Redlands City Council
July 16, 2024

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.

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 DC 16, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of Redlands and San Bernardino County. 4 City of Redlands, East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (September 5, 2017). 5 MND, p. 2.
6 MND Appendix A: Urban Crossroads, Air Quality Impact Analysis and Greenhouse Gas Analysis, (October 12, 2023).
11-2
Cont.
11-3
11-4
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1643 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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.

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

II. LEGAL BACKGROUND
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).
11-4
Cont.
11-5
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1644 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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.
11-5
Cont.
11-6
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1645 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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. 11-6
Cont.
11-7
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1646 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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. 11-8
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1647 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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. 11-9
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1648 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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.”). 11-9
Cont.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1649 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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.
11-10
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1650 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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 11-10
Cont.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1651 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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 11-10
Cont.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1652 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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.
11-10
Cont.
11-11
11-12
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1653 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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.
11-12
Cont.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1654 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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.
11-12
Cont.
11-13
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1655 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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.
11-13
Cont.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1656 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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.
11-13
Cont.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1657 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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). 11-13
Cont.
11-14
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1658 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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.
11-14
Cont.
11-14
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1659 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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.
11-15
Cont.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1660 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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).
11-16
11-17
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1661 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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.
11-17
Cont.
11-18
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1662 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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). 11-18
Cont.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1663 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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.
11-18
Cont.
11-19
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1664 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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. 11-19
Cont.
11-20
11-21
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1665 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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.
11-21
Cont.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1666 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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.
11-21
Cont.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1667 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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. 11-22
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1668 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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.
11-22
Cont.
11-23
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1669 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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.
11-24
11-25
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1670 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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.
11-25
Cont.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1671 of 2362
April 29, 2024

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
11-25
Cont.
11-26
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1672 of 2362

EXHIBIT A
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1673 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.

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.

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 1674 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 1675 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 1676 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 1677 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 1678 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 1679 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 1680 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 1681 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 1682 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 1683 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 1684 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 1685 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 1686 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 1687 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 1688 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.

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

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Michael Fahey, Susan Fahey V. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. United States District Court Central District of California Civil Action Number CV-06 7109 JCL.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1689 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 1690 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 1691 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 1692 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 1693 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 1694 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 1695 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 1696 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 1697 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 1698 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 1699 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 1700 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 1701 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 1702 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 1703 of 2362

EXHIBIT B
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1704 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 1705 of 2362

WILSON IHRIG
California & Lugonia Project
Comments on Noise Analysis

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 1706 of 2362

WILSON IHRIG
California & Lugonia Project
Comments on Noise Analysis

Other applicable standards do exist for daytime construction noise impacts, such as in Section 7.1 of the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual3.

This threshold, or a threshold from another applicable document, should be chosen to compare to modeled construction noise levels in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to ensure that substantial temporary increases in ambient noise levels are not caused by this project.

Baseline Noise Level Characterizations are Incomplete
CEQA requires evaluation of whether a project would cause a “substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels.” Without knowing how loud the environment is, it is impossible to determine if the new project will increase noise in the surrounding community. Baseline noise measurements are the preferred way to determine background noise sources. These measurements serve as a crucial reference point for evaluating the potential noise impacts of proposed projects or activities. Without establishing the baseline noise conditions before any new development occurs, decision-makers cannot effectively determine whether the project complies with noise regulations nor identify any potential adverse effects on the surrounding environment and communities. 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. An EIR must be prepared with baseline noise measurements, to properly describe the noise environment.

Document Includes no Discussion of Operational Noise
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. Section 8.06.080 of the Redlands noise code states 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.

As an 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). This assumes open windows in the neighboring facility, but does not include any noise due to exterior loading dock or parking lot operations. Either way, the potential for noise impacts exists, and as such should be studied more thoroughly in an EIR.

Construction Vibration Thresholds could be Exceeded
Section 8.06.020 of the Redlands City Code sets a vibration perception threshold stating that 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.” Section 8.06.090(G) prohibits “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 property boundary of the source if on private property.” Section 3 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 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1707 of 2362

WILSON IHRIG
California & Lugonia Project
Comments on Noise Analysis

8.06.120 lists exemptions for construction activity stating the noise statute “shall not apply to noise sources associated with new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or grading of any property.” This sets a vibration threshold in the City of a Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) of 0.01 in/sec, with exemptions for construction noise, not construction vibration. A vibratory roller, operated at the western property line would create a PPV level of 0.016 in/sec. This is using the formula for vibration attenuation from the FTA manual (Eq. 7-2) and the source level for a vibratory roller found in the same manual (Table 7-4). This would be an exceedance, and thus construction vibration should be studied in an EIR.

Conclusion
The MND has several errors and omissions. The noise analysis is lacking substance and includes no mention of ambient measurements, daytime construction thresholds, or discussion of mechanical noise. Additionally, there is a chance of a construction vibration impact. Please feel free to contact me with any questions on this information.

Very truly yours,

WILSON IHRIG
Jack Meighan
Associate
meighan - california & lugonia mnd - comments on noise anaylsis.docx Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1708 of 2362

JACK MEIGHAN
Associate
Jack joined Wilson Ihrig in 2021 and is an experienced acoustics engineer with expertise in projects involving rail transit systems, highways, CEQA analysis, environmental noise reduction, mechanical drawing reviews, and construction noise and vibration mitigation. He has hands-on experience with project management, including client coordination and presentations, as well as in designing, developing, and testing MATLAB code used in acoustics applications. Additionally, his expertise includes taking field measurements, developing test plans and specifying, purchasing, setting up and repairing acoustic measurement equipment. He has experience in using Traffic Noise Model (TNM), CadnaA, EASE, Visual Basic, LabView, and CAD software.

Education
 B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Project Experience
Metro Regional Connector, Los Angeles CA
Planned, took, and processed measurements as part of a team to determine the effectiveness of floating slab trackwork for a new subway in downtown Los Angeles that travels below the Walt Disney Concert Hall and the Colburn School of Music.

Rodeo Credit Enterprise CEQA Analysis for New Construction, Palmdale, CA Wrote an accepted proposal and executed it for a noise study project to determine noise mitigation requirements on a new housing development. Led all aspects of the project and managed the budget during all phases of project completion. Completed 5 separate projects of this type for this developer.

Blackhall Studios, Santa Clarita, CA
Led the vibration measurement effort for a new soundstage directly adjacent to an existing freight and commuter rail line. Tested equipment, processed data, and analyzed results to determine the vibration propagation through the soil to the proposed soundstage locations, and was part of the team that developed mitigation techniques for the office spaces directly next to the rail line.

Octavia Residential Condos CEQA Study, San Francisco, CA Calculated the STC ratings for the proposed windows to meet Title 24 requirements, modeled the acoustic performance of floor and ceiling structures, researched noise codes, helped with a mechanical design review, and wrote a report summarizing the results for a new Condominium project being developed in San Francisco.

San Diego International Airport Terminal I Replacement, CA Conducted interior noise and vibration measurements, analyzed measurement data to help determine project criteria, modeled the existing and future terminals in CadnaA, and was part of a team that did a complete HVAC analysis of the entire terminal, as part of a CEQA analysis where a new terminal for the airport is being designed.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1709 of 2362

WILSON IHRIG
Jack Meighan – Page 2
*Work done prior to working for Wilson Ihrig
Five Points Apartments Noise Study, Whittier, CA
Took measurements, researched sound data and solutions, and recommended mitigation for a new apartment complex that was located next to an existing car wash, as part of a CEQA review.

USC Ellison Vibration Survey, Los Angeles, CA
Conducted vibration measurements as part of a survey to determine the effectiveness of vibration isolation platforms that are used to insulate cell growth in a cancer research facility. Determined the effectiveness and presented this information to the client. Researched and recommended a permanent monitoring system so the client could view data in real time.

TEN50 Condos ‘Popping’ Noise Investigation, Los Angeles, CA Was part of a team that investigated the noise source of an unwanted popping noise in luxury condos in Downtown Los Angeles. Helped isolate the noise source location with accelerometers to determine where vibrations were occurring first and used an acoustic camera to determine where in the condo the noise was coming from.
2000 University Project, Berkely, CA
Wrote a construction noise monitoring plan based on environmental noise calculations, wrote a report summarizing the results, and attending a meeting with the client to discuss options.

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) On‐Track, CA, San Francisco Bay Area, CA* Day to day project manager, responsible for meetings, presentations, and coordination with the client for an ongoing noise study on the BART system. Developed MATLAB code to process measurements and determine areas where high corrugation was present, contributing to excessively high in-car noise levels. Performed noise measurements inside both the right of way and the vehicle cabin, in addition to rail corrugation measurements.

California I‐605/SR‐60 Interchange Improvement, Los Angeles, CA* Developed a noise model of the area that predicted sound levels for abatement design, in addition to conducting noise measurements and analysis. Led the Team in use of the FHWA Traffic Noise Model Software for the project, involving three major highways and two busy interchanges extending over 17 miles in southern California.

Sound Transit On‐Track, Seattle, WA*
Took measurements, fixed equipment, and developed software in MATLAB to process Corrugation Analysis Trolley measurements as part of an ongoing noise study on the Sound Transit Link system.

Tested vibration data to determine the best measurement and processing techniques to store the data in an online database for in-car measurements.

LA Metro CRRC Railcar Testing, Los Angeles, CA*
Led the effort to plan the measurements, determine measurement locations and finalize the test plan. Formulated a method to capture speed data directly from legacy train vehicles. Executed noise and vibration specification measurements for new rail cars delivered by CRRC.

City of Los Angeles, Pershing Square Station Rehabilitation Noise Monitoring, CA* Built noise models, wrote a construction noise plan, and assisted in on-site construction noise issues as they arose for a renovation of the Pershing Square metro station in downtown Los Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1710 of 2362

WILSON IHRIG
Jack Meighan – Page 3
*Work done prior to working for Wilson Ihrig
Angeles. Trained construction personnel in techniques for noise reduction and how to conduct noise monitoring measurements to meet project specifications.

City of Orange Metrolink Parking Garage Construction Monitoring, CA* Wrote an adaptive management vibration monitoring plan, set up equipment to monitor live vibration levels, and generated weekly reports as part of an effort to build a new parking garage.

Designed, planned, and completed measurements to predict and mitigate pile driving construction impacts at three historic building locations adjacent to the construction site. Coordinated with the client whenever an on-site problem arose.

LA Metro Westside Subway Construction, Los Angeles, CA* Planned, organized, and processed noise measurements for the Purple Line extension construction.

Implemented both long term microphones to measure noise levels and accelerometers to measure vibration levels in existing subway tunnels. Oversaw noise monitoring at sensitive construction sites for the project and worked with the contractor to find ways to reduce construction noise levels by approximately 10dB.

Montreal Réseau Express Métropolitain, Canada*
Conducted vibration propagation measurements used to create models to predict operational vibration levels for an under-construction transit line. Managed equipment, solved problems in the field, and wrote parts of the report summarizing the findings of the acoustic study.

NHCRP Barrier*
Took on-highway measurements and wrote, designed, developed, and tested MATLAB code to identify specific spectrograms to use for analyses for a project evaluating barrier reflected highway traffic noise differences in the presence of a single absorptive or reflective noise barrier.

Siemens Railcar Testing for Sound Transit, Seattle, WA* Measured in-car noise and vibration for new rail cars delivered by Siemens. Developed new internal techniques for measurements based on the written specifications. Contributed to the team that helped identify issues that new cars had in meeting the Sound Transit specifications for noise and vibration. Participated in developing the test plan and specified then acquired new equipment for the measurement.

Toronto/Ontario Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail, Final Design, Canada* Assisted in vibration propagation measurements, analysis, and recommendations for mitigation for a 12-mile light-rail line both on and under Eglinton Avenue. Set up and ran equipment for at-grade measurements with an impact hammer for underground measurements with an impact load cell that was used during pre-construction borehole drilling.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1711 of 2362
1905 Business Center Drive ● San Bernardino ● CA 92408 ● 909-890-1818 ● Fax 909-890-1809 June 4, 2024
Mr. Brian Foote
Mr. Kevin Beery
City of Redlands
Development Services Department
35 Cajon Street, Suite 20
Redlands, CA 92373
SUBJECT: Responses to Comment Letters Received During Public Review Period for 1101 California Street Warehouse
Dear Brian and Kevin:

This letter has been prepared per the City’s request for Lilburn Corporation to provide responses to the comment letters from various individuals and organizations during the 30 day public review period for the subject project’s Initial Study/MND (“Initial Study” or “MND”). The review period began March 28, 2024 and ended April 29, 2024. A total of eleven letters and emails were received and are included as Attachment 1 to this letter.

General responses provided herein are intended to provide the Planning Commission with information to proceed with adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the Initial Study that was circulated for public review. More detailed responses to comments related to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Traffic, and Noise were provided by the Applicant’s consultant, Urban Crossroads and are included as Attachment 2 to this letter.

CEQA Guidelines state that an Initial Study may rely upon expert opinion supported by facts, technical studies, or other substantial evidence to document its findings. The Initial Study prepared for the subject project evaluated potentially significant effects to 20 general environmental resources areas. Six technical studies prepared specifically for the project were peer reviewed and then incorporated into the Initial Study.

Individuals Opposing the Project
A total of six commenters provided their opposition to the project, but did not comment on the CEQA Initial Study. These were:

1. Cindy and Robert Calderon, email dated April 27, 2024

2. Vivek Gupta, email dated April 29, 2024

3. Elizabeth Kim, email dated April 29, 2024

4. Robert and LuAnn Benton, email dated April 29, 2024

5. Beth and Jerry Sanders, email dated April 29, 2024

6. Margot Bordne, email dated April 29, 2024
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1712 of 2362
Mr. Brian Foote
Mr. Kevin Beery
June 4, 2024

Julia Lenhardt email dated April 29, 2024
Julia Lenhardt commented via an email dated April 29, 2024 on the finding of the Carbon Monoxide (CO) hotspot analysis stating that according to the report, the project would not generate a CO hotspot because CO is already concentrated in this region.

Response: The CO hotspot analysis included in the Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared for the project by Urban Crossroads. The report states on page 52 that an adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the State one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. Page 52 if the report states that the ambient one-hour and eight-hour CO concentrations within the Project study area are estimated to be 2.0 ppm and 1.6 ppm respectively (based on 2021 data). Therefore, the project area is well below what would be considered a CO hotspot. The report also concludes that the project would not be capable of resulting in a hotspot because of on-going improvements in ambient air quality and vehicular emissions controls, NOT because CO is already concentrated in this region.

Kaiser Permanente Letter dated April 29, 2024
Kaiser Permanente provides comments on site design, trip generation calculations, and GHG emissions. They first commented that the project’s entrance for all trucks is on Lugonia Avenue and that driveway does not align with Kaiser Permanente’s driveway on Lugonia. The commenter recommends that a westbound turn lane be accommodated within the existing median with a minimum storage of 100 feet. It is stated that due to the offset in driveway alignment the turn of the westbound truck will conflict with existing eastbound left turn lane into Kaiser Permanente’s site.

Response: City staff has worked with the Applicant and has resolved the potential turn lane conflict. Urban Crossroad prepared an exhibit demonstrating that turning can be done without conflict. The project team stated they will implement a logistics plan to not allow trucks exiting the facility to make the right turn out until the inbound left turn lane is clear of vehicles.

Kaiser Permanente second comment asks why the Traffic Study does not give credit for any existing uses whereas the GHG Report does. Quotations from the two referenced reports are provided.

Response: The Urban Crossroads authors of the two reports indicate that it is correct that the site was not operational and there were no on-site structures and that no credit was taken for trips generated as that was the City’s request for traffic. This provided for a conservative assessment for LOS Traffic (which is no longer a CEQA topic area). For GHG, pursuant to CEQA, no credit was taken for the historical baseline condition. Moreover, the Project total gross GHG emissions (3,534.58 MTCO2e/yr) does not approach much less exceed the applicable SCAQMD 10,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold. Even assuming the commenter’s inaccurate baseline conditions, Project GHG emissions would not directly or indirectly have a significant impact on the environment, and impacts would be less-than-significant.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1713 of 2362
Mr. Brian Foote
Mr. Kevin Beery
June 4, 2024

South Coast Air Quality Management District Letter dated April 17, 2024 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) cites rules of the agencies’ Governing Board that were adopted to reduce regional and local emissions, including diesel particulate matter, and the application of these rules to warehouse owners and operators.

Response: Urban Crossroads, author of the Air Quality Impact Analysis used in the CEQA Initial Study, prepared a response letter (April 30, 2024) which is attached hereto.

BLUM, COLLINS & HO Letter dated April 26, 2024
This commenting law firm submitted comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance.

Response: The Commenter subsequently withdrew the comment letter in correspondence dated May 17, 2024.

Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Letter dated April 29, 2024 – Letter 11 This commenting law firm has submitted comments on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”) which is an incorporated association of individuals and labor organizations including the District Council of Ironworks and the Southern California Pipe Trades DC 16. Responses to the Blum Collins & Ho letter (referred to as “Letter 11”) are provided below and an indexed copy of their letter follows. Responses to the SWAPE attachment were prepared by Urban Crossroads and their letter is also attached.

In general multiple comments provided by the commenter assert that the MND technical analyses improperly evaluate the Project’s potential environmental impacts. City Planning disagrees with this assertion. The City considers the MND technical analyses in all respects to accurately represent the extent and magnitude of the Project impacts. Consistent with the City’s CEQA environmental process, the Initial Study prepared for the Project evaluated potential impacts under 20 environmental resources areas. As part of the Initial Study analysis, supporting technical studies, each with applicable background information and modeling, were prepared specifically for this Project.

Analytic efforts provided by the commenter are acknowledged. Analysis and remarks provided by the commenter evidence a “difference of opinion” regarding how to undertake these analyses. In this regard, CEQA Guidelines Section 15151. Standards for Adequacy of an EIR [MND], provides the following:
“An EIR [MND] should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible.

Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1714 of 2362
Mr. Brian Foote
Mr. Kevin Beery
June 4, 2024

looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure” [emphasis added].

Despite disagreement expressed by the commenter, the MND prepared for the Project including supporting technical analyses are considered adequate, complete, and represent a good faith effort at full disclosure of the Project’s potential environmental impacts. Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected. No revisions to the MND are required or proposed. Preparation of an EIR is not required.

Letter 11 – Transmittal
This is a transmittal email indicating a comment document, with exhibits is attached and providing a Dropbox link to supporting references.

Response to Letter 11 Transmittal
The comment is noted for the record and no response is required.

Comment 11-1
This is an introductory comment stating the law firm is providing comments on behalf of Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (“CARE CA”), and does not provide any CEQArelated comments.

Response to Comment 11-1
The comment is noted for the record and no response is required.

Comment 11-2
This comment summarizes the proposed project.

Response to Comment 11-2
This is a summary comment reiterating the Project Description and history of prior site use as provided in the Initial Study. It does not raise specific environmental topics requiring a response.

The comment is noted for the record and no response is required.

Comment 11-3
Comment introduces the letters attached Exhibits A & B. and indicates that comments specific to air quality and GHG, and to noise and vitiation are provided therein by commenter’s experts whose curriculum vitae are also included in the exhibits. Commenter believes sufficient evidence is provided therein to support a fair argument that Project may result in significant adverse impacts, and therefore the City must prepare an EIR.

Response to Comment 11-3
CEQA Guidelines state that an Initial Study may rely upon expert opinion supported by facts, technical studies, or other substantial evidence to document its findings. The Initial Study prepared for the subject project evaluated potentially significant effects to 20 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1715 of 2362
Mr. Brian Foote
Mr. Kevin Beery
June 4, 2024

general environmental resources areas. Six technical studies prepared specifically for the project were peer reviewed and then incorporated into the Initial Study. No significant impacts that could not be mitigated to levels of less than significant were identified; the City has made the determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA document to use in approval of the project.

Comment 11-4
This comment introduces CARE CA as an 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”. Commenter further states that CARE CA advocates for protecting the environment and communities’ workforce health and they have interest in enforcing environmental laws for safe working environments. This comment does not relate directly to any specific project CEQA analysis deficiency or error.

Response to Comment 11-4
The comment is noted for the record and no response is required.

Comment 11-5
Comment presents CEQA definitions and guidelines related to preparation of EIRs and Negative Declarations, as well as what Courts have held relative to the two. This comment does not relate directly to any specific project CEQA analysis deficiency or error.

Response to Comment 11-5
The comment is noted for the record and no response is required.

Comment 11-6
Commenter further believes that the MND for the Project fails to adequately analyze potentially significant impacts and fails to present substantial evidence to conclude impacts mitigated to less than significant levels; this is introductory to subsequent more detailed comments and as presented in exhibits.

Response to Comment 11-6
Responses to detailed comments are provided below in Responses to Comments 11-8 through 11-

26. Comment 11-7
This comment provides CEQA guidelines and Court explanations regarding the need for a complete and accurate Project Description. Comment does not identify any specific project-related Initial Study/MND deficiencies or errors.

Response to Comment 11-7
The comment is noted for the record and no response is required.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1716 of 2362
Mr. Brian Foote
Mr. Kevin Beery
June 4, 2024

Comment 11-8
This comment provides CEQA guidelines and Court explanations related to the requirements that an EIR include analysis of environmental effects related to potential future tenants, uses, or actions of a project. The subject Project Application presents that the warehouse would be developed on a speculative basis and there are unknown future tenants, but reasonably foreseeable uses.

Commenter further states that absent conditions of approval limiting Project operations to low intensity warehouse uses, it is reasonably foreseeable that the Project may involve high-intensity warehouse uses (e.g. high cube warehousing and cold storage).

Response to Comment 11-8
High-intensity uses are not proposed as part of the Project Application and the City will add a permit condition prohibiting cold storage in accordance with RMC § 18.156.950.E. The MND evaluates a mix of 20% general light industrial and 80% warehousing. As such, the Project generates more trips than the High-Cube Transload, High-Cube Cold Storage, and High-Cube Fulfillment (Non-Sort) uses. Given the size and configuration of the warehouse, the prospect of a lessee opting to utilize the facility as either a high-cube fulfillment (sort) (ITE 155) or high-cube parcel hub purposes are highly improbable due to the specialized and demanding nature of these operations and the logistical challenges they entail.

Comment 11-9
The commenter states that the “MND fails to substantiate the assumption that project operation will not involve cold storage uses.” The commenter then describes various issues and environmental concerns surrounding cold storage warehouse uses and references the Attorney General’s guidance and recommendation for mitigation measures to be adopted limiting cold storage, or recording a covenant on the title.

Response to Comment 11-9
The Project does not propose or require cold storage warehouse uses and would be so conditioned.

Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected.

Comment 11-10
The commenter speculates that use of backup generators at the Project site could result in potentially significant impacts not addressed in the MND. The City disagrees. 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.

Response to Comment 11-10
Even if operated for protracted periods as speculated by the commenter, use of backup generators at the Project site would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the MND. As a means of comparison, maximum emissions resulting from Project construction equipment operations would not exceed any SCAQMD significance thresholds (Initial Study pp. 37 – 40, 44 – 51) and would not result in any significant impacts. Within the context of Project construction, Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1717 of 2362
Mr. Brian Foote
Mr. Kevin Beery
June 4, 2024

grading operations would involve the following heavