical: Landscape: Soils Engineer: Fire Protection: huitt-zollars---- emerald-- 1101 CALIFORNIA ST. CITY OF REDLANDS, CA 1330 FACTORY PLACE, STE 105 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 1101 CALIFORNIA ST.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1131 of 2362
Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100 hpa, inc. 22446 SLM 03/05/24 CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"X42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT Civil: Structural: Mechanical: Plumbing: Electrical: Landscape: Soils Engineer: Fire Protection: huitt-zollars---- emerald-- 1101 CALIFORNIA ST. CITY OF REDLANDS, CA 1330 FACTORY PLACE, STE 105 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 1101 CALIFORNIA ST. ELEVATIONS DAB-A3.2 KEYNOTES - ELEVATIONS GENERAL NOTES - ELEVATIONS GLAZING LEGEND COLOR SCHED. - ELEVATIONS Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1132 of 2362
DETAILS DAB-A4.1 Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100 hpa, inc. 22446 SLM 03/05/24 THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR BIDDING, SHOP DRAWINGS, OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL BIDS MADE FROM THESE DRAWINGS CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"X42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT Civil: Structural: Mechanical: Plumbing: Electrical: Landscape: Soils Engineer: Fire Protection: huitt-zollars---- emerald-- 1101 CALIFORNIA ST. CITY OF REDLANDS, CA 1330 FACTORY PLACE, STE 105 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 1101 CALIFORNIA ST.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1133 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1134 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1135 of 2362
SHORT-TERM BIKE PARKING EXISTING CONCRETE EXISTING CONCRETE PROPOSED NEW CONCRETE PROPOSED NEW CONCRETE LONG-TERM BIKE PARKING LONG-TERM BIKE PARKING PROPOSED ENHANCED PAVING PROPOSED ENHANCED PAVING PROPOSED ENHANCED PAVING LANDSCAPE NOTES · ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. · LANDSCAPING IS TO CONFORM TO ALL APPLICABLE CODES & ORDINANCES. · PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ON-SITE LANDSCAPING AS SHOWN. · ALL TREES WITHIN 10' OF HARDSCAPE TO HAVE A 12" DEEP LINEAR ROOT BARRIER. · ALL PLANTER AREAS TO RECEIVE A 3" LAYER OF SHREDDED ORGANIC MULCH. · SOIL COMPACTION TO BE NO GREATER THAN 85% ON LANDSCAPE AREAS. · ALL FINISH GRADES TO BE 1-1/2" BELOW FINISH SURFACE PAVING. · AGRONOMICAL SOIL TESTING REPORT TO BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. · USE ONLY APPROVED PLANTING MEDIA AT DESIGNATED UNDERGROUND PLANTER LOCATIONS. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TREE LEGENDCALLISTEMON 'LITTLE JOHN' DWARF BOTTLE BRUSH WESTRINGIA 'BLUE GEM' BLUE GEM WESTRINGIA FESTUCA MAIREI ATLAS FESCUE DIANELLA 'LITTLE REV' ROSMARINUS 'HUNTINGTON CARPET' HUNTINGTON CARPET ROSEMARY FRANGULA 'EVE CASE' COFFEEBERRY LITTLE REV DIANELLA CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA BAJA FAIRY DUSTER HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA RED YUCCA CHITALPA 'PINK DAWN' SINGLE TRUNK CAREX DIVULSA BERKELEY SEDGE PENNISETUM SPATHEOLATUM SLENDER VELT GRASS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS MULTI TRUNK SYMBOL SIZE 6 LOW 5 GAL LOW PINK DAWN CHITALPA 36" BOX 9 LOW WESTERN REDBUD QUANTITY WATER USE CUPANIOPSIS ANACARDIOIDES CARROTWOOD 6 LOW RHUS LANCEA AFRICAN SUMAC 15 GAL 36 LOW CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA CAMPHOR TREE 24" BOX 15 LOW PINUS ELDARICA AFGHAN PINE 24" BOX 17 LOW PHOENIX CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND PALM 24" BOX 7 LOW 1 LOW CUPANIOPSIS ANACARDIOIDES CARROTWOOD 5 LOW 2 LOW WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA MEXICAN FAN PALM 47 LOW EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN AGAVE AMERICANA AGAVE OLEA E. 'MONTRA' LITTLE OLLIE DWARF OLIVE CAESALPINIA GILLIESII DESERT BIRD OF PARADISE OSTEOSPERMUM SPP. AFRICAN DAISY LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW 5 GAL 1 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 1 GAL 5 GAL EXISTING TO REMAIN PHOENIX CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND PALM PINUS CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND PINE EXISTING TO REMAIN EXISTING TO REMAIN EXISTING TO REMAIN 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 1 GAL (*NOTE: EXISTING TREE IS TO BE RELOCATED FROM THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF PROPERTY) WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA MEXICAN FAN PALM 10' BTH 3 LOW BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PLANT LEGEND SYMBOL SIZE QUANTITY WATER USE NERIUM OLEANDER OLEANDER RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA YEDDO HAWTHORNE TECOMARIA CAPENSIS CAPE HONEYSUCKLE LOW DODONAEA VISCOSA HOPSEED BUSH LANTANA 'NEW GOLD' NEW GOLD LANTANA LOW MOD 1 GAL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME FREEWAY PLANT LEGEND SYMBOL SIZE QUANTITY WATER USE 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL MOD MOD * = EVERGREEN ********** 36" BOX 36" BOX TREE SIZE LEGEND PROPOSED QTY % 15 GALLON 31 37 24" BOX 32 38 36" BOX 21 25 REQUIRED MINIMUM NEW TREES PROPOSED 84 TREES 10 PALMS 50% 15 GALLON 42 TREES 25% 24" BOX 21 TREES 25% 36" BOX 21 TREES * PLEASE NOTE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING ABOVE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT ON 24" BOX STREET TREE FRONTAGE REQUIRED MINIMUM 1 TREE PER 30 LF OF BUILDING AREA CALIFORNIA STREET 31 TREES LUGONIA AVENUE 14 TREES PROPOSED 3114 TREE CALIPER SIZE CHART REQUIRED MINIMUM 15 GALLON 24" BOX 36" BOX 3/4" - 1" 1-1/4" - 1-3/4" 2-1/2" - 2-3/4" 0 30'15' 60' scale: 1" = 30'-0" NORTH Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100 hpa, inc. CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"X42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT Civil: Structural: Mechanical: Plumbing: Electrical: Landscape: Soils Engineer: Fire Protection: huitt-zollars---- emerald design-- 1101 CALIFORNIA ST. CITY OF REDLANDS, CA 1330 FACTORY PLACE, STE 105 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 1101 CALIFORNIA ST. Conceptual Landscape Plan LC - 1 SEE SHEET LC-2 22446 RM 7/27/2023 2/9/2024 11/16/2023 9/29/2023 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1136 of 2362
30'-0" TRANSFORMER SHORT-TERM BIKE PARKING EXISTING CONCRETE PROPOSED NEW CONCRETE PROPOSED NEW CONCRETE LONG-TERM BIKE PARKING APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROPOSED IRRIGATION P.O.C. PROPOSED ENHANCED PAVING LANDSCAPE NOTES · ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. · LANDSCAPING IS TO CONFORM TO ALL APPLICABLE CODES & ORDINANCES. · PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ON-SITE LANDSCAPING AS SHOWN. · ALL TREES WITHIN 10' OF HARDSCAPE TO HAVE A 12" DEEP LINEAR ROOT BARRIER. · ALL PLANTER AREAS TO RECEIVE A 3" LAYER OF SHREDDED ORGANIC MULCH. · SOIL COMPACTION TO BE NO GREATER THAN 85% ON LANDSCAPE AREAS. · ALL FINISH GRADES TO BE 1-1/2" BELOW FINISH SURFACE PAVING. · AGRONOMICAL SOIL TESTING REPORT TO BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. · USE ONLY APPROVED PLANTING MEDIA AT DESIGNATED UNDERGROUND PLANTER LOCATIONS. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TREE LEGENDCALLISTEMON 'LITTLE JOHN' DWARF BOTTLE BRUSH WESTRINGIA 'BLUE GEM' BLUE GEM WESTRINGIA FESTUCA MAIREI ATLAS FESCUE DIANELLA 'LITTLE REV' ROSMARINUS 'HUNTINGTON CARPET' HUNTINGTON CARPET ROSEMARY FRANGULA 'EVE CASE' COFFEEBERRY LITTLE REV DIANELLA CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA BAJA FAIRY DUSTER HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA RED YUCCA CHITALPA 'PINK DAWN' SINGLE TRUNK CAREX DIVULSA BERKELEY SEDGE PENNISETUM SPATHEOLATUM SLENDER VELT GRASS CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS MULTI TRUNK SYMBOL SIZE 6 LOW 5 GAL LOW PINK DAWN CHITALPA 36" BOX 9 LOW WESTERN REDBUD QUANTITY WATER USE CUPANIOPSIS ANACARDIOIDES CARROTWOOD 6 LOW RHUS LANCEA AFRICAN SUMAC 15 GAL 36 LOW CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA CAMPHOR TREE 24" BOX 15 LOW PINUS ELDARICA AFGHAN PINE 24" BOX 17 LOW PHOENIX CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND PALM 24" BOX 7 LOW 1 LOW CUPANIOPSIS ANACARDIOIDES CARROTWOOD 5 LOW 2 LOW WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA MEXICAN FAN PALM 47 LOW EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN AGAVE AMERICANA AGAVE OLEA E. 'MONTRA' LITTLE OLLIE DWARF OLIVE CAESALPINIA GILLIESII DESERT BIRD OF PARADISE OSTEOSPERMUM SPP. AFRICAN DAISY LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW 5 GAL 1 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 1 GAL 5 GAL EXISTING TO REMAIN PHOENIX CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND PALM PINUS CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND PINE EXISTING TO REMAIN EXISTING TO REMAIN EXISTING TO REMAIN 5 GAL 5 GAL 5 GAL 1 GAL (*NOTE: EXISTING TREE IS TO BE RELOCATED FROM THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF PROPERTY) WASHINGTONIA ROBUSTA MEXICAN FAN PALM 10' BTH 3 LOW BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PLANT LEGEND SYMBOL SIZE QUANTITY WATER USE NERIUM OLEANDER OLEANDER RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA YEDDO HAWTHORNE TECOMARIA CAPENSIS CAPE HONEYSUCKLE LOW DODONAEA VISCOSA HOPSEED BUSH LANTANA 'NEW GOLD' NEW GOLD LANTANA LOW MOD 1 GAL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME FREEWAY PLANT LEGEND SYMBOL SIZE QUANTITY WATER USE 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL 1 GAL MOD MOD * = EVERGREEN ********** 36" BOX 36" BOX TREE SIZE LEGEND PROPOSED QTY % 15 GALLON 31 37 24" BOX 32 38 36" BOX 21 25 REQUIRED MINIMUM NEW TREES PROPOSED 84 TREES 10 PALMS 50% 15 GALLON 42 TREES 25% 24" BOX 21 TREES 25% 36" BOX 21 TREES * PLEASE NOTE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING ABOVE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT ON 24" BOX STREET TREE FRONTAGE REQUIRED MINIMUM 1 TREE PER 30 LF OF BUILDING AREA CALIFORNIA STREET 31 TREES LUGONIA AVENUE 14 TREES PROPOSED 3114 TREE CALIPER SIZE CHART REQUIRED MINIMUM 15 GALLON 24" BOX 36" BOX 3/4" - 1" 1-1/4" - 1-3/4" 2-1/2" - 2-3/4" 0 30'15' 60' scale: 1" = 30'-0" NORTH Owner: Project: Consultants: Project Number: Revision: Date: Drawn by: Title: Sheet: fax: 949 863 0851 tel: 949 863 1770 email: [email protected] 92612 irvine, ca 18831 bardeen avenue, - ste. #100 hpa, inc. CAUTION: IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30"X42" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT Civil: Structural: Mechanical: Plumbing: Electrical: Landscape: Soils Engineer: Fire Protection: huitt-zollars---- emerald design-- 1101 CALIFORNIA ST. CITY OF REDLANDS, CA 1330 FACTORY PLACE, STE 105 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 1101 CALIFORNIA ST. Conceptual Landscape Plan LC - 2 SEE SHEET LC-1 9/29/2023 11/16/2023 2/9/2024 7/27/2023 RM 22446 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1137 of 2362
N.P.P. - LUGONIA AT CALIFORNIA CITY OF REDLANDS 1 FOR CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN 1 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1138 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1139 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1140 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1141 of 2362
City of Redlands

REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Planning Commission 5. D.

Meeting Date: 06/11/2024
APPLICANT:

CRP/NPP REDLANDS INDUSTRIAL OWNER, LLC
(PROJECT PLANNER: KEVIN BEERY, SENIOR PLANNER)
A PUBLIC HEARING to consider the following matters concerning the proposed development of a warehouse on a site encompassing approximately 16.1 gross acres located at 1101 California Street (APNs: 0292-033-11-0000 and 0292-033-13-0000), on the west side of California Street between Lugonia Avenue and Interstate 10:

1. Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council on a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the project in accordance with Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

2. Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study prepared for the project in accordance with Measure U.

3. Consider and make a recommendation to the City Council on Planned Development No. 7 and Lot Merger No. 8, a request to merge two parcels and construct a 357,610 square-foot warehouse (including 6,000 square feet of office space) and related site improvements including parking lots, loading docks, landscaping, walls and fences, lighting, stormwater drainage facilities, and utility connections on approximately 16.0 net acres.

SYNOPSIS

1. General Plan
Designation: Commercial/Industrial (CI)

2. Existing Zoning: Special Development District (East Valley Corridor Specific Plan)

3. Surrounding Zoning: North: Medical Facilities District (Concept Plan No. 1) South: General Commercial (East Valley Corridor Specific Plan) East: Office/Commercial (Specific Plan No. 29); and
Open Space District (East Valley Corridor Specific Plan) West: Planned Development No. 3 (East Valley Corridor Specific Plan)

4. Existing Land Use: Vacant (Demolished Amusement Park)

5. Surrounding Land Use: North (across Lugonia): Commercial (Medical Offices) South (across I-10): City Citrus Grove
East (across California): Commercial (General Office); Vacant West: Industrial (Warehouse)

6. Area / Topography: 16.1 gross acres with flat topography Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1142 of 2362 492

7. Environmental
Determination:

An Initial Study was prepared and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration with a Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program is proposed per CEQA Guidelines Section 15074.

8. Socio-Economic/Cost
Benefit
Study:

A Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study was prepared pursuant to Measure U, and the project has a positive Cost/Benefit ratio of

11.16. 9. Planning Commission
Submittal Dates:
(A) Date Submitted:
(B) Date Accepted As Complete:
(C) Planning Commission Meeting:

August 2, 2023
November 20, 2023
June 11, 2024

PROPOSAL
The applicant proposes to merge two parcels totaling approximately 16.0 net acres and construct a 357,610 square-foot warehouse building and related site improvements including parking lots, loading areas, landscaping, screen walls, lighting, stormwater drainage facilities, and utility connections. The project site is located at 1101 California Street, on the west side of California Street between Lugonia Avenue and the westbound Interstate 10 on-ramp.

BACKGROUND
The subject site was formerly occupied by an amusement park ("Pharoah's Lost Kingdom" and "Splash Kingdom Waterpark") which was demolished in 2021. The site is now vacant except for the remains of former park attractions and parking lots.

ANALYSIS
A) General Plan
The 2035 General Plan land use designation of the subject site as "Commercial/Industrial", which provides for certain types of commercial and light industrial uses, including flex commercial space as well as business parks, that may be compatibly located (Attachment B).

The proposed development is consistent with this designation, as well as the following General Plan goals and policies:

Action: 3-A.4: Encourage and attract businesses that support industry clusters for demand occupations in technology, healthcare, business services, education, and logistics.

Principle 4-P.10: Ensure that the scale and character of new development is appropriate for surrounding terrain and the character of existing development.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1143 of 2362 493
Valley Corridor where impacts on residential areas will be minimized.

Principle 5-P.29: Prioritize goods movement along specific routes in the city, consistent with the layered network, to foster efficient freight logistics.

B) East Valley Corridor Specific Plan
The subject site is located in the Special Development (EV/SD) district of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (EVCSP) (see Attachment C). The purpose of the EV/SD district is to provide regulatory, land use, and design flexibility to attain economical and efficient use of land (EVCSP Section EV3.1101). The EV/SD district allows any uses that are permitted in the following specific plan districts: Administrative/Professional (EV/AP), General Commercial (EV/CG), Commercial Industrial (EV/IC), and Public/Institutional (EV/IP). Warehousing is permitted in the EV/IC district and is, by extension, also permitted in the EV/SD district.

Although the EV/SD district does not establish district-specific development standards (e.g., building setbacks, height and size), new development in the district must conform to the general standards and guidelines under EVCSP Chapter 4. Table 1 summarizes the proposed development specifications and their conformance with applicable development standards.

Attachment D includes the development plans.

Development Standard Requirement Proposed Complies
Floor Area Ratio 0.80 max. 0.511 Yes
Building Setback (from California) 30'-0" min. 86'-1" Yes Parking Setback (from California) 30'-0" min. 30'-1" Yes Building Setback (from Lugonia) 30'-0" min. 71'-8" Yes
Parking Setback (from Lugonia) 15'-0" min. 15'-8" Yes
Interior Yard(s) Per approved PD plan 124'-6" Yes, if approved Freeway Setback 50'-0" min. 80'-5" Yes
Building Height Per approved PD plan 50'-0" Yes, if approved Landscaping Coverage (Site) 15% min. 11.8% No*
Landscaping Coverage (Parking Areas) 7% min. 10% Yes
Table 1. Development Standards Summary
* Development will provide public art installation. According to EVCSP Section EV4.0260(e), the landscaped area requirement may be reduced by up to 5% where public art is to be displayed in a setting which enhances pedestrian spaces and building architecture.

Site Plan and Architecture: The proposed building is a rectangular concrete tilt-up building featuring a flat roof, and is 50 feet in height measured from adjacent finished grade to the top of the roofline (parapet). The site plan shows that the proposed building is centrally sited with parking spaces arranged in rows around the building. Landscaped areas are located along the site frontage, as well as between the parking areas and the building.

The architectural design of the proposed building conforms to the provisions under EVCSP Chapter 4 and is consistent with the City's Architectural Guidelines. The proposed building exterior consists of concrete panels painted in various shades of white and gray. The street-facing facade is modulated by pairs of concrete panel column projections (painted in indigo), as well as metal canopies. Windows are regularly spaced along the street- and freeway-facing facades and feature combinations of both vision and spandrel glazing. The two primary building entrances, which are located on opposite ends of the east side of the building, Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1144 of 2362 494
consist of glass and aluminum framing articulated by steel canopies. Overall, the exterior architecture is designed in a manner compatible with surrounding development, and in a manner appropriate for the location of the project site next to the Interstate 10 and California Street interchange, a central gateway to the East Valley Corridor.

Parking and Loading: As shown in Table 2, based on gross floor area, the minimum off-street parking space count required for the proposed development is 396. The development plan provides a total of 396 parking spaces and meets the requirement. The plan also shows 47 loading bays in the screened yard on the west side of the building, which far exceeds the five spaces required for industrial buildings that exceed 160,000 square-feet.

Use Parking Space Requirement Spaces
Required
Spaces
Provided
Office 1 parking space per 250 square feet 24 –
Warehouse
1 parking space per 500 square feet up to 20k
square feet;
1 space per 1,000 square feet over 20k
square feet
372 –
Total 396 396
Table 2. Parking and Loading Requirements Summary
Landscaping: For industrial facilities located in the specific plan, a minimum of 15% of the development site must be landscaped, and the development plan indicates that 12% of the site would be landscaped. EVCSP Section EV4.0260(e) provides that the landscaped area requirement may be reduced by up to five (5) percent where public art is to be displayed in a setting which enhances pedestrian spaces and building architecture. Accordingly, in-lieu of meeting the minimum landscaping coverage standard, the applicant is opting either to contribute or fund a public art installation to be valued at a minimum of 1% of total project value. A condition of approval guaranteeing compliance with the public art requirement has been added.

A minimum of 7% of the parking lot areas must be landscaped, and 10% will be provided and will meet the code requirement.

The proposed plant palette consists of a combination of trees, shrubs, accent plants and ground cover to be installed throughout the site. Mature carrotwood, canary island pine, and mexican fan palm trees exist along the project frontages. In general, existing trees in these areas are proposed to remain in place and be protected during construction. As part of the project, the developer is also proposing new off-site landscaping abutting the I-10 westbound on-ramp (subject to approval by Caltrans). Final landscape plans demonstrating compliance with water efficiency requirements must be reviewed prior to issuance of a building permit.

Screening, Fences, and Walls: Rooftop equipment will be screened from public view by parapet walls extending roughly six feet in height above the roof field. Conditions of approval have been added requiring ground-mounted ancillary equipment, such as backflow preventors, irrigation valves and transformers, to be concealed from public view.

Screen walls 8'0" high, constructed from concrete tilt-up panels, will be located around the loading area on the west side (rear) of the proposed building. The walls will be painted to match the main building and will feature mid-section accent reveals. An existing 8'0" tall chain link fence on the west lot boundary will remain in place.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1145 of 2362 495
C) Planned Development No. 7
New development projects in the EV/SP district are subject to the "Planned Development" review and approval process. According to City Council Resolution No. 5116, which establishes Planned Development application procedures, approval of a Planned Development application is "quasi-legislative" in nature, and thus is subject to review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, with final review and approval by the City Council. A Planned Development, when submitted in a single stage as a comprehensive site plan serves as both an approved site plan and a development permit, upon which conditions of approval (including expiration dates) may be imposed.

D) Municipal Code Chapter 18.156
The proposed facility is subject to the provisions under Article XII of Chapter 18.156 of the Redlands Municipal Code (Warehouses and Logistics Distribution Centers), which apply to new large-scale warehousing facilities either having a gross floor area of 50,000 square feet or greater, or having six (6) or more truck docks or high docks loading doors. The provisions include standards on the location, screening and buffering, traffic patterns, energy usage and operations. The proposed facility complies with these requirements as described below.

Site Location Requirement: New warehouses must be located within one mile (5,280 feet) from a freeway entrance/exit ramp to the Interstate Freeway System (I-10 or I-210). The site of the proposed facility is adjacent to the westbound Interstate 10 on-ramp at California Street, and therefore, meets the location requirement.

Site Design: The development site plan shows sufficient on-site area (a minimum of 140 feet for two trucks) to accommodate queuing outside the loading dock to avoid vehicle spillover on the public right-of-way. Loading docks and truck entries are not oriented toward any sensitive receptors (of which there are none abutting the project site), and truck docks are placed at the rear of the building to be fully concealed from public view.

Landscape Shading: Trees will be installed in passenger vehicle parking areas to provide at least 35% shade coverage of the parking area within 15 years.

Truck Routing: As required by Measure U, a traffic study was prepared evaluating impacts of the proposed development on levels of service (LOS) at nearby intersections. There are no abutting or adjacent sensitive receptors (such as schools, hospitals, or residences) near the project site that might be detrimentally affected by truck trips, noise, vibration, or air quality impacts resulting from the proposed use. The site is adjacent to Interstate 10 and has immediate access to the interstate system via California Street.

Other Requirements: All other design and operational requirements have been included as mandatory conditions of approval (e.g., use of PV solar panels, cool roof treatment, sustainable energy requirements, engine idling signs, etc.).

E) Traffic and Measure 'U'
Measure 'U' is a growth management initiative approved by Redlands voters in 1997, and establishes several principles of managed development including a general requirement that a Level of Service (LOS) grade of "C" or better must be maintained at roadway intersections. Based on the traffic impact analysis prepared for the project in December 2023, intersections in the project study area presently operate at acceptable LOS. The study further concludes that the projected increase in traffic levels caused directly by the project is not expected to reduce the performance of study intersections below the Measure U threshold of LOS C. The proposed development is estimated to generate 1,132 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1146 of 2362 496
passenger-car equivalent (PCE) daily trips, with 111 total trips modeled in the AM peak hour and 114 total trips modeled in the PM peak hour. Based on the forecasted "existing plus project" traffic conditions, nearby intersections are expected to continue functioning at acceptable performance levels under project operating conditions. Project traffic is not anticipated to adversely affect the performance of nearby intersections below LOS 'C' and, therefore, no mitigating roadway system improvements are identified as necessary.

F) Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Measure 'U' requires a socio-economic cost/benefit study for projects involving new structures larger than 5,000 square feet. A Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study has been prepared for this project (see Attachment E). According to the Cost/Benefit Model used by the City, the project is projected to result in annual non-residential revenues of $197,250 to the City upon project implementation and annual ongoing costs of $17,672. The surplus is $179,578 and the cost/benefit ratio is +11.16. The complete Cost/Benefit Model results are attached to the report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (see Attachment F-1) prepared for the project is based on the CEQA Guidelines and includes analysis of all standard environmental factors (i.e., those listed in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G). The document was prepared using the appropriate criteria and thresholds for an IS/MND in compliance with CEQA.

Public Review & Comment Period: The required minimum 30-day public review and comment period began on March 28, 2024, and ended on April 29, 2024. The Notice of Intent was published in a local newspaper as well as posted to OPR’s State Clearinghouse website for CEQA documents (SCH No. 2024031107). The Initial Study and related documents are also posted on the City’s web site for environmental documents at 'www.cityofredlands.org/post/environmental-documents'.

Mitigation Measures: The Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (Attachment F-2) includes mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology & Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources. After mitigation, no potentially significant impacts were identified as a result of the project, and the mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project as mandatory conditions of approval.

Public Comments: To date, a total of eleven (11) public comments have been received from interested parties and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD). South Coast AQMD requested clarification on technical documents and modeling information (air quality, health risks, and greenhouse gas analysis) and provided general information concerning regulatory compliance. There is no information or evidence identifying any potentially significant impacts as a result of the project, and the City’s environmental consultant has provided a written response to the comments (see Attachment F-3). The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental determination for this project.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1147 of 2362 497

FINDINGS
In considering a Planned Development application, the Planning Commission must make the following findings before recommending its approval to the City Council. Each finding is followed by the recommended determination based on staff's analysis. 1) That the proposed Planned Development is in conformity with the General Plan of the City.

The General Plan land use designation of the subject site is "Commercial/Industrial" which provides for certain types of commercial and light industrial uses, including flex commercial space as well as business parks, that may be compatibly located. As a warehousing facility, the proposed development is consistent with both the General Plan land use designation and applicable General Plan goals and policies, particularly those concerning the East Valley Corridor. Designated truck routes are abutting and available to the subject site, and the proposed development abuts the Interstate 10 freeway and California Street interchange. No abutting, adjacent or nearby sensitive receptors are located in proximity to the project site or the necessary truck routes that serve the proposed facility. 2) That the proposed Planned Development would not adversely affect the surrounding area or the Redlands community in general.

The subject site is generally surrounded by existing industrial and commercial development, and no existing or reasonably foreseeable land use conflicts or other detrimental effects are present in the vicinity. Vehicular access and freeway access (for large trucks and tractor-trailers) are adjacent to the subject site, and several ramps accessing Interstate 10 abut the project site and elsewhere in the vicinity. The project will dedicate land to widen and improve the westbound California Street on-ramp to Interate 10 abutting the project site. Truck traffic to and from the proposed warehouse facility will minimally affect the Redlands community and loca street network. Furthermore, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare, and will not be injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area and all improvements necessary to adequately serve the new development are existing or will be constructed as required by the conditions of approval.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above analysis and findings, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1678 and recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopt the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study for the project, and approve Lot Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7.

MOTIONS
If the Planning Commission concurs with staff's recommendation, the following motion is provided:
"I move that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1678 and recommend that the City Council:

Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1148 of 2362 498
prepared for the project;
Adopt the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study prepared for the project; Approve Lot Merger No. 8; and
Approve Planned Development No. 7."
Attachments
Attachment A: Location Map & Aerial Photo
Attachment B: General Plan Map
Attachment C: Zoning Map
Attachment D-1: Cover Sheet, Site Plan, Floor Plan
Attachment D-2: Elevations, Sections, Color Renderings
Attachment D-3: Preliminary Landscaping Plan
Attachment D-4: Preliminary Grading Plan
Attachment E: Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study
Attachment F-1: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment F-2: Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Attachment F-3: MND Comments & Response to Comments
Attachment G-1: Resolution No. 1678
Attachment G-2: Land Use Engineering Conditions
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1149 of 2362 499
From: Brian Foote
To: Linda McCasland
Cc: Kevin Beery
Subject: FW: Upcoming Planning Commission Item
Date: Monday, June 10, 2024 17:02:18
Comment for the Commission
Begin forwarded message:

From: PAUL FOSTER
Date: June 6, 2024 at 4:59:14 PM PDT
To: Karah Shaw
Subject: Upcoming Planning Commission Item
Hi Karah!
I hope this message finds you well.

I’m writing to express my objections to the upcoming Planning Commission item proposition the construction of a warehouse facility on the site of Splash Kingdom across from the Kaiser Permanente Medical Office.

The planning and opening of that medical office was one of my last major projects before retiring from KP. The site, as you may know was purchased with building a hospital on the site. As you may also be aware Kaiser is moving forward with planning the expansion on that site in the near future.

The patients seen at the facility have and continue to complain about the truck traffic as they attempt to arrive and depart from their visits. This will only get much worse if such a facility is constructed.

In addition, as the hospital is completed it will, of course include an Emergency Department. Emergency vehicles attempting to get critical patients to the ED will be faced with loosing vital minutes, even seconds as big rig trucks fill the California Street exit,even if enlarged. Asking these same emergency vehicles to find other routes in order to accommodate the trucks for the wearhouse is simply unacceptable!!! Taking care of the medical needs of Redlands residents must be in the forefront of the decision making on this project rather than the economic advantage to the developer.

This site should have never been zoned as it is. While serving as Mayor I met with a prior owner at their request and made it clear that the site should be developed as mixed use or office Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1150 of 2362
professional citing the reasons above as part of my reasoning.

I must add that former Mayor Harisson and myself worked hard to have the orange grove on the south side of the freeway at California Street replanted as a grove as that location make the gateway entrance to Redlands. It would be a shame to see nothing but wear housing on the opposite side.

My voice these days carries little weight in Redlands these days but I couldn’t let this matter come to the Commission without raising my concerns.

I ask that you give them consideration in your deliberations.

Best wishes to you always!
Paul W. Foster
Mayor (retired)
City of Redlands
Assistant Medical Group Administrator(retired)
Southern California Permanente Medical Group
Sent from my iPhone
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1151 of 2362
From: Planning Commission
To: Kevin Beery
Cc: Linda McCasland
Subject: FW: Form submission from: Planning Commission Comments Form Date: Monday, June 10, 2024 10:20:12
Attachments: ~WRD0000.jpg
From: City of Redlands <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2024 6:01 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Form submission from: Planning Commission Comments Form [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Redlands -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 06/07/2024 - 6:01pm City of Redlands »

PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Planning Commission Date:

June 11, 2024
Agenda Item Number:
5D
Speaker Name:

Kathleen Wing
Address (Optional):
1316 E Brockton Avenue, Redlands, CA 92374
Subject on which the person wishes to speak:

Against
Briefly describe what you would like to say (Max 250 Words):

I don't know why they would build another warehouse when the vacancy rate is increasing for existing warehouses. Also, why would we want a development that will produce mostly low wage jobs when there Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1152 of 2362
are few affordable places to live? Even if the ecomomics improve for warehouses the negative effects of that pollution and related traffic congestion will be bad for our quality of life in Redlands if this project is developed.

Email to receive a copy of your submission:
[email protected]
View results Download results
© 2024 City of Redlands. All rights reserved.

You are receiving this e-mail because you signed up at our website: City of Redlands. If you did not sign up, or you are receiving this message in error, please contact us so we can promptly resolve the problem.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1153 of 2362
From: Planning Commission
To: Kevin Beery
Cc: Linda McCasland
Subject: FW: Form submission from: Planning Commission Comments Form Date: Monday, June 10, 2024 10:20:28
Attachments: ~WRD0001.jpg
From: City of Redlands <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 8, 2024 8:24 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Form submission from: Planning Commission Comments Form [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Redlands -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 06/08/2024 - 8:23am City of Redlands »

PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Planning Commission Date:

June 11, 2024
Agenda Item Number:
5D
Speaker Name:

Marja Dowell
Address (Optional):

Subject on which the person wishes to speak:

Against
Briefly describe what you would like to say (Max 250 Words):

NO to more warehouses … the location on California Street is an absolute horrible location . The intersection there and the freeway on - and off ramp are already clogged up by too many trucks and adding this warehouse will add a dramatic increase in traffic . NO to this plan and Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1154 of 2362
NO to more trucks and traffic and polution !
Email to receive a copy of your submission:
[email protected]
View results Download results
© 2024 City of Redlands. All rights reserved.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1155 of 2362
From: Planning Commission
To: Kevin Beery
Cc: Linda McCasland
Subject: FW: Form submission from: Planning Commission Comments Form Date: Monday, June 10, 2024 10:20:49
Attachments: ~WRD0002.jpg
From: City of Redlands <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 8, 2024 10:19 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Form submission from: Planning Commission Comments Form [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Redlands -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 06/08/2024 - 10:18am City of Redlands »

PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Planning Commission Date:

June 8, 2024
Agenda Item Number:
5D
Speaker Name:

Lori Holland
Address (Optional):

Subject on which the person wishes to speak:

Against
Briefly describe what you would like to say (Max 250 Words):

The intersection of the proposed warehouse is extremely busy. Two days ago I was under the overpass and 6 massive trucks turned left onto California during one light! I thought there was a moratorium on warehouse. Really, at some point this needs to stop. With Kaiser just Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1156 of 2362
down the street, there is a lot of personal/family traffic that already has to share California with too many trucks.

Email to receive a copy of your submission:

[email protected]
View results Download results
© 2024 City of Redlands. All rights reserved.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1157 of 2362
From: Planning Commission
To: Kevin Beery
Cc: Linda McCasland
Subject: FW: Form submission from: Planning Commission Comments Form Date: Monday, June 10, 2024 10:21:12
Attachments: ~WRD0003.jpg
From: City of Redlands <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 8, 2024 11:16 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Form submission from: Planning Commission Comments Form [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Redlands -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 06/08/2024 - 11:16am City of Redlands »

PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Planning Commission Date:

June 11, 2024
Agenda Item Number:
5D
Speaker Name:

Kevin Beery
Address (Optional):

Subject on which the person wishes to speak:

Against
Briefly describe what you would like to say (Max 250 Words):

The air pollution and highway congestion from all of the trucks are negatively impacting the residents of Redlands. No more warehouses.

Email to receive a copy of your submission:
[email protected]
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1158 of 2362
View results Download results
© 2024 City of Redlands. All rights reserved.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1159 of 2362
From: Planning Commission
To: Kevin Beery
Cc: Linda McCasland
Subject: FW: Form submission from: Planning Commission Comments Form Date: Monday, June 10, 2024 10:22:43
Attachments: ~WRD0005.jpg
From: City of Redlands <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 9, 2024 3:06 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Form submission from: Planning Commission Comments Form [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Redlands -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 06/09/2024 - 3:05pm City of Redlands »

PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Planning Commission Date:

June 9, 2024
Agenda Item Number:
5d
Speaker Name:

Ulysses Mora
Address (Optional):

Subject on which the person wishes to speak:

Against
Briefly describe what you would like to say (Max 250 Words):

Please do not support the approval of yet another warehouse in Redlands. They Inland Empire region is suffocating in pollution caused by the constant building of warehouses. We have a regional housing crisis, our development plans should all be prioritizing housing and Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1160 of 2362
making the city more walkable. These warehouses do not bring good paying jobs and would only cause more harm than good to the community.

Email to receive a copy of your submission:
[email protected]
View results Download results
© 2024 City of Redlands. All rights reserved.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1161 of 2362
From: Planning Commission
To: Linda McCasland
Cc: Kevin Beery
Subject: FW: Form submission from: Planning Commission Comments Form Date: Monday, June 10, 2024 16:41:39
Attachments: ~WRD0502.jpg
From: City of Redlands <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 2:31 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Form submission from: Planning Commission Comments Form [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Redlands -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] 06/10/2024 - 2:30pm City of Redlands »

PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Planning Commission Date:

June 10, 2024
Agenda Item Number:

D
Speaker Name:

Robert Y
Address (Optional):

Subject on which the person wishes to speak:

Against
Briefly describe what you would like to say (Max 250 Words):

I would prefer examining options for green space or other use for this area. We have enough warehouses. We should take this opportunity to add character to our city outside of the downtown area.

Email to receive a copy of your submission:

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1162 of 2362
[email protected]
View results Download results
© 2024 City of Redlands. All rights reserved.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1163 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1164 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1165 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1166 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1167 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1168 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1169 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1170 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1171 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1172 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1173 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1174 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1175 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1176 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1177 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1178 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1179 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1180 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1181 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1182 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1183 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1184 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1185 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1186 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1187 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1188 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1189 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1190 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1191 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1192 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1193 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1194 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1195 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1196 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1197 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1198 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1199 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1200 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1201 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1202 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1203 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1204 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1205 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1206 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1207 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1208 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1209 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1210 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1211 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1212 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1213 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1214 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1215 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1216 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1217 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1218 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1219 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1220 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1221 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1222 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1223 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1224 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1225 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1226 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1227 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1228 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1229 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1230 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1231 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1232 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1233 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1234 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1235 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1236 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1237 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1238 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1239 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1240 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1241 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1242 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1243 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1244 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1245 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1246 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1247 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1248 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1249 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1250 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1251 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1252 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1253 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1254 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1255 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1256 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1257 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1258 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1259 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1260 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1261 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1262 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1263 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1264 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1265 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1266 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1267 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1268 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1269 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1270 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1271 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1272 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1273 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1274 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1275 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1276 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1277 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1278 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1279 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1280 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1281 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1282 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1283 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1284 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1285 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1286 of 2362
7177-006acp

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
June 11, 2024
Via Email and Hand Delivery
Karah Shaw, Chair
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Redlands
City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 35
Cajon Street, Redlands, CA 92373
Email:

[email protected]
Kevin Beery, Senior Planner
City of Redlands
Planning Division
P.O. Box 3005
Redlands, CA 92373-1505
Email: [email protected]
Brian Desatnik, Director
Development Services
Department
City of Redlands
35 Cajon Street, Suite 20
Redlands, CA 92373
Email:
[email protected];
[email protected]
Re: Agenda Item No. 5.D. 1101 California Street Warehouse (Lot Merger No. 8; Planned Development No. 7) (SCH No. 2024031107) Dear Planning Commissioners, Mr. Beery, Mr. Desatnik:

On behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”), we submit these comments on the Staff Report1 and Responses to Comments2 (collectively “Staff Report” or “Responses”) prepared by the City of Redlands (“City”) for the June 11, 2024 Planning Commission hearing for the 1101 California Street Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2024031107) (“Project”), proposed by CRP/NPP Redlands Industrial Owner, LLC (“Applicant”). Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared by the City pursuant to the 1 City of Redlands, Planning Commission, Agenda Item No. 5.D. (June 11, 2024) (hereinafter “Staff Report”).
2 City of Redlands, Planning Commission, Agenda Item No. 5.D. Attachment F-3: MND Comments and Responses to Comments (hereinafter “Responses to Comments”).

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1287 of 2362
June 11, 2024

Page 2 ends

7177-006acp
printed on recycled paper
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) 3, the proposed Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and the proposed Planned Development No. 7 and Lot Merger No. 8.

The Project proposes the construction of a 357,610 square-foot (“SF”) warehouse that will include 6,000 SF of Administration/Office Space.4 The Project Site is proposed to be located at 1101 California St, Redlands, California 92374 on the southwest corner of Lugonia Avenue and California Street and includes two Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 0292-033-11 and 0292-033-13, in the County of San Bernardino.5 The Project site is located in an area designated by the Redlands General Plan as Commercial/Industrial and within the Special Development district of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan.6 The Project site was previously developed with the Splash Kingdom recreational water park.7 CARE CA appreciates Staff’s consideration of public comments. In response to CARE CA’s comments on the MND, the Staff Report clarified that the City will add a permit condition prohibiting cold storage in accordance with RMC §

18.156.950.E.8 But, the Staff Report and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program do not contain a condition to prohibit the use of cold storage onsite in accordance with RMC § 18.156.950.E. Further, the Staff Report fails to resolve all of the issues raised in CARE CA’s comments, and the MND still does not comply with CEQA. The City must comply with CEQA and protect public health and safety in reviewing warehouse projects of this type.

The Planning Commission cannot make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) or issue the Project’s other approvals at this time because the MND fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA. Instead, the Commission should direct Staff to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that discloses, analyzes and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant impacts before the Project can be approved.

CARE CA reviewed the Staff Report and prepared these comments with the assistance of air quality and GHG expert James Clark, whose comments (“Clark Comments, June 11, 2024”) are attached hereto as Attachment A. CARE CA’s 3 Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq. 4 City of Redlands, Initial Study for 1101 California Street Warehouse (March 26, 2024), p. 1. (hereinafter “MND”).
5 MND, p. 1.
6 City of Redlands, East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (September 5, 2017). 7 MND, p. 2.
8 Staff Report, p. 1.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1288 of 2362
June 11, 2024

Page 3 ends

7177-006acp
printed on recycled paper
comments on noise and vibration were prepared with the assistance of acoustics, noise, and vibration expert Jack Meighan of Wilson Ihrig. Mr. Meighan’s Comments (“Meighan Comments, June 11, 2024”) are attached hereto as Attachment B.

The Staff Report fails to remedy the inadequacies of the MND. The MND still fails to accurately describe the Project, fails to accurately characterize the environmental setting, and fails to analyze all required air quality, health risk, GHG, land use, and noise issues. There is also substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have significant environmental and public health impacts that the MND fails to adequately mitigate, incorrectly concluding that impacts will be mitigated to less than significant levels. The City may not approve the Project until it prepares an EIR that adequately analyzes the Project’s potentially significant environmental and public health impacts and incorporates all feasible mitigation measures to avoid or lessen these impacts.

CARE CA provided the City with substantial evidence in our April 29, 2024 comments on the MND with the assistance of our expert consultants. CARE CA’s air quality, public health, and GHG emissions expert James Clark, Ph.D. provided substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will result in potentially significant health risk impacts associated with diesel exhaust and toxic air contaminants. These impacts are not reduced to levels of insignificance with the mitigation proposed in the MND and MMRP.

CARE CA’s noise and acoustical expert, Jack Meighan of Wilson Ihrig, provided substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project’s noise and vibration impacts are significant and unmitigated, and are more severe than analyzed in the MND. The MND relies on an inaccurate environmental setting with respect to noise. Further, Mr. Meighan calculated that the construction vibration impacts and operational noise impacts may result in a significant impact to nearby sensitive receptors.

The Project’s proposed land use approvals are also incomplete.The Staff Report provides that “the City will adopt appropriate conditions of approval on the project post-entitlement as part of the detailed site plan review.”9 If the City intends to adopt additional mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to nearby hospital users, these measures must be analyzed in an EIR which is 9 Responses to Comments, p. 236 of 261.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1289 of 2362
June 11, 2024

Page 4 ends

7177-006acp
printed on recycled paper
recirculated for public review and scrutiny before the Project is approved.10 The Municipal Code grants the Planning Commission authority to “affix to a Development Plan such conditions as it deems necessary and reasonable to protect the best interests of the surrounding property and neighborhood, the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan, the General Plan and the intent thereof.”11 Such conditions of approval must be attached to the Development Plan at the time of the approval of the Development Plan to allow for sufficient public review. Since the revised Development Plan’s conditions of approval have not yet been prepared, they have not been provided to the public or the Commission for consideration and should be circulated with an EIR. Without reviewing the Project’s proposed conditions of approval, the Planning Commission is unable to exercise its independent judgment to consider the adequacy of the conditions, and lacks substantial evidence to support a recommendation to the City Council for their approval.

CARE CA urges the Commission to remand the Project to Staff to prepare a legally adequate EIR which adequately analyzes and mitigates Project impacts. The Planning Commission has a duty to consider the Project’s CEQA document before recommending project approval,12 and any approval recommendations must be supported by substantial evidence.13 The record before the Commission lacks the requisite substantial evidence to support approval. The Project should not be rescheduled for a further public hearing until all of the issues raised in CARE CA’s comments, and in the comments of other members of the public, have been fully addressed. We reserve the right to supplement these comments at a later date, and at any later proceedings related to this Project.14

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 Redlands residents Michael Lopez, Scott Ortiz, Kevin Miller, Kevin Salas, the District Council of Ironworkers, Southern California Pipe Trades 10 Staff Report, p. 5 [“A Planned Development, when submitted in a single stage as a comprehensive site plan serves as both an approved site plan and a development permit, upon which conditions of approval (including expiration dates) may be imposed.” 11 City of Redlands, Resolution No. 5116, (1994), p. 3. 12 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15074(a). 13 Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University f California (1988) 47 Cal.3d at 376, 392, 407. 14 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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1290 of 2362
June 11, 2024

Page 5 ends

7177-006acp
printed on recycled paper
DC 16, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of Redlands and 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 Redlands and San Bernardino County and the surrounding communities. Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite.

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

II. THE STAFF REPORT FAILS TO REMEDY THE MND’S

INADEQUATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As detailed in CARE CA’s prior comments15, the MND fails to include an accurate and complete project description because it lacks any description of the emergency backup generator that will be required for the Project site. The April 17, 2024 comments of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) included in the Staff Report also explain that the Project’s use of new stationary and portable sources, including but not limited to emergency generators and fire water pumps require consultation and air permits from SCAQMD.16 SCAQMD also explained that the Project’s CEQA document must 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 15 Attachment C: Letter from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo to the City of Redlands, Kevin Beery, Senior Planner, Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration for 1101 California Street Warehouse (April 29, 2024).
16 Staff Report, pdf pp. 12-13.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1291 of 2362
June 11, 2024

Page 6 ends

7177-006acp
printed on recycled paper
permit conditions and emission limits for the Project’s air permits.17 The City failed to disclose this information in the MND, and the Staff Report does not resolve the omission.

As CARE CA’s expert Dr. Clark documented in his comments on the MND, a backup generator would operate during unscheduled events like Public Safety Power Shutoff (“PSPS”) events and extreme heat events (“EHEs”). Although such events are unscheduled, they occur frequently enough in California that they are reasonably foreseeable. For example, the total duration of PSPS events in California lasted between 141 hours to 154 hours in 2019. In 2021, two EHEs were declared which lasted 120 hours combined. These conditions are expected to increase in severity over time.18 The widespread use of back-up generators to adapt to PSPS and EHE events suggests that back-up generators are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project.

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,19 and thus can significantly impact public health through DPM emissions.20 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”).21 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 reasonably foreseeable air quality, greenhouse gas, energy, and health risk impacts. The Staff Report disregards this analysis without providing any substantial evidence to the contrary. The MND must be withdrawn and an EIR prepared to resolve this project description inconsistency and correct the affected impacts analyses to accurately disclose the Project’s potentially significant impacts. 17 Staff Report, pdf pp. 12-13.
18 See Attachment C. 19 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”).
20 See Attachment C. 21 Id.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1292 of 2362
June 11, 2024

Page 7 ends

7177-006acp
printed on recycled paper
III. THE STAFF REPORT FAILS TO REMEDY THE MND’S

INADEQUATE AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
The Responses to Comments in the Staff Report fails to rebut the substantial evidence presented in CARE CA’s comments which support a fair argument that the Project may result in significant air quality impacts. Namely, the Staff Report fails to remedy the Project’s significant impacts from building downwash effects on human health risk, fails to adequately address the significant diesel exhaust emissions from the Project’s backup generators, and fails to adequately analyze the Project’s cumulative impacts.

A. Building Downwash Impacts Are Significant and Must be Analyzed in an EIR
The Staff Report provides that the modeling of operational emissions, specifically idling trucks, was appropriately done with no building downwash analysis.22 But, absent an adequate downwash analysis in calculating operational emissions, the Project’s air quality and health risk impacts are significantly underestimated.

Dr. James Clark confirmed that, in order for the operational air quality and health risk analysis to be adequate, truck idling emissions would need to be estimated separately and included in the dispersion modeling analysis and HRA as point sources.23 However, the operational HRA modeling file indicates those emissions as line volume source types.24 Specifically, the Staff Report provides “idling emissions are effectively line volume sources and have been modeled as such consistent with applicable AERMOD protocols.”25 This is not consistent with SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD which requires that “Building downwash effects must be included and should be modeled using BPIP-PRIME (BPIPPRM).”26 The MND’s failure to model the building downwash violates SCAQMD requirements to include building downwash in the AERMOD modeling.

When a standard, accepted methodology is available to assess a significant impact, an EIR must evaluate the impact unless a reasoned basis for not doing so is 22 Responses to Comments, p. 258 of 261.
23 Clark Comments, June 11, 2024, p. 3. 24 Responses to Comments, p. 257 of 261. 25 Id. 26 South Coast Air Quality Management District, South Coast AQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD (December 9, 2006) https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/meteorological-data/modelingguidance#Building.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1293 of 2362
June 11, 2024

Page 8 ends

7177-006acp
printed on recycled paper
provided.27 In Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Comm’rs, a court reviewed a DEIR’s failure to analyze health risk from TAC exposure. The DEIR claimed that no methodology or standards of significance existed for assessing the health risk from TAC exposure.28 The court determined that the lead agency abused its discretion, reasoning that the lead agency failed to consider, in good faith, comments from the public showing that it was feasible to analyze health risk from TAC exposure:29
The Port has not cited us to any reasonably conscientious effort it took either to collect additional data or to make further inquiries of environmental or regulatory agencies having expertise in the matter.…At the very least, the documents submitted by the public raised substantial questions about the project's effects on the environment and the unknown health risks to the area’s residents...the Port has not offered any justification why more definitive information could not have been provided.

Here, the City failed to analyze a critical dispersion factor– building downwash – which exacerbates the rate and severity of exposure to TACs and would occur at the Project site, without any justification to support the omission.

The Staff Report fails to explain why the City failed to include this analysis, and instead obfuscates by incorrectly saying “idling emissions are effectively line volume sources and have been modeled as such consistent with applicable AERMOD protocols…. [T]he building downwash algorithms do not apply to volume or area sources. The MND air quality experts have therefore concluded that truck idling emissions sources resulting from the Project would not be materially affected by downwash from the Project warehouse buildings.”30 This statement is not supported by substantial evidence. In fact, Dr. Clark’s comments show that an AERMOD model can feasibly be run to account for building downwash for area sources.31
The City’s failure to include downwash as an emission factor in its health risk analysis represents a failure to accurately to analyze and disclose the ground level concentration of DPM emissions generated by the Project. The MND must be withdrawn and EIR circulated to adequately analyze and mitigate Project health risk impacts.
27 Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Comm’rs (2001) 91 CA4th 1344, 1370 28 Id. at 1369.
29 Id. at 1370.
30 Responses to Comments, p. 257 of 261.
31 Clark Comments, June 11, 2024, p. 3.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1294 of 2362
June 11, 2024

Page 9 ends

7177-006acp
printed on recycled paper
B. Backup Generators May Result in Significant Impacts and Must be Analyzed in an EIR
The Staff Report provides that “in other than emergency conditions, emergency generators or emergency fire water pumps operate only for short-term periodic testing, and emissions from such short-term operations would not contribute substantively to air pollutant emissions.”32 This analysis does not meet CEQA’s requirement that a lead agency must provide analysis that connects the air quality effects of the Project to human health consequences.33 “CEQA requires that an EIR make a reasonable effort to discuss relevant specifics regarding the connection between two segments of information already contained in the EIR, the general health effects associated with a particular pollutant and the estimated amount of that pollutant the project will likely produce.” 34 Further, “[t]his discussion will allow the public to make an informed decision, as CEQA requires.”35 Dr. Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence that absent analysis of the generators’ emissions, the MND’s air quality analysis is unsupported by substantial evidence.36 Dr. Clark provides that, diesel exhaust, in particular diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), is classified by the State of California as a TAC.37 TACs, including DPM, contribute to a host of respiratory impacts and may lead to the development of various cancers.38 Failing to quantify the carcinogenic and other health risk impacts places the community at risk for unwanted adverse health impacts.39 Even brief exposures to the TACs could lead to the development of adverse health impacts over the life of an individual.

Diesel exhaust has been linked to a range of serious health problems including an increase in respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death.40 Fine DPM is deposited deep in the lungs in the smallest airways and can result in increased respiratory symptoms and disease; decreased lung function, particularly in children and individuals with asthma; alterations in lung tissue and 32 Id. at 240 of 261.
33 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 519; Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v.

City of Bakersfield (2004) 134 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1220 (“After reading the EIRs, the public would have no idea of the health consequences that result when more pollutants are added to a nonattainment basin. On remand, the health impacts resulting from the adverse air quality impacts must be identified and analyzed in the new EIRs.”).
34 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 521. 35 Id. 36 Clark Comments, June 11, 2024, p. 5.
37 Id. 38 Id.
39 Id.
40 Id.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1295 of 2362
June 11, 2024

Page 10 ends

7177-006acp
printed on recycled paper
respiratory tract defense mechanisms; and premature death.41 Exposure to DPM increases the risk of lung cancer. It also causes non-cancer effects including chronic bronchitis, inflammation of lung tissue, thickening of the alveolar walls, immunological allergic reactions, and airway constriction.42 Dr. Clark concludes that, due to the inherent toxicity of TACs, the City must first quantify the concentration released into the environment at each of the sensitive receptor locations through air dispersion modeling, calculate the dose of each TAC at that location, and quantify the cancer risk and hazard index for each of the chemicals of concern.43 This analysis must be included in a legally adequate EIR to fully analyze the Project’s air quality impacts before the Project can be approved.

IV. THE STAFF REPORT FAILS TO REMEDY THE MND’S

INADEQUATE NOISE ANALYSIS
The Responses to Comments in the Staff Report fail to rebut the substantial evidence presented in CARE CA’s comments which support a fair argument that the Project may result in significant vibration and noise impacts.

A. Vibration Impacts Are Significant and Unmitigated
Mr. Meighan’s comments provide substantial evidence that vibration impacts from Project construction are significant, requiring preparation of an EIR.44 But, the Staff Report’s Responses to Comments provides that “In the first instance the threshold cited by the commenter is not applicable to construction activities. Per Municipal Code Section 8.06,120, G. ‘Construction Activity: This chapter shall not apply to noise sources associated with new construction . . .’”45 Redlands Municipal Code Section 8.06 provides that noise sources from new construction are exempt, but this does not apply to vibration.46 The Municipal Code does not exempt vibration sources. The Staff Report’s assertion that the City was only required to analyze excessive vibration is not supported. The Municipal Code defines Vibration as “Operating or permitting the operation of any device that creates a vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the 41 Clark Comments, June 11, 2024, p. 5. 42 Id.
43 Id. 44 Meighan Comments June 11, 2024, p. 1.
45 Municipal Code § 8.06.120(G).
46 Meighan Comments June 11, 2024, p. 1.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1296 of 2362
June 11, 2024

Page 11 ends

7177-006acp
printed on recycled paper
property boundary of the source if on private property or at one hundred fifty feet (150') from the source if on a public space or public right of way.”47 Mr. Meighan modeled construction vibration and found that 0.016 in/sec PPV will exceed the threshold of 0.01 in/sec limit.48 Vibration impacts from construction of the Project are therefore significant due to its exceedance of the Vibration Perception Threshold as laid out in the Municipal Code.49 Substantial evidence supports a fair argument that vibration impacts remain significant, therefore, the City must circulate a legally adequate EIR for Project approval.

B. Operational Noise Impacts Are Significant and Unmitigated The Staff Report’s Response to Comments provides that “Any noise generated by the Project would be imperceptible against the background freeway noise.”50 This statement is misleading and disregards the requirement of CEQA to fully analyze and mitigate Project’s environmental impacts. The Staff Report and the MND fail to quantify the Project’s potentially significant operational noise impacts. Without adequate modeling, the City cannot conclude that the noise generated by the Project would be imperceptible against the background freeway noise.51 The Staff Report and the MND fail to adequately quantify the Project’s noise impacts, resulting in an unsupported analysis of noise impacts in the MND.

Substantial evidence in CARE CA’s Comments and expert consultant reports demonstrated potentially significant noise impacts requiring preparation of an EIR before the Project can be approved.

V. THE STAFF REPORT FAILS TO REMEDY THE MND’S

INADEQUATE CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The Responses to Comments in the Staff Report fails to rebut the substantial evidence presented in CARE CA’s comments which support a fair argument that the Project may result in significant cumulative air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts. The Staff Report concludes, absent substantial evidence that 47 Municipal Code § 8.06.090(G).
48 Id. at 8.06.020 [VIBRATION PERCEPTION THRESHOLD: The minimum ground or structure borne vibrational motion necessary to cause a normal person to be aware of the vibration by such direct means as, but not limited to, sensation by touch or visual observation of moving objects. The perception threshold shall be presumed to be a motion velocity of 0.01 inches per second over the range of one to one hundred (100) Hz.]
49 Id.; Meighan Comments, June 10, 2024, p. 1.
50 Responses to Comments, p. 258 of 261.
51 Id.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1297 of 2362
June 11, 2024

Page 12 ends

7177-006acp
printed on recycled paper
“the Project would not result in cumulatively significant air quality, health risk, or greenhouse gas emissions impacts.”52 The Staff Report concludes that the Project will not lead to substantial cumulative impacts, but fails to perform any quantitative analysis of the current and future planned projects, as required by CEQA.53
As demonstrated in CARE CA’s MND comments and in James Clark’s expert consultant report, there are 81 existing warehouse projects with another 3 projects approved within 2 miles of the Project Sites.54 The 81 existing projects represent 27,000,0000 square feet of floor space and account for 18,000 daily truck trips.55 They release 24.9 pounds of diesel particulate matter56 and 2,804 pounds of oxides of nitrogen (NOx – a precursor to smog formation) daily. The three additional projects will add another 600,000 square feet of warehouse space to the area. The proposed Project will contribute additional air pollutants during construction and operation.57 The cumulative impact of the Project is therefore significant and requires analysis and mitigation in a legally adequate EIR before the Project can lawfully be approved.

VI. THE CITY LACKS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO APPROVE THE
PROJECT’S LAND USE PERMITS
The Staff Report disregards CARE CA’s substantial evidence that the Project results in significant environmental impacts requiring preparation of an EIR, without providing substantial evidence to the contrary. As detailed in CARE CA’s prior comments, the Project requires a number of discretionary entitlements and related approvals under local City plans and codes, including a Planned Development Permit and a Lot Line Adjustment.

Planned Development permit applications are processed in accordance with Chapter 4 of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan.58 An application for a Planned Development, when submitted in a single stage as a comprehensive, detailed site plan, shall be" quasi- legislative" in nature and subject to review and 52 Responses to Comments, p. 261 of 261.
53 Id. at 260.
54 See Attachment C.
55 Clark Comments, June 11, 2024, p. 3.
56 Warehouse Cumulative Impact Tool for Community (CITY). 2024. https://radicalresearch.shinyapps.io/WarehouseCITY/ accessed 4/25/2024. 57 Clark Comments, June 11, 2024, p. 3.
58 Resolution No. 5116 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Redlands Establishing Regulations for the Processing of Planned Development Applications Pursuant to the City’s East Valley Corridor Specific Plan.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1298 of 2362
June 11, 2024

Page 13 ends

7177-006acp
printed on recycled paper
recommendation by the City' s Planning Commission with final review and approval by the City Council.59 An application for a Planned Development shall be considered by the Planning Commission at a noticed, public hearing.60 In considering a request for a Planned Development, the Planning Commission shall satisfy itself that the following conditions prevail before recommending to the City Council that the Planned Development application be approved:

A. That the proposed Planned Development is in conformity with General Plan of the City;
B. That the proposed Planned Development would not adversely affect the surrounding area or the Redlands community in general.61 As demonstrated in CARE CA’s comments and expert consultant reports, the Project results in significant air quality, public health, greenhouse gas, and noise impacts which “would adversely affect the surrounding area [and] the Redlands community in general.”62
Moreover, the Project fails to conform with the General Plan for the following reasons:

1. The Project’s unmitigated significant air quality and health risk impacts violate the General Plan’s Air Quality Principles and Actions 7-P.44:

Protect air quality within the city and support efforts for enhanced regional air quality.

2. The Project would increase the community’s GHG emissions in violation of Green Building and Landscape Principles and Actions 8-P.8: Promote sustainability by reducing the community’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fostering green development patterns–including buildings, sites, and landscapes.

3. The Project fails to conform with Public Health Action 7-A.44: Support the use of clean fuel and “climate friendly” vehicles in order to reduce energy use, energy costs, and greenhouse gas emissions by residents, businesses, and City government activities.

Substantial evidence in CARE CA’s comments presented a fair argument that the Project results in significant air quality, health risk, greenhouse gas, and noise impacts which would adversely affect the surrounding area [and] the 59 Resolution No. 5116.
60 Id.
61 Id.
62 Id.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1299 of 2362
June 11, 2024

Page 14 ends

7177-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Redlands community in general and violate the General Plan. The Planning Commission therefore cannot make the necessary findings to support a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Project. The City must prepare an EIR to analyze the Project’s inconsistencies with the General Plan and analyze and mitigate the Project’s adverse environmental impacts before the Planning Commission can recommend approval by the City Council.

VII. CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission lacks substantial evidence to support a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Project because the City has not complied with CEQA and the Project has significant, unmitigated impacts which prevent the Commission from making the necessary findings to issue the proposed land use entitlements. As described in detail above, in CARE CA’s prior comments and in expert consultant reports, substantial evidence supports of a fair argument that the Project poses a significant and unmitigated risk to the public due to unmitigated construction and operational air quality, health risk, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, land use and cumulative impacts such that an EIR must be prepared before the Project can be approved.

The Commission should withdraw the MND and direct staff to prepare an EIR before rescheduling the Project for a further hearing.

Sincerely,
Kelilah D. Federman

Attachments
:kdf
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1300 of 2362

ATTACHMENT A
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1301 of 2362
1 | Page
June 9, 2024
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Ms. Kelilah D. Federman
Subject: Response To City Staff Report And Urban Crossroads Response To ABJ&C Comments Dated June 4, 2024,
Lilburn Corporation Responses To Letters Received
During Public Review Period For 1101 California Street
Warehouse Dated June 4, 2024
Dear Ms. Federman:

At the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ABJC), Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed materials related to the above referenced project.

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

Master Response:

The responses from the Proponent’s experts seek to minimize the discussion of serious potential health impacts from the Project without a consideration of alternative points of view. Far from being a “difference of opinion” among experts regarding the how to undertake the analyses, the comments from and authoritative agency (the SCAQMD) and multiple experts identified significant issues in the completeness of the analysis of the Proposed Project’s emissions and health outcomes. Without further analysis in the form of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project it is evident that 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]
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1302 of 2362

impacts from the Project will extend well into the community, creating an additional health burden that is not mitigated. Since the Project does not explicitly prohibit the use of the facility for cold storage or the storage of hazardous materials, does not incorporate a full analysis of the stationary sources of emissions, and fails to completely evaluate the health risks from the exposure to toxic air contaminants released from the Project it is clear the IS/MND does not fully address all of the foreseeable areas of concern with the Project
Specific Comments:

1. Response To Comment 11-21 (Lilburn/Urban Crossroad) The Staff Report Incorrectly Concludes that the AERMOD Analysis Does Not Need To Include A Downwash Analysis Since The Idling Vehicles Were Modeled As A Line Of Volume Sources.

Lilburn and Crossroads claim that the modeling of operational emissions, specifically idling trucks, was appropriately done with no building downwash based on the type of source evaluated and that the modeling experts had determined that the emissions would not have been materially affected by downwash. This analysis is performed without any quantitative analysis and does not comport with requirements from the SCAQMD. In a recent review of Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Proposed West Campus Upper Plateau Project (Proposed Project) (SCH Number:
2021110304), SCAQMD1 specifically calls out the need for inclusion of downwash analysis for this Project which included a business park, industrial, mixed-use, public facility, parks, recreation and open space, and infrastructure improvements, totaling 369.60 acres. Of the warehouse components, the Project included:
• 1,250,000 square feet of high-cube fulfillment center warehouse use in Building B • 587,000 square feet of high-cube fulfillment center warehouse use in Building C • 725,561 square feet of high-cube fulfillment center warehouse use in the Industrial Area; and
• 500,000 square feet of high-cube cold storage warehouse use in the Industrial Area 1 SCAQMD. 2023. Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Proposed West Campus Upper Plateau Project (Proposed Project) (SCH Number: 2021110304) Dated March 9, 2023, p. 2.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1303 of 2362

SCAQMD staff reviewing the project outlined that building downwash should be considered for the Proposed Project operation in order to predict more accurate ground-level concentrations. In addition, the truck idling emissions would need to be estimated separately and included in the dispersion modeling analysis and HRA as point sources. However, the operational HRA modeling file indicates those emissions as line volume source types. It is evident from the analysis performed by SCAQMD in similar projects that the omission of the building downwash effect underestimates the exposure point concentrations for receptors near the building(s). This error should be addressed in an EIR for the Project.

2. Response To Comment 11-26: The Staff Report Incorrectly Concludes that the Project Will Not Lead To Substantial Cumulative Impacts.

The City concludes that the Project will not lead to substantial cumulative impacts without performing any quantitative analysis of the current and future planned projects. As was noted in my comment letter there are 81 existing warehouse projects with another 3 projects approved within 3 kilometers of the Project Sites. The 81 existing projects represent 27,000,0000 square feet of floor space and account for 18,000 daily truck trips. They release 24.9 pounds of diesel particulate matter2 and 2,804 pounds of oxides of nitrogen (NOx – a precursor to smog formation) daily. The three additional projects will add another 600,000 square feet of warehouse space to the area. The proposed Project will contribute additional air pollutants during construction and operation. 2 Warehouse Cumulative Impact Tool for Community (CITY). 2024. https://radicalresearch.shinyapps.io/WarehouseCITY/ accessed 4/25/2024.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1304 of 2362

Figure 1: Existing And Planned Warehouse Projects Within 3 km Of Project Site

It is clear from the analysis above that the Project will add to the already heavily impacted regional problem of NOx and toxic air contaminants (TACs). The Project should be evaluated in an EIR to assure the public that the cumulative air quality and health impacts from the Project have been fully evaluated and mitigated.

3. Response To Comment 11-12: The Staff Report Incorrectly Concludes that the Backup Generators Will Not Emit Significant Concentrations Of DPM.

According to the analysis from Urban Crossroads for the City, “in other than emergency conditions, backup generators typically operate only for short-term periodic testing. Emissions from such short-term operations would not contribute substantively to air pollutant emissions.” This approach is clearly qualitative and does not meet the requirements under CEQA to analysis the health risk from all foreseeable stationary sources. Diesel exhaust, in particular DPM, is classified by the Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1305 of 2362

State of California as a TAC. TACs, including DPM3, contribute to a host of respiratory impacts and may lead to the development of various cancers. Failing to quantify the carcinogenic and other health risk impacts places the community at risk for unwanted adverse health impacts. Even brief exposures to the TACs could lead to the development of adverse health impacts over the life of an individual.

Diesel exhaust has been linked to a range of serious health problems including an increase in respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death.4,5,6 Fine DPM is deposited deep in the lungs in the smallest airways and can result in increased respiratory symptoms and disease; decreased lung function, particularly in children and individuals with asthma; alterations in lung tissue and respiratory tract defense mechanisms; and premature death.7 Exposure to DPM increases the risk of lung cancer. It also causes non-cancer effects including chronic bronchitis, inflammation of lung tissue, thickening of the alveolar walls, immunological allergic reactions, and airway constriction.8 DPM is a TAC that is recognized by state and federal agencies as causing severe health risk because it contains toxic materials, unlike PM2.5 and PM10.
9 The inherent toxicity of TACs requires the City to first quantify the concentration released into the environment at each of the sensitive receptor locations through air dispersion modeling, calculate the dose of each TAC at that location, and quantify the cancer risk and hazard index for each of the chemicals of concern. Following that analysis, then the City can make a determination of the relative 3 Because DPM is a TAC, it is a different air pollutant than criteria particulate matter (PM) emissions such as PM10, PM2.5, and fugitive dust. DPM exposure causes acute health effects that are different from the effects of exposure to PM alone.
4 California Air Resources Board, Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant, Staff Report, June 1998; see also California Air Resources Board, Overview:

Diesel Exhaust & Health, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-andhealth#:~:text=Diesel%20Particulate%20Matter%20and%20Health&text=In%201998%2C%20CARB%20identified%2 0DPM,and%20other%20adverse%20health%20effects.
5 U.S. EPA, Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust, Report EPA/600/8-90/057F, May 2002. 6 Environmental Defense Fund, Cleaner Diesel Handbook, Bring Cleaner Fuel and Diesel Retrofits into Your Neighborhood, April 2005; http://www.edf.org/documents/4941_cleanerdieselhandbook.pdf, accessed July 5, 2020. 7 California Air Resources Board, Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant, Staff Report, June 1998. 8 Findings of the Scientific Review Panel on The Report on Diesel Exhaust as adopted at the Panel’s April 22, 1998 Meeting.
9 Health & Safety Code § 39655(a) (defining “toxic air contaminant” as air pollutants “which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to subsection (b) of Section 112 of the federal act (42 U.S.C.

Sec. 7412 (b)) is a toxic air contaminant.”)
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1306 of 2362

significance of the emissions. The AQ analysis and resulting HRA are therefore incomplete and must be corrected in an environmental impact (EIR) report for the Project.

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. An EIR should be prepared to address these substantial concerns.

Sincerely,
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1307 of 2362

ATTACHMENT B
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1308 of 2362
WI #24-001.29
June 11th, 2024
Ms. Kelilah D. Federman
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, California 94080
SUBJECT: 1101 California Project
Redlands, California
Response to Comments on Noise Analysis
Dear Ms. Federman,
Below you will find responses to comments on the 1101 California Project in Redlands, CA based on the document entitled “5294_MND_Response_to_Comments_1101_California.pdf” There are two pairs of responses, from both Urban Crossroads and Lilburn. Unless otherwise noted, these responses cover both sets of responses, since the content is nearly identical.

Response to Comment 11-24
The response states that “In the first instance the threshold cited by the commenter is not applicable to construction activities. Per Municipal Code Section 8.06,120, G. ‘Construction Activity: This chapter shall not apply to noise sources associated with new construction . . .’” However, this states that Redlands Municipal Code Section 8.06 is exempt from noise sources. It says nothing regarding vibration. The authors of the city code clearly considered vibration sources, since Section 8.06.090(G) is entitled ‘vibration’. There is no reason to believe that vibration impacts are exempted by

8.06.120(G). The modeled 0.016 in/sec PPV is greater than the 0.01 in/sec Vibration Perception Threshold set by Section 8.06.020. Thus, the Project construction will result in a significant vibration impact due to its exceedance of the vibration thresholds set by the City of Redlands Municipal Code.

Response to Comment 11-16 and 11-23
Several points are made, which are discussed in bullet points below • Comment 11-16 states that, “Construction-source noise impacts are considered less-thansignificant based on compliance with date/time constraints outlined in the City’s Noise Control Ordinance” this does not address the issue, which is that no daytime construction noise thresholds were chosen to analyze the project. If the city and county do not have appliable codes, it is up to the CEQA document to choose thresholds based on other relevant documents and jurisdiction and apply these thresholds to the project. This was not done, as a result it is unknown if the project would create a substantial temporary or periodic increase Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1309 of 2362

WILSON IHRIG
1101 California Project
Response to Comments

Page 2 ends

in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. This should be studied in a situation where modeled levels are compared to applicable limits so the public can make an informed decision regarding the potential impacts and changes to the environment caused by this project. Comment 11-23 states that “Any noise generated by the Project would be imperceptible against the background freeway noise.” But without adequate modeling, this statement is unsupported. The MND failed to adequately quantify the Project’s construction noise impacts, therefore the MND’s noise analysis is unsupported. • Comment 11-16 also states that the “current noise environment at the Project site is dominated by vehicular-source noise emanating from the adjacent I-10 freeway” and that the project site “lies within the 70 CNEL noise contour.” The response then provides a sample calculation before coming to the conclusion that “noise generated by the Project operations as received at any land use greater than 50 feet from the Project boundary would not exceed 66 dBA and would be imperceptible in the context of the 70 CNEL noise contour.” The 70 CNEL noise contour is not uniform, changing in exact level due to variance such as shielding from buildings blocking traffic noise, the influence of local traffic, and airplane noise, among other factors. Shielding from traffic noise is particularly relevant to this site.

The warehouse to the west of the project is 900 feet long, meaning that the eastern façade of the building would have almost no exposure to traffic on I-10 west of the project. Therefore, the noise level is almost certainly lower than the CNEL contour, since it has roughly half the traffic noise exposure. However, this level cannot be known without noise measurements to accurately describe the current environment. This is why baseline noise measurements are typically required for a proper noise analysis, as both the Federal Transit Administration’s Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual1, and the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol2 recommend noise measurements to accurately describe the current environment.

In this case, if the shielding halved the noise exposure, the CNEL would be 67 dBA3. If noise was indeed 66 dBA from the project, the new noise level would indeed be heard on site at

69.5 dBA, a roughly 2 to 3 dB increase and thus a potential impact.

Very truly yours,

WILSON IHRIG
Jack Meighan
Associate
mieghan comments - 1101 california mnd staff report june 11 2024.docx 1 https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf 2 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/traffic-noise-protocolapril-2020-a11y.pdf 3 https://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/dB.htm Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1310 of 2362

ATTACHMENT C
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1311 of 2362
7177-004acp

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 29, 2024
Via Email and Overnight Mail
Kevin Beery, Senior Planner
City of Redlands
Planning Division
P.O. Box 3005
Redlands, CA 92373-1505
Email: [email protected]
Brian Desatnik, Director
Development Services Department
City of Redlands
35 Cajon Street, Suite 20
Redlands, CA 92373
Email: [email protected];
[email protected]
Re: Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration for 1101 California Street Warehouse (Lot Merger No. 8; Planned Development No. 7) (SCH No. 2024031107)
Dear Mr. Beery, Mr. Desatnik:

On behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”), we submit these comments on the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared by the City of Redlands (“City”) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) 1, for the 1101 California Street Warehouse Project (SCH No. 2024031107) (“Project”), proposed by CRP/NPP Redlands Industrial Owner, LLC (“Applicant”).

The Project proposes the construction of a 357,610 square-foot (“SF”) warehouse that will include 6,000 SF of Administration/Office Space.2 The Project Site is located at 1101 California St, Redlands, California 92374 on the southwest corner of Lugonia Avenue and California Street and includes two Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 0292-033-11 and 0292-033-13, in the County of San Bernardino.3 The Project site is located in an area designated by the Redlands General Plan as Commercial/Industrial and within the Special Development (“EV/SD”) district of the 1 Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq. 2 City of Redlands, Initial Study for 1101 California Street Warehouse (March 26, 2024), p. 1. [hereinafter “MND”). 3 MND, p. 1.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1312 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 2 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
East Valley Corridor Specific Plan.4 The Project site was previously developed with the Splash Kingdom recreational water park.5 The water park was vacated in 2018, and partially demolished in 2021, with various structures remaining onsite. The Air Quality Impact Analysis utilized the past emissions values as the existing condition baseline for the Proposed Project’s new development emissions.6 The property is located immediately adjacent to the 10-Freeway, and the property design contemplates dedicating a portion of the southeast corner of the property to improve the right turn access onto the westbound 10-Freeway onramp. The Project requires a Planned Development permit, a Lot Line Adjustment Merger, a SocioEconomic Cost/Benefit Study, a Construction General Permit Order 2009-2009- DWQ), and a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”).

CARE CA reviewed the MND, its technical appendices, and reference documents with the assistance of air quality and GHG expert James Clark, whose comments (“Clark Comments”) and curriculum vitae (“CV”) are attached hereto as Exhibit A. CARE CA’s comments on noise and vibration were prepared with the assistance of acoustics, noise, and vibration expert Jack Meighan of Wilson Ihrig.

Mr. Meighan’s Comments (“Meighan Comments”) and Mr. Meighan’s CV are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Based on CARE CA’s review of the MND and available documents in conjunction with its experts, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant and adverse impacts to air quality, public health, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and cumulative impacts which are not fully disclosed or mitigated by the MND and require additional mitigation. To correct these deficiencies, the City must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that fully discloses, analyzes and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant impacts and considers alternatives to the Project.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1313 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 3 ends

7177-004acp
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 Redlands and San Bernardino County and the 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.

II. LEGAL BACKGROUND
Except in limited circumstances, CEQA requires that lead agencies analyze any project with potentially significant environmental impacts in an EIR.7 The purpose of an EIR “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 is to alert the public and its responsible official to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.”9
A negative declaration may be prepared instead of an EIR when, after preparing an initial study, a lead agency determines that a project “would not have a significant effect on the environment.”10 Courts have held that if “no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record 7 Pub. Resources Code, § 21000; CEQA Guidelines, § 15002. 8 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 (internal citations omitted). 9 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810. 10 Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597; Pub. Resources Code, § 21080(c).

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1314 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 4 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.”11 The presumption in favor of preparing an EIR, rather than a negative declaration, is reflected in the “fair argument” standard. Under that standard, the lead agency “shall” prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.12 The fair argument standard creates a “low threshold” of favoring environmental review through an EIR, rather than through a negative declaration.
“Substantial evidence” required to support a fair argument is defined as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.”13 “[I]n marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR.”14
With respect to this Project, the MND fails to satisfy the basic purposes of CEQA. The MND fails to adequately investigate, disclose, and analyze the Project’s potentially significant impacts, and fails to provide substantial evidence to conclude that impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level. Because the MND lacks basic information regarding the Project’s potentially significant impacts, the MND’s conclusion that the Project will have a less than significant impact on the environment is unsupported.15 The City failed to gather the relevant data to support its finding of no significant impacts, and substantial evidence shows that the Project may result in potentially significant impacts. As detailed herein and in the attached expert comments substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may result in significant and unmitigated impacts to air quality, public 11 Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320. 12 Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21080(d), 21082.2(d); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002(k)(3), 15064(f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 1501-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.Appl.4th 1597, 1601-1602.
13 CEQA Guidelines, § 15384(a). 14 CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(g). 15 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.5.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1315 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 5 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
health, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and vibration, and cumulative impacts.

The City must prepare an EIR that analyzes, discloses, and mitigates these impacts and which considers less environmentally damaging alternatives.

III. THE MND FAILS TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE PROJECT

DESCRIPTION
CEQA requires that an Initial Study include a description of the project and an identification of the environmental setting.16 “An accurate and complete project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the agency’s action.”17 Accordingly, a lead agency may not hide behind its failure to obtain a complete and accurate project description.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
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.”20 “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.”21 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.”22 Accordingly, a lead agency may not hide behind its failure to obtain a complete and accurate project description.23
16 CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (d).
17 County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192-193. 18 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311 (“Sundstrom”). 19 See, e.g., Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376. 20 CEQA Guidelines § 15378. 21 Id., § 15378(c). 22 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. 23 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (“Sundstrom”) (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1316 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 6 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
A. The MND Fails to Identify Reasonably Foreseeable Uses of the Project Site
CEQA is concerned with a project’s environmental impacts, regardless of who ultimately uses or operates a project.24 Courts have held that where the tenant or type of business is foreseeable and there is evidence that an impact unique to that tenant or type of business will result, the CEQA document must disclose that information.25 An EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of a proposed future use or action at a project site if: (1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects.26 A failure to describe anticipated project operations can result in a flawed impact analysis, in violation of CEQA.27 An EIR is required to “adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope of the project for intelligent weighing of the environmental consequences of the project,” otherwise, informed decisionmaking is precluded and the EIR may be deemed inadequate as a matter of law.28
Here, the Project is being developed for unknown future tenants, but for reasonably foreseeable future uses. The Development Application submitted for the Project provides that the Project is proposed to be built on a speculative basis without an identified tenant/user and may be utilized for warehousing and distribution of finished goods or manufacturing.29 The MND likewise does not identify a tenant or end user for the Project’s warehouse development. However, based on the Project’s location and proposed construction, it is reasonably foreseeable that the Project may involve high-intensity warehouse uses such as high cube warehousing and cold storage. Absent conditions of approval limiting Project operation to low-intensity warehouse uses, future tenants would be able to operate these higher intensity uses. The impacts of high-intensity warehouse uses must therefore be analyzed in the CEQA document.

24 Maintain Our Desert Env’t v. Town of Apple Valley (2004) 124 CA4th 430. 25 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 CA4th 1184, 1213. 26 Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 396.
27 See San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722.
28 Id; City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1454-1455. 29 Development Application Packet, City of Redlands Environmental Information Form, p. 3 (August 2, 2023), https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fh2imae0hquusd702wpr8/DevelopmentApplication.pdf?rlkey=wcfpbt607suxac2jjea7dha2u&st=rkyjh5gj&dl=0.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1317 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 7 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
B. The MND Fails to Substantiate the Assumption that Project Operation Will Not Involve Cold Storage Uses
The MND analyses assume that the Project would not result in impacts associated with cold storage uses. This assumption lacks the support of substantial evidence, as the MND does not identify a tenant or end user for the warehouse.

Further, this assumption is not reflected in any enforceable conditions related to Project use. In order for the City to correctly assume that the Project would not include cold storage, which is a common warehouse use,30 the MND would need to include binding measures or conditions which limit warehouse use at the Project to prohibit cold storage. Absent such a restriction, it is reasonable to assume that future Project warehouse tenants may use the site for cold storage. The MND does not include a restriction on cold storage use, yet fails to analyze the elevated air quality, public health, and energy impacts of cold storage use at the Project site. As a result, the MND may substantially underestimate these impacts.

A cold storage warehouse generates greater environmental impacts than other types of warehouses. 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.31 The refrigeration systems are used to control the environment of temperature-sensitive products transported in insulated 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 30 See e.g. https://www.inboundlogistics.com/articles/cold-storage-warehouse/ (cold storage warehouses are “commonly used for storing fresh produce, dairy products, and other perishable items that require a cool but not frozen environment… The importance and popularity of cold storage warehouses have soared in recent years, driven by shifting consumer preferences, growing populations, and increased spending–especially when it comes to frozen food, probiotics, pharmaceuticals, or fresh produce.”)
31 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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1318 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 8 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
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.32
CARB also explains that TRUs’ emissions of GHGs contribute towards climate change,33 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.”34

By assuming the Project will not include cold storage, the MND may drastically underestimate the Project’s impacts in each of these areas. The MND does not provide supporting evidence demonstrating that cold storage uses would be absent from the Project site for the duration of the Project’s life. Due to everincreasing population and market demands in Southern California, it is reasonably foreseeable that the Project may attract end users, either now or in future years of the Project’s life, which require cold storage. As a result, the MND’s assumption is not supported by substantial evidence. Rather, it is reasonably foreseeable that some of the 357,610 SF Project site may support cold storage end uses in the future.

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.35 The City should include such a title restriction for the Project unless the MND is revised to analyze and mitigate impacts associated with a more conservative and fact-based cold-storage use percentage. 32 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 10. 33 Id., pg. 10.
34 Id., pg. 17-18.
35 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.”).

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1319 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 9 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
C. The Project Description Fails to Include Reasonably Foreseeable Backup Generators
The MND fails to disclose potential backup/emergency stationary generators for the Project’s operations. The MND’s project description does not address whether backup generators are a reasonably foreseeable component of the Project, and the MND’s technical analyses assume no backup generators will be installed for operations. The MND does not disclose any conditions or mitigation measures that limit or prevent use of backup generators. The MND must disclose and analyze the potential use of backup generators because (1) they are a reasonably foreseeable use and consequence of the Project, and (2) the use of backup generators will expand the Project’s environmental effects.

In East Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland,36 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.”37 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 predictable, sustained power outages undertaken to reduce the risk of fire.”38 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.”39
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.40 From January 2019 through December 2019, Southern California Edison reported 158 of their circuits underwent a PSP event.41 In Los Angeles County, two circuits had 4 PSPS events during that period, 36 (2023) 889 Cal. App. 5th 1226. 37 Id. at 1252. 38 Id. at 1253. 39 Id.
40 Governor of California. 2021. Proclamation of a state of emergency. June 17, 2021. 41 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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1320 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 10 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
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 report42 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.43 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 the possibility that the Project may include cold storage. A cold storage warehouse has the ability to keep temperature sensitive items in a temperature-controlled environment, which requires a constant energy supply to power refrigeration. Cold storage warehouses thus commonly utilize backup generators.44 Backup generators commonly rely on fuels such as natural gas or diesel,45 and thus can significantly impact air quality, GHG emissions, and public health through toxic DPM emissions.46 Since the Project may include cold storage, it is reasonably foreseeable that the Project would require on-site backup generators. 42 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..
43 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. 44 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).
45 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”).
46 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 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1321 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 11 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
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,47 and thus can significantly impact public health through DPM emissions.48 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”).49 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)”). 47 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”).
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 (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)”). 49 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 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1322 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 12 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
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 reasonably foreseeable air quality, greenhouse gas, energy, and health risk impacts. The MND must be withdrawn and an EIR prepared to resolve this project description inconsistency and correct the affected impacts analyses to accurately disclose the Project’s potentially significant impacts.

D. The Project Description Fails to Include Reasonably Foreseeable Use and Transport of Hazardous Materials
The MND also contains conflicting descriptions of future uses, further demonstrating the inconsistencies in the City’s impact assumptions. The MND initially states that “future items to be stored for distribution would include nonhazardous, non-flammable products on high-pile storage pallet racking and shelving.”50 However, the MND does not include mitigation measures or conditions prohibiting storage of hazardous items. The MND later states that the Project will include “[t]he storage of hazardous materials… kept in compliance with State and local regulations.”51 The transport and storage of hazardous materials may result in potentially significant impacts which are not discussed or analyzed in the MND due to its fluctuating description of Project operations.

Since the Project is being designed to be capable of supporting intensive warehouse distribution, and potentially cold storage and hazardous materials transport uses at the Project site, the City must prepare an EIR to include specific use information and to analyze the impacts of the most intensive reasonably foreseeable uses of the Project site. The EIR must also include all known information about the types of future users at the Project site. The MND must be withdrawn and an EIR circulated which adequately describes the Project’s reasonably foreseeable future users before the Project can lawfully be approved.

IV. THE MND FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE THE PROJECT’S

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
CEQA requires that an Initial Study include a description of the project and emissions compared to natural gas fired equipment.”), available at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/emergency-generators#Fact2. 50 MND, p. 2. 51 MND, p. 35.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1323 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 13 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
an identification of the environmental setting.52 CEQA requires that a lead agency include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Project as they exist at the time environmental review commences.53 As numerous courts have held, the impacts of a project must be measured against the “real conditions on the ground.”54 The description of the environmental setting constitutes the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency may assess the significance of a project’s impacts.55 Use of the proper baseline is critical to a meaningful assessment of a project’s environmental impacts.56 An agency’s failure to adequately describe the existing setting contravenes the fundamental purpose of the environmental review process, which is to determine whether there is a potentially substantial, adverse change compared to the existing setting.

The CEQA Guidelines call for the environmental baseline to reflect conditions as they exist early in the CEQA process. The CEQA Guidelines specify that the physical environmental conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published or, if there is no notice of preparation, at the time environmental review begins “will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.”57 The CEQA Guidelines also provide that in assessing a project’s impacts on the environment, the lead agency should “normally limit its examination to the existing physical conditions in the affected area” at the same stage of the CEQA process.58 Baseline information on which a lead agency relies must be supported by substantial evidence.59 The CEQA Guidelines define “substantial evidence” as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion.”60 “Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion 52 CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (d).
53 CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (a).
54 Save Our Peninsula Com. v. Monterey Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 121-22; City of Carmel-by-the Sea v. Bd. of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 246. 55 CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (a).
56 Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Ca.4th 310, 320.
57 14 Cal Code Regs §15125(a). 58 14 Cal Code Regs §15126.2. 59 CBE v. SCAQMD, supra, 48 Ca.4th at 321 (stating “an agency enjoys the discretion to decide […] exactly how the existing physical conditions without the project can most realistically be measured, subject to review, as with all CEQA factual determinations, for support by substantial evidence”); see Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.
60 CEQA Guidelines §15384.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1324 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 14 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
supported by facts ... [U]nsubstantiated opinion or narrative [and] evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous ... is not substantial evidence.”61 A. The MND Relies on an Inadequate Baseline Against Which to Analyze Project’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impacts The California Supreme Court, in Communities for a Better Environment v.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (“CBE v. SCAQMD”),62 recognized that “the baseline ‘normally’ consists of ‘the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time ... environmental analysis is commenced....’”63 This decision considered a long line of Court of Appeal decisions that hold, in similar terms, that the impacts of a proposed project are ordinarily to be compared to the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis.64 This line of authority includes cases where a plan or regulation allowed for greater development or more intense activity than had so far actually occurred, as well as cases where actual development or activity had, by the time CEQA analysis was begun, already exceeded that allowed under the existing regulations.65 In CBE v. SCAQMD, the Supreme Court identified circumstances under which a lead agency could deviate from the “normal” baseline of conditions existing at the date the Notice of Preparation is released. ConocoPhillips had applied to modify an operating petroleum refinery in a way that would increase operation of 61 Pub. Resources Code § 21082.2(c).
62 (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321 (agency erred in using boilers' maximum permitted operational levels as a baseline when operation of the boilers at maximum levels was not the norm). 63 CBE v. SCAQMD, supra, 48 Ca.4th 310, 327–328, citing Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (a) 64 Environmental Planning Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 354, 357-358 (effects of a proposed area plan for land development must be compared to the existing physical conditions in the area, rather than to development permitted under the county's general plan); City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 246-247 (effects of rezoning must be compared to the existing physical environment, rather than to development allowed under a prior land use plan); County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 955 (baseline for water diversion project was actually existing stream flows, not minimum stream flows set by federal license); Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 121 (water use baseline for analysis of proposed land development was actual use without the project, not what the applicant was entitled to use for irrigation); San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 658 (baseline for proposed expansion of a mining operation must be the "realized physical conditions on the ground, as opposed to merely hypothetical conditions allowable under existing plans"); Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 693, 706-710 (effects of a large office and shopping center development must be compared to the current undeveloped condition of the property, rather than to an office park that could be developed under existing zoning).
65 CBE v. SCAQMD, supra, 48 Ca.4th 310, 321.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1325 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 15 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
four boilers that produced steam for refinery operations.66 The lead agency selected as the project's baseline for nitrogen oxide emissions the amount the boilers would emit if they operated at the maximum level allowed under ConocoPhillips's existing permits, even though ConocoPhillips had never operated them at that level.67 Citing that refinery operations “vary greatly with the season, crude oil supplies, market conditions, and other factors,”68 the court explained that agencies may exercise discretion to accommodate a “temporary lull or spike in operations that happens to occur at the time of environmental review.”69 The Court held that a lead agency enjoys the discretion to decide how the existing physical conditions can most realistically be measured, supported by substantial evidence.70 The Court rejected the “maximum level permitted” baseline because it did not aim to reflect existing conditions.

Some subsequent cases,71 as well as the CEQA Guidelines,72 have allowed lead agencies to deviate from using the NOP date as the baseline when assessing existing facilities/operations in limited situations “where conditions change or fluctuate over time.” However, in most cases, the facility/operation was still operating to some extent at the time of the NOP.73
66 Id. at 318.
67 Id. at 316.
68 Id. at 327.
69 Id. at 328.
70 Id.
71 See North County Advocates v. County of Carlsbad (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 94, 105 (upholding use of recent historical traffic levels as a baseline for currently operating shopping mall with greaterthan-usual vacancies, noting that “the nature of a shopping center is that tenants change and the amount of occupied space constantly fluctuates”); San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. State Lands Commission (2015) 242 CA4th 202, 218 (upholding a baseline for a continuously operating sand mine that was derived from 5 years of historical mining operations, noting that the amount of sand mined fluctuates substantially from year to year due to a variety of factors); Association of Irritated Residents v. Kern County Board of Supervisors (2017) 17 CA5th 708, 709 (upholding baseline based on oil refinery’s last year of full operations, noting that the facility was currently in operation at the time of the NOP and its permits remained in place); Cherry Valley Pass Acres & Neighbors v. City of Beaumont (2010) 190 CA4th 316 (upholding baseline closely approximating historic water use of egg farm in 2004, noting that egg farm only ceased operations after NOP date in 2005). 72 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15125(a)(1) (providing, “[w]here existing conditions change or fluctuate over time, and where necessary to provide the most accurate picture practically possible of the project's impacts, a lead agency may define existing conditions by referencing historic conditions, or conditions expected when the project becomes operational, or both, that are supported with substantial evidence. In addition, a lead agency may also use baselines consisting of both existing conditions and projected future conditions that are supported by reliable projections based on substantial evidence in the record”).
73 See note 57.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1326 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 16 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
For example, in Association of Irritated Residents v. Kern County Board of Supervisors,74 the court reviewed the baseline set for an oil refinery that temporarily suspended refining operations at the time of the NOP. The baseline was set at operating levels of the facility in 2007, when the refinery was operating at full capacity, whereas in 2013, the date of the NOP, no refining operations were occurring. The court articulated the baseline analysis as such:75 Our analysis of County’s treatment of the baseline question breaks the County’s approach into two factual components. The first inquiry considers the basic question of whether County has a sufficient evidentiary basis for finding existing conditions included an operating refinery. If that finding is upheld, the second inquiry addresses whether substantial evidence supports County’s choice of 2007 as a realistic measure of the baseline physical conditions created by the refinery’s operations. [emphasis in original text] To the first inquiry, the court “conclude[d] the EIR’s choice of 2007 as the measure of an existing conditions baseline for an operating refinery (1) was supported by substantial evidence.”76 The court noted that suspension of operations was intended as temporary, and that the refinery had a “history of fluctuating operations”77 – the refinery frequently started and stopped refining operations. The court noted as relevant that when the refinery suspended operations at the time of the NOP, the refinery “continued other operations and activities. Those continuing activities included managing inventory, blending and marketing fuels, and functioning as a terminal for crude oil and finished petroleum products.”78 To the second inquiry, substantial evidence supported that the 2007 figure was a reasonable representation of the operations actually performed at the refinery because there had been only a temporary suspension of activity at the refinery, not the permanent closure of an unrelated former use, as here.79 In North County Advocates v. County of Carlsbad,80 the court upheld the use of recent historical traffic levels as a baseline for an operating shopping mall with that had greater-than-usual vacancies. Specifically, a large department store retail space in the mall was vacant at the time of the NOP. In determining the scope of baseline operations, the court analyzed the historical occupancy of the mall. The court noted that, although the retail space in question was vacant at the time 74 (2017) 17 CA5th 708.
75 Id. at 728.
76 Id. at 718.
77 Id.
78 Id. at 720.
79 Id. at 729.
80 (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 94.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1327 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 17 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
CEQA review commenced, the mall remained operational. The court observed that the department store retail space within the mall frequently fluctuated in occupancy – for instance, “the Robinsons-May space was less occupied from 2007 through 2009 (two retail users occupied part of it from August 2006 through December 2007, and two others occupied part of it from August through November in 2008 and in 2009.”81 The court concluded, “[w]e view this fluctuating occupancy—which is ‘the nature of a shopping center’—as akin to the varying oil refinery operations in Communities for a Better Environment.”82 Therefore, the court permitted the shopping center to use a baseline that assumed the department store retail space was occupied since it was a component of the mall, which remained operational.

Here, the City incorrectly claimed a baseline credit for a wholly shuttered former use that is unrelated to the proposed Project. The site was formerly developed as the Splash Kingdom amusement park, which closed in 2018, and was demolished in 2021, and currently features the remains of the former water park’s abandoned attractions and structures.83 Unlike the shopping mall in North County Advocates, which sought to fill a vacant space in an existing mall, or the refinery in AIR v. Kern, which had ongoing refining operations at the time of the NOP, the Project has no relationship to the former water park and is not an expansion or replacement of components of an existing facility. The facts of the Project do not allow the City to take any credit for baseline operations based on the shuttered waterpark that occupied the site before 2021.

The Notice of Intent to Adopt this MND was released on March 26, 2024. At that time, the Project site contained only the demolished Splash Kingdom’s abandoned attractions and structures.84 The MND provides that “because the site was previously developed with an amusement park, the Air Quality Impact Analysis utilized the past emissions values as the existing condition baseline for the Proposed Project’s new development emissions.”85 This is incorrect. The City’s choice to use fictitious emissions values as the existing baseline is misplaced. The “normal” baseline described in CBE v. SCAQMD, which should reflect the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time environmental analysis is commenced, is of a vacant developed lot.86 No sources of 81 DEIR, pg. 15.
82 Id. 83 MND, p. 2; 20.
84 MND, p. 2.
85 MND, p. 13.
86 CBE v. SCAQMD, supra, 48 Ca.4th 310, 327–328, citing Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (a).

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1328 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 18 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
emissions are operational at the Project Site, or have been since the water park’s closure in 2018 or demolition in 2021.87
The MND fails to provide substantial evidence to justify deviation from the “normal” baseline. The MND cannot provide this evidence because operations of the water park on the Project site had completely ceased, which makes this case plainly distinguishable from Association of Irritated Residents v. Kern County Board of Supervisors,88 CBE v. SCAQMD,89 North County Advocates v. County of Carlsbad,90 and other leading cases91 allowing use of recent historical conditions as a baseline.

Those cases all involved operations active at the time of the NOP experiencing a temporary “lull” due to their “history of fluctuating conditions.”92 Here, the Project involves a completely vacated facility at the date of the Notice of Intent; Splash Kingdom did not merely halt operations for a period – it completely vacated the premises. There is no evidence that Splash Kingdom expects to reoccupy the Project site, or that water parks are businesses where operations are expected to vacate and reoccupy warehouse facilities due to regularly fluctuating conditions.

Therefore, the MND lacks evidence for finding existing conditions included an operating amusement park.

The CEQA Guidelines state that existing conditions may be defined “by referencing historic conditions” that are supported by substantial evidence, “where necessary to provide the most accurate picture practically possible of the project’s impacts.”93 A departure from the normal use of existing baseline conditions “can be justified by substantial evidence that an analysis based on existing conditions would tend to be misleading or without informational value”94 Here, the record contains no substantial evidence that analysis based on existing conditions would be misleading or without informational value. If the Project were not to proceed, the site would remain an empty lot continuing to emit no greenhouse gas emissions, air quality impacts, health risk, or traffic impacts.

In fact, it is misleading to rely on a fictitious baseline. Dr. Clark determined that the reliance on an inaccurate baseline results in an underestimation of Project emissions.95 Specifically, the reliance on fictitious emissions associated with a 87 Clark Comments, p. 4.
88 (2017) 17 CA5th 708.
89 (2010) 48 Ca.4th 310, 320.
90 (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 94. 91 See note 57.
92 Id.
93 14 Cal Code Regs §15125(a)(1). 94 Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 457.
95 Clark Comments, p. 4.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1329 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 19 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
historical use of a water park to reduce Net GHG Emissions from the Project results in a gross miscalculation of the Project’s potentially significant greenhouse gas emissions impacts.96 The MND’s analysis includes a calculation that Net Emissions is calculated by subtracting Existing Emissions from the Proposed Emissions from Total CO2 emissions.97 See figure below. The MND’s conclusions based on subtracting the fictitious 2,228.88 Existing Emissions from the Total Emissions of 3,534.58, are incorrect.98 Total and Net Emissions remain 3,534.58. The reliance on fictitious “Existing Emissions” to reduce the Project’s Net Emissions is inaccurate and results in inaccurate Greenhouse Gas Emissions impact assessment.99 Dr. Clark concludes, therefore, that the City’s analysis is incomplete and must be revised in an EIR circulated for public review.

The Air Quality Analysis in the MND relies on the same fictitious baseline to determine air quality and health risk impacts. All the Project’s baseline conditions are those existing from 2018 onward, following the closure of the Splash Kingdom amusement park.

The City lacks substantial evidence to support its reliance on fully operational amusement park baselines to inform its analysis of the Project’s impacts. The MND must be withdrawn and an EIR circulated to include baseline analyses which reflect the conditions existing at the Project site at the time of the Notice of Intent, and to revise any impact analyses that utilized these erroneous baselines.
96 Clark Comments, p.
97 MND, p. 32.
98 Id. 99 Clark Comments, p. 4.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1330 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 20 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
B. The MND Fails to Analyze the Site’s Baseline Noise Environment Against Which to Analyze Project’s Noise and Vibration Impacts Mr. Meighan, CARE CA’s expert noise consultant at Wilson Ihrig concludes that the MND fails to include an accurate ambient noise analysis. The MND fails to include any measurements of existing ambient noise conditions on the Project site against which to measure the Project’s potentially significant noise and vibration impacts. The MND defines the ambient noise level, but does not calculate it. The MND provides that, “Ambient Noise Level [means]: The composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.”100 “Given the proximity to both local streets and Interstate 10 (I-10), along with noise from nearby residences and commercial parking lots, as well as shielding from the main noise source of I-10, noise levels should be physically measured to be accurately determined.”101
The MND’s failure to analyze the existing environmental setting with respect to noise results in an inadequate analysis of the Project’s potential increase in noise above the ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. The MND’s conclusion that “the Proposed Project would not generate substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project” is therefore not supported by substantial evidence.102 The MND must be withdrawn and an EIR circulated which accurately characterizes the environmental setting with respect to noise and adequately analyzes and mitigates potentially significant noise and vibration impacts before the Project can lawfully be approved.

V. THE CITY MUST PREPARE AN EIR BECAUSE THERE IS

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A FAIR ARGUMENT

THAT THE PROJECT MAY RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY

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.103 An agency cannot 100 MND, p. 44.
101 Meighan Comments, p. 3.
102 MND, p. 46.
103 14 CCR § 15064(b).

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1331 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 21 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.104 Moreover, the failure to provide information required by CEQA is a failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA.105 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.106 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.”107 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.’”108 A. The MND Fails to Use Actual Truck Trip Lengths, Resulting in an Underestimation of Vehicle Emissions
The MND’s conclusion that air quality impacts are less than significant is not supported by substantial evidence. To the contrary, emissions from diesel trucks will result in significant air quality impacts associated with the emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants (“TACs”).109 The City’s own General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan EIR provide that “CARB has identified diesel engine exhaust particulate matter as the predominant TAC in California. Diesel particulate matter is emitted into the air by diesel-powered mobile vehicles, including heavy-duty diesel trucks, construction equipment, and passenger vehicles. Certain ROGs may also be designated as TACs.”110
The MND includes an inaccurate calculation of the Project’s air quality impacts by underestimating the vehicle miles traveled of the trucks ingressing and egressing the Project site. The MND provides:
104 Kings Cty. Farm Bur. v. Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 732. 105 Sierra Club v. State Bd. Of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236. 106 Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.
107 Id.; Madera Oversight Coal., Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 48, 102. 108 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355.
109 Clark Comments, p. 8.
110 City of Redlands, Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Redlands General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan, p. 3.3-4.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1332 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 22 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
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

39.9 miles for 4+-axle (HHDT) trucks and weighting the average trip lengths using traffic trip percentages. The trip length function for the warehouse and the general light industrial uses has been conservatively calculated to 30.34 miles and 29.84 miles, respectively, with an assumption of 100% primary trips for the proposed industrial land uses.

According to the Air Quality Analysis111 for the IS/MND, the SCAQMD recommended truck trip length of 40 (39.9) miles was incorporated in the CalEEMod analysis. Guidance from SCAQMD does not require a 40-mile truck trip, rather as stated in the SCAQMD’s Final Environmental Assessment and Adoption of Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (WAIRE), the trip length for Class 8 trucks (heavy duty multi-axle trucks) are assumed to travel

39.9 miles per trip based on modeling conducted for the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) from SCAG and the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).112 SCAQMD has explained that this guidance is not intended to replace an analysis of actual truck trip distances to and from the ports.113 The MND’s reliance on 39.9 miles per trip average is therefore misplaced.

Contrary to the MND’s assertion, the 40-mile trip length is not “required” by SCAQMD. It is a default average value recommended by SCAQMD for use in CalEEMod modeling in the absence of more specific data. CalEEMod explains that default values are only intended to be used “if site-specific information is not available.”114 And CEQA requires that significance determinations be “based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data.”115 The MND is inconsistent with this requirement because it lacks any evidence to support the assumption that truck trips to and from the Project site would be just 40 miles long. In particular, the MND does not identify any originating locations or destinations for the Project’s 111 Urban Crossroads. 2023. 1101 California Warehouse Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Redlands. Dated October 12, 2023. Pg. 42
112 SCAQMD. 2021. BOARD MEETING DATE: MAY 7, 2021 AGENDA NO. 27 pg 815. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf 113 See 11/22/2023 SCAQMD letter to City of Fontana re: Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Hemlock Warehouse Development Project (Proposed Project) (SCH No.: 2009091089), Hemlock FSEIR pp. 2-6 to 2-10, available at
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/43908/Hemlock-Final-SEIR-Feb-2024. 114 CalEEMod Users Guide, p. 2, available at https://www.caleemod.com/documents/userguide/CalEEMod_User_Guide_v2022.1.pdf. 115 14 CCR § 15064(b)(1).

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1333 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 23 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
warehouse products which are 40 miles (or less) from the Project site. The MND therefore lacks substantial evidence to support its reliance on 40-mile truck trips.

The actual conditions of the Project potentially result in a far higher average truck trip.116 CARE CA’s expert Dr. Clark provided substantial evidence demonstrating that the nearest ports, which are common originating and destination locations for warehouse supply shipments, are at least 80 miles from the Project site, supporting a more reasonable conclusion that average truck trips would be 80 or more miles. As Dr. Clark explains, trucks are likely to travel to the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles, which would result in a true truck trip of approximately 80 miles.117 This would result in a nearly 200% longer trip than estimated in the air quality assessment in the MND.118 This error results in a gross miscalculation of the Project’s greenhouse gas, air quality, diesel particulate matter, and toxic air contaminant emissions associated with operation of the Project. The Project’s impacts with respect to greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutant emissions will be nearly doubled, utilizing the correct trip length.119 The vehicle emissions and greenhouse gas impacts associated with Project operation must be recalculated based on the higher average truck trip lengths.

Moreover, depending on the type of warehouse operation, the actual trip generation rate could be magnitudes greater than those assumed by the MND depending on the eventual tenant. An increased intensity of use would further compound the Project’s VMT, air quality, and GHG impacts. The City must correct the estimated distance traveled by trucks and analyze the Project’s impacts based on actual distances in a revised and recirculated FSEIR.

B. The MND Fails to Accurately Analyze or Mitigate the Project’s Potentially Significant Air Quality Impacts
As discussed above, the air quality impact conclusions of the MND are based on an erroneous baseline that does not reflect existing conditions. The MND’s air quality impact assessment is therefore not supported by substantial evidence.

The MND includes no mitigation to reduce air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project, even though the Project results in significant air quality and public health impacts. Dr. Clark concludes that the Project results in significant air quality impacts from criteria and TAC pollutants 116 Clark Comments, p. 12.
117 Id. 118 Id. 119 Id.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1334 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 24 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
associated with yard equipment used on the Project site.120 The MND provides, that as required by City of Redlands Ordinance No. 2955, a minimum of ninety percent (90%) of the on-site cargo handling equipment shall be zero emissions for new warehouse development project.121 But, Dr. Clark found that the MND fails to account for the nearly 10% of on-site cargo handling equipment that will not be zero emission.122 The non-zero emission on-site cargo handling equipment may result in significant criteria and toxic air pollutants, which were not analyzed or mitigated in the MND.123 The MND’s conclusion that air quality impacts are less than significant is therefore not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence in Dr. Clark’s comments supports a fair argument that the Project may result in a significant air quality impact from emissions of criteria and toxic pollutants from on-site motorized operational equipment.

C. The MND Fails to Accurately Analyze or Mitigate the Project’s Construction and Operational Health Risk
Furthermore, Dr. Clark found that the Project results in a health risk impact which was not adequately analyzed or mitigated in the MND. Dr. Clark concluded that the health risk assessment relied on inappropriate breathing rates to artificially reduce the Project’s potentially significant health risk impacts.124 Dr.

Clark calculated that the health risk estimate for ages 2 to 30 years is off by a factor of 1.3.125 Utilizing the correct breathing rate, the Project’s health risk impacts are significant and require mitigation in an EIR before the Project can be approved.

Further, the MND fails to account for potentially significant health risk impacts associated with building downwash effect. In order to assess the impact of project related emissions, the MND included air quality modeling utilizing AERMOD, which is used to assess near-field pollutant dispersion.126 However, Dr.

James Clark explains that the air dispersion model used for the health risk analysis (“HRA”) for the construction and operational phases of the Project has a structural flaw that results in inaccurate estimates of the Project emissions within the community.
120 Clark Comments, p. 9. 121 MND, Appendix A, p. 43; Redlands Municipal Code § 18.156.950. 122 MND, Appendix A, p. 4 [“a minimum of ninety percent (90%) zero emission on-site cargo handling equipment.”]
123 Clark Comments, p. 9. 124 Id. 125 Id. 126 Id., Appendix A, p. 51.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1335 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 25 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
Dr. Clark reviewed the City’s AERMOD modeling, and noted that the City’s use of AERMOD does not account for the impact on emissions from building downwash, rendering the analysis inaccurate. Dr. Clark’s comments explain that building downwash occurs as the wind flows over and around buildings and impacts the dispersion of pollution from nearby stacks.127 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. The downwash effect increases as the relative difference between the release height and top of the building increases. This effect is well-understood. For example, analysis and mitigation of downwash is discussed in Section 123 of the Clean Air Act.128 The MND completely fails to account for this impact in its AERMOD model, nor does it provide any justification why. Dr. Clark found that running the model without considering building downwash significantly underestimates the impacts of the project. 129
When a standard, accepted methodology is available to assess a significant impact, an EIR must evaluate the impact unless a reasoned basis for not doing so is provided.130 In Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Comm’rs, a court reviewed a DEIR’s failure to analyze health risk from TAC exposure. The DEIR claimed that no methodology or standards of significance existed for assessing the health risk from TAC exposure.131 The court determined that the lead agency abused its discretion, reasoning that the lead agency failed to consider, in good faith, comments from the public showing that it was feasible to analyze health risk from TAC exposure:132
The Port has not cited us to any reasonably conscientious effort it took either to collect additional data or to make further inquiries of environmental or regulatory agencies having expertise in the matter.…At the very least, the documents submitted by the public raised substantial questions about the project's effects on the environment and the unknown health risks to the 127 Clark Comments, p. 12.
128 42 U.S. Code § 7423 - Stack heights (“For purposes of this section, good engineering practice means, with respect to stack heights, the height necessary to insure that emissions from the 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”). 129 Clark Comments, p. 12. 130 Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Board of Port Comm’rs (2001) 91 CA4th 1344, 1370 131 Id. at 1369.
132 Id. at 1370.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1336 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 26 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
area’s residents...the Port has not offered any justification why more definitive information could not have been provided.

Here, the City failed to analyze a critical dispersion factor – building downwash – which affects the rate and severity of exposure to TACs, without explaining why. Dr. Clark’s comments show that an AERMOD model can be run to account for building downwash. The City’s failure to include this emission factor in its health risk analysis represents a failure to accurately to analyze and disclose the ground level concentration of DPM emissions generated by the Project. The MND must be withdrawn and EIR circulated to adequately analyze and mitigate Project health risk impacts.

The City must circulate an EIR which adequately analyzes all of the Project’s potentially significant impacts, and require all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s significant environmental and public health impacts to less than significant levels. Feasible mitigation includes, but is not limited to, the following:

1. Until construction of the Project is completed, Applicant shall require that all diesel off-road construction equipment must meet USEPA Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards for equipment rated at 50 horsepower or greater wherever and whenever reasonably available. In the event that Tier 4 construction equipment is not available, the Applicant may utilize Tier 3 construction equipment outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (“BACT”) devices, including but not limited to a CARB certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (“DPF”).

2. All heavy-duty trucks entering the Project site shall be model year 2017 or later to the extent feasible, and in any event all heavy duty trucks entering the Project site shall be no earlier than model year 2014.

3. Provide EV capable infrastructure for a minimum of five medium-duty and/or heavy-duty trucks to accommodate future installation of mediumduty and/or heavy-duty EV charging stations.

4. Require that all outdoor cargo handling equipment (including yard trucks, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) shall be zero emission. The Project site shall include the necessary charging stations for electric cargo handling equipment.

5. Require 10-foot-high concrete screen wall encompassing the western parking lot and docking area.

These measures should be included a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in a legally adequate EIR circulated for public review and scrutiny before the Project can be approved.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1337 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 27 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
D. The MND Fails to Analyze Impacts Associated with the Kaiser Expansion
The MND makes no reference to impacts associated with the Project’s proximity to the future expansion of the Kaiser Permanente Redlands Medical Offices. Kaiser Permanente Medical Offices is located approximately 358 feet north of the Project site.133 Kaiser Permanente seeks to expand their Medical Offices facility at 1301 California Street into a full-service hospital through the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center Project (“Medical Center Project”).134 Phase I of the Medical Center Project will construct a 4-story 165,000 square foot Medical Office Building/Ambulatory Services Center and parking lots.135 In Phase II, a 7-story 400,000 square foot hospital and a 2-story 35,000 square foot Central Utility Plant building would be constructed with accompanying parking structure and parking lots.136
City law requires that warehouse projects that abut neighborhoods, childcare centers, and hospitals require a ten-foot-high screen wall and extra landscaping.137 Additionally, truck docks and entries must be oriented away from abutting sensitive receptor properties and parking lots must provide at least 35% shade cover.138 Specifically, the Municipal Code provides that “Warehouse developments shall provide a solid decorative wall(s) of at least ten feet (10') in height when abutting any sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors for purposes of this section shall be defined as any residence including private homes, condominiums, apartments, and living quarters, schools, preschools, daycare centers, in-home daycares, hospitals, long-term care facilities, retirement and nursing homes, community centers, places of worship, parks (excluding trails), and dormitories.”139 The Project does not comply with these requirements. The Project requires an 8-foot-high concrete screen wall encompassing the western parking lot and docking area, 8-foot-high security and maintenance fencing along the western boundary.140 This may not be sufficient to reduce Project impacts to sensitive receptors at Kaiser when it is fully constructed. The City should require the Project to include a 10-foot-high screen wall to protect sensitive receptors at the future 133 MND, Appendix A, 1101 California Warehouse Air Quality Impact Analysis, p. 47. 134 UltraSystems, UltraSystems to Provide Environmental Impact Report for Kaiser Permanente Development (Sept. 19, 2023), https://ultrasystems.com/kaiser-permanente-development/. 135 Id. 136 Id. 137 Redlands Municipal Code § 18.156.930.
138 Redlands Municipal Code § 18.156.930(D).
139 Id. at § 18.156.930(A) (emphasis added). 140 MND, p. 2.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1338 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 28 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
Kaiser Permanente Medical Center from potentially significant noise and air pollution associated with operation of the trucks and equipment on the Project site.

VI. THE CITY MUST PREPARE AN EIR BECAUSE THERE IS

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A FAIR ARGUMENT

THAT THE PROJECT MAY RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT NOISE

IMPACTS
As detailed above, the MND fails to include an accurate baseline against which to analyze the Project’s noise impacts. Noise and vibration impacts may therefore be underestimated. Further, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that noise and vibration impacts may be significant and require mitigation in an EIR circulated for public review before the Project can lawfully be approved.

A. The MND Fails to Adequately Analyze Operational Noise Impacts Mr. Meighan determined that the MND fails to adequately analyze the Project’s operational noise emissions. Mr. Meighan concludes that “Day-to-day operational noise levels are not discussed in the MND at all. Typical sources from a warehouse project can include loading dock noise, rooftop mechanical noise, and parking lot noise, among other sources. These can combine to increase ambient noise levels and can be more sensitive than construction noise due to the more permanent nature of the duration.”141
Section 8.06.080 of the Redlands Municipal Code provides that no entity can “operate or cause to be operated any source of sound, or allow the creation of any noise, which causes the noise level when measured inside a neighboring receiving occupied building to exceed” the standard of 60 dBA for industrial buildings.142 For example, rooftop commercial HVAC units may reach as high as 88 dBA at a 3 feet reference level, in which case three of these units could exceed the industrial interior noise limit of 60 dBA set in section 8.06.080 at 140 feet away (the distance between the project and the nearest façade to the west).143 Operation of the Project’s HVAC system may result in potentially significant noise impacts, and must be analyzed and mitigated in an EIR.
141 Meighan Comments, p. 3. 142 Id. 143 Id.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1339 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 29 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
B. Project Construction May Result in Potentially Significant Vibration Impacts
Mr. Meighan calculates that the use of a vibratory roller, operated at the western property line, would create a vibration level of 0.016 in/sec.144 This would result in an exceedance of Municipal Code thresholds.145 Construction may therefore result in a significant vibration impact which must be analyzed and mitigated in an EIR circulated for public review and scrutiny before the Project can be approved.

VII. THE CITY MUST PREPARE AN EIR BECAUSE THERE IS

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A FAIR ARGUMENT

THAT THE PROJECT MAY RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The MND’s conclusion that the Project would have a less than significant impact related to cumulatively considerable impacts, is not supported by substantial evidence.146 “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”147 The MND asserts without substantial evidence that the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable environmental impact.148 But, the MND fails to analyze any “past projects…current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” in determining the cumulative significance of the Project.149 CEQA requires lead agencies to conduct an analysis of “past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”150 The MND fails to include any list of past, present, or future projects which may result in cumulatively considerable air quality, public health, and greenhouse gas emissions.

The Project site is surrounded by heavy industrial uses on all sides. Dr.

Clark concludes that the MND fails to adequately analyze the cumulative impacts of the Project because the MND fails to identify all nearby projects, fails to compile 144 Meighan Comments, pp. 3-4
145 Redlands Municipal Code § 8.06.090(G). 146 MND, p. 66. 147 MND, p. 65; CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.
148 MND, p. 65.
149 Id. 150 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1340 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 30 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
cumulative emissions, and fails to estimate cumulative health impacts to on-site and off-site workers.151
Dr. Clark calculated that the Project Site is located in the vicinity (3 kilometers of the Project Site) of 81 existing warehouse projects with another 3 projects approved.152 The 81 existing projects represent 27,000,0000 square feet of floor space and account for 18,000 daily truck trips.153 Collectively, these projects release 24.9 pounds of diesel particulate matter and 2,804 pounds of oxides of nitrogen (NOx – a precursor to smog formation) daily.154 The three additional projects will add another 600,000 square feet of warehouse space to the area.

Figure 1: Existing And Planned Warehouse Projects Within 3 km Of Project Site
Dr. Clark cites to SCAQMD’s MATES V study which found that the risk from air contaminants in the area surround the Project site is approximately 401 in 1,000,000 (well above the U.S. EPA’s risk management range of 1 to 100 in 1,000,000).155 The Project will contribute additional emissions, exacerbating this 151 Clark Comments, p. 6.
152 Clark Comments, p. 4.
153 Id. 154 Id.
155 Clark Comments, p. 4.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1341 of 2362
April 29, 2024

Page 31 ends

7177-004acp
printed on recycled paper
risk and resulting in a potentially significant cumulative air quality and public health impact that the MND fails to disclose.

Substantial evidence therefore supports a fair argument that the Project may result in potentially significant cumulative impacts. The City must prepare an EIR which adequately analyzes and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant cumulative impacts before the Project can lawfully be approved.

VIII. CONCLUSION
The City should withdraw the MND and direct staff to prepare an EIR. As described in detail above and in attached expert reports, substantial evidence supports of a fair argument that the Project poses a significant and unmitigated risk to the public due to unmitigated construction and operational air quality, health risk, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, land use and cumulative impacts.

Sincerely,
Kelilah D. Federman

Attachments
KDF:acp
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1342 of 2362

EXHIBIT A
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1343 of 2362
1 | Page
April 29, 2024
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Ms. Kelilah D. Federman
Subject: Comment Letter on Initial Study For 1101 California Street Warehouse, City of Redlands, California
Dear Ms. Federman:

At the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ABJC), Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed materials related to the above referenced project.

Project Description:

The Proposed Project consists of a new 357,610 square-foot warehouse development located directly north of Interstate 10 (I-10) and the California Street westbound on-ramp. Access to the Project Site would be available via two proposed driveways to the north on Lugonia Avenue and two driveways to the east on California Street. The Proposed Project would include 47 dock doors, 396 parking spaces, driveway improvements, updated security fencing, and improved landscaped areas. Demolition activities would include removal of remaining concrete paving and k-rails, the remains of former 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]
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1344 of 2362

amusement park attractions, and landscaping left from prior development.

According to the IS/MND, the building would be a concrete tilt-up building, consisting of a concrete slab-on grade floor and a shallow foundation system. The maximum building height would be 49 feet from grade. The MND states that it is anticipated that future items to be stored for distribution would include non-hazardous, non-flammable products on high-pile storage pallet racking and shelving, but does not include binding conditions to this effect.

The Project Site includes two parcels, APNs 0292-033-11 and -13, encompassing approximately 16 acres. The site was formerly developed as the Splash Kingdom amusement park, Figure 1: Proposed Site Location
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1345 of 2362

which was demolished in 2021, and currently features the remains of the former water park’s abandoned attractions and structures.

Figure 2: Project Site Plan
The IS/MND concludes that no mitigation is required to prevent impacts from the project on air quality in the area. This conclusion is in conflict with the facts provided within the IS/MND.

Specific Comments:

1. The Air Quality Study and the Greenhouse Gas Analysis Incorrectly Assume An Existing Source Of Emissions From The Project Site. The Amusement Park Onsite Was Abandoned In 2021.

Both the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Analyses of the Project assume that an existing source of emissions is currently onsite. According to the IS/MND, the site was formerly developed as the Splash Kingdom amusement park, which was closed in 2018, and partially demolished in 2021, and currently features the remains of the former water park’s abandoned attractions and structures.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1346 of 2362

No sources of emissions are currently operational at the Project Site.

Figure 3: AQ Analysis Of Project Emissions
Figure 4: GHG Analysis of Project Emissions
The MND’s omission of the “existing” emissions from the shuttered water park in the AQ and GHG analyses presents a skewed view of the Project emissions which underestimates actual emissions. The City’s analysis is therefore incomplete, and the MND’s conclusion that the Project’s air quality impacts would be less than significant is unsupported. These errors must be corrected in an environmental impact report for the Project.

2. The Cumulative Analysis Presented In The IS/MND Fails To Account For A Large Number Of Existing Warehouses Within The Immediate Vicinity Of The Project And The Cumulative Degradation of Regional And Local Air Quality.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1347 of 2362

The Project Site is located in the vicinity (3 kilometers of the Project Site) of 81 existing warehouse projects with another 3 projects approved. The 81 existing projects represent 27,000,0000 square feet of floor space and account for 18,000 daily truck trips. They release 24.9 pounds of diesel particulate matter1 and 2,804 pounds of oxides of nitrogen (NOx – a precursor to smog formation) daily. The three additional projects will add another 600,000 square feet of warehouse space to the area. The proposed Project will contribute additional air pollutants during construction and operation.

Figure 5: Existing And Planned Warehouse Projects Within 3 km Of Project Site

According the SCAQMD’s MATES V study, the existing health risk from air contaminants in the area surrounding the Project site is approximately 401 in 1,000,000 (well above the U.S. EPA’s risk management range of 1 to 100 in 1,000,000). The largest fraction of that risk is from exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM). DPM emitted during Project construction and operation will exacerbate this risk.
1 Warehouse Cumulative Impact Tool for Community (CITY). 2024. https://radicalresearch.shinyapps.io/WarehouseCITY/ accessed 4/25/2024.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1348 of 2362

Figure 6: Risk From Air Toxins In Redlands (MATES V Study) The Cumulative Analysis of GHG and AQ emissions for the Project states, without support, that the Proposed Project would not cause adverse impacts on humans, either directly or indirectly. It is clear from the analysis above that the Project will add to the already heavily impacted regional problem of NOx and toxic air contaminants (TACs). The Project should be evaluated in an EIR to assure the public that the cumulative air quality and health impacts from the Project have been fully evaluated and mitigated.

3. The Air Quality Analysis And Greenhouse Gas Analysis Of Operational Emissions Is Incomplete And Fails To Include Emissions From The Fire Pump System and Generators That Will Be Installed Onsite.

According to the Air Quality Analysis prepared for the Project, operational emissions were calculated using the CalEEMOD (Version 2022.1) software. Included in the analysis are area source Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1349 of 2362

emissions and mobile source emissions. Not included in the analysis are emissions from the fire flow pump system or the back-up generator that will need to be installed. Under the City of Redlands Building and Construction Code (15.20.540) Section 914.12.5, distribution warehouses greater than 50,000 square feet, are required to have a standby power generator and fire pump system. In addition, a fuel supply sufficient for not less than two hours of operation shall be required on the premises. All electrically connected systems shall be transferred within 60 seconds after losing primary power. Both sources would add to the total amount of TACs, specifically DPM, that will be released from the site.

Figure 7: CalEEMod Assumptions
The analyses are therefore incomplete and must be corrected in an environmental impact (EIR) report for the Project.

4. The AQ Study States That The Project Will Operate 24 Hours Per Day, 7 Days A Week And That 90% Of The Cargo Handling Equipment Operating Onsite Will Be Zero Emission. No Analysis or Restrictive Conditions Are Included in the MND to Support this Assumption and There is No Analysis of Emissions from the 10% Of Cargo Handling Equipment That Are Assumed Not to Be Zero-Emission.

The Air Quality Study assumes the Project will be able to operate continuously and that the greatest percentage of cargo handling equipment (e.g., forklifts, pallet jacks, yard goats) will be zero emission.2
The CalEEMOD analysis supplied in the AQ Study portion of the IS/MND does not include emissions from the remaining non-zero emission yard equipment. The AQ study therefore assumes, without support, that the Project would utilize exclusively zero emission equipment and is missing a 2 See Air Quality Study, Appendix A, p. 43.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1350 of 2362

potentially significant source of criteria and toxic pollutants. This oversite must be addressed in a revised air quality study in an EIR for the Project.

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

According to the IS/MND, a health risk assessment was prepared in accordance with SCAQMD’s guidance. For purposes of this Health Risk Assessment3, receptors include both residential and non-residential (worker, school children) land uses in the vicinity of the Project. The methodology used in the HRA is inconsistent with regulatory agency guidance, including South Coast AQMD and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment recommended guidance, 4 and is
not supported by any substantial evidence in the record.

While reviewing the input values utilized in the HRA, it is clear that the analysis utilized 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.”5 The values listed in Table 2-7 include both the 95 percent upper confidence limit (95% UCL) values (for age in eutero 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). The risk estimate for ages 2 to 30 is off by a factor of 1.3. Utilizing the correct breathing rate, the health risk impacts are significant and require mitigation.

3 Urban Crossroads. 2023. 1101 California Warehouse Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment, City of Redlands.

Dated October 12, 2023. Pg 20
4 Urban Crossroads. 2023. 1101 California Warehouse Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment, City of Redlands.

Dated October 12, 2023. Pg 19
5 Urban Crossroads. 2023. 1101 California Warehouse Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment, City of Redlands.

Dated October 12, 2023. Pg 20
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1351 of 2362

Figure 8: Daily Breathing Rates Utilized In HRA
The 2015 Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual 6, 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 and must be corrected in an environmental impact report for the Project.

6. The Air Quality Analysis Did Not Incorporate Building Downwash In The AERMOD Analysis.

A review of the Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment show that building downwash was not incorporated into the AERMOD analysis of the Project. According to the Project description, the maximum building height would be 49 feet from grade. 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 6 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 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1352 of 2362

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.7 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 HRA. 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 site. 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 emissions8 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). This error should be addressed in an EIR for the Project.

7. The IS/MND Underestimates Average Truck Trip Lengths; the 40 Miles Used In The Air Quality Analysis Does Not Match The Actual Length(s) To The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

According to the Air Quality Analysis9 for the IS/MND, the SCAQMD recommended truck trip length of 40 (39.9) miles was incorporated in the CalEEMod analysis. Guidance from SCAQMD does not require a 40-mile truck trip, rather as stated in the SCAQMD’s Final Environmental Assessment and Adoption of Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (WAIRE), the trip length for Class 8 trucks (heavy duty multi-axle trucks) are assumed to travel 39.9 miles per trip 7 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.” 8 SCAQMD. 2003. Health Risk Assessment Guidance For Analyzing Cancer Risks From Mobile Source Diesel Emissions. August, 2003. Page 2.
9 Urban Crossroads. 2023. 1101 California Warehouse Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Redlands. Dated October 12, 2023. Pg. 42
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1353 of 2362

based on modeling conducted for the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) from SCAG and the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).10 SCAQMD has explained that this guidance is not intended to replace an analysis of actual truck trip distances to and from the ports.11 The Air Quality Analysis also states that the trip length function for the warehouse and the general light industrial uses has been conservatively calculated to 30.34 miles and 29.84 miles, respectively, with an assumption of 100% primary trips for the proposed industrial land uses. 12 The IS/MND’s misinterpretation of the averaged value from SCAG’s model is another example of how the City’s assumption are unsupported. The IS/MND’s reliance on the 40-mile trip length 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. It is also inconsistent with average truck trip lengths assumed in other County CEQA documents for similar warehouse projects. A review of the path length from the Project Site to the Port of Long Beach (closest port to Project Site) shows that the true trip length is approximately 80 miles (approximately 200% longer than the assumed 40-mile trip length).

This error must be corrected in an EIR that accurately calculates emissions using fact-based, reasonably foreseeable truck trip lengths which include actual distances to and from the ports. As SCAQMD has explained, “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.”13
Conclusion
10 SCAQMD. 2021. BOARD MEETING DATE: MAY 7, 2021 AGENDA NO. 27 pg 815. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf 11 See 11/22/2023 SCAQMD letter to City of Fontana re: Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Hemlock Warehouse Development Project (Proposed Project) (SCH No.: 2009091089), Hemlock FSEIR pp. 2-6 to 2-10, available at https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/43908/Hemlock-Final-SEIR-Feb-2024. 12 ibid
13 Id.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1354 of 2362

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. An EIR should be prepared to address these substantial concerns.

Sincerely,
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1355 of 2362
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]
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1356 of 2362
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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1357 of 2362
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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1358 of 2362
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.

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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1359 of 2362
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 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1360 of 2362
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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1361 of 2362
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 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1362 of 2362
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 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1363 of 2362
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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1364 of 2362
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 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1365 of 2362
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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1366 of 2362
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 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1367 of 2362
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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1368 of 2362
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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1369 of 2362
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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1370 of 2362
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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1371 of 2362
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 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1372 of 2362
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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1373 of 2362

EXHIBIT B
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1374 of 2362
WI #24-001.19
April 24th, 2024
Ms. Kelilah D. Federman
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, California 94080
SUBJECT: California & Lugonia
Redlands, California
DRAFT- Comments on Noise Analysis
Dear Ms. Federman,
As requested, we have reviewed the information and noise impact analysis for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the California & Lugonia Project in Redlands, CA. This letter contains our comments on the noise analysis in the subject documents. The approximately 30-acre project site is located at the southwest corner of California Street and Lugonia Avenue in the City of Redlands in San Bernardino County, California. The proposed project would construct a 357,610 square-foot warehouse. Currently, the project site is vacant. Existing land uses in the vicinity of the site include a warehouse directly to the west of the project, single family residences 800 feet to the south, and a medical building 400 feet to the north.

Wilson Ihrig is an acoustical consulting firm that has practiced exclusively in the field of acoustics since 1966. During our almost 58 years of operation, we have prepared hundreds of noise studies for Environmental Impact Reports and Statements. We have one of the largest technical laboratories in the acoustical consulting industry. We also utilize industry-standard acoustical programs such as Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), SoundPLAN, and CadnaA. In short, we are well qualified to prepare environmental noise studies and review studies prepared by others.

Adverse Effects of Noise1
Although the health effects of noise are not taken as seriously in the United States as they are in other countries, they are real and, in many parts of the country, pervasive.

Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. If a person is repeatedly exposed to loud noises, he or she may experience noise-induced hearing impairment or loss. In the United States, both the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) promote standards and regulations to protect the hearing of people exposed to high levels of industrial noise.
1 More information on these and other adverse effects of noise may be found in Guidelines for Community Noise, eds B Berglund, T Lindvall, and D Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. (https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/a68672)
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1375 of 2362

WILSON IHRIG
California & Lugonia Project
Comments on Noise Analysis

Page 2 ends

Speech Interference. Another common problem associated with noise is speech interference. In addition to the obvious issues that may arise from misunderstandings, speech interference also leads to problems with concentration fatigue, irritation, decreased working capacity, and automatic stress reactions. For complete speech intelligibility, the sound level of the speech should be 15 to 18 dBA higher than the background noise. Typical indoor speech levels are 45 to 50 dBA at 1 meter, so any noise above 30 dBA begins to interfere with speech intelligibility. The common reaction to higher background noise levels is to raise one’s voice. If this is required persistently for long periods of time, stress reactions and irritation will likely result.

Sleep Disturbance. Noise can disturb sleep by making it more difficult to fall asleep, by waking someone after they are asleep, or by altering their sleep stage, e.g., reducing the amount of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. Noise exposure for people who are sleeping has also been linked to increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, increase in body movements, and other physiological effects. Not surprisingly, people whose sleep is disturbed by noise often experience secondary effects such as increased fatigue, depressed mood, and decreased work performance.

Cardiovascular and Physiological Effects. Human’s bodily reactions to noise are rooted in the “fight or flight” response that evolved when many noises signaled imminent danger. These include increased blood pressure, elevated heart rate, and vasoconstriction. Prolonged exposure to acute noises can result in permanent effects such as hypertension and heart disease.

Impaired Cognitive Performance. Studies have established that noise exposure impairs people’s abilities to perform complex tasks (tasks that require attention to detail or analytical processes), and it makes reading, paying attention, solving problems, and memorizing more difficult. This is why there are standards for classroom background noise levels and why offices and libraries are designed to provide quiet work environments.

Document Fails to Analyze Potential Noise Impacts
Significance Criteria is Improperly Established for Daytime Construction CEQA requires evaluation of whether a project would cause a “substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels …” (MND p. 43). The DEIR establishes only the City’s Municipal Code Section 8.06.120 (G)2 as the threshold for significant noise exposure from the construction noise generated by the project, which exempts construction activities from noise codes on Monday through Saturday from 7 AM to 6 PM, excluding holidays. The MND states on page 44 that the project “would not result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance.” This document’s interpretation of this statute implies that there are no thresholds of significance for daytime construction noise, and any increase in noise is insignificant as long as the construction activities are conducted only during daytime hours. Hypothetically, under the logic of this document, there is no noise level – no matter how extreme – where daytime construction noise would be considered an impact. CEQA requires the project applicants to assess if there will be a substantial increase in ambient levels.
2 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/redlandsca/latest/redlands_ca/0-0-0-5339 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1376 of 2362

WILSON IHRIG
California & Lugonia Project
Comments on Noise Analysis

Page 3 ends

Redlands City CouncilJuly 16, 2024

Redlands City Council
July 16, 2024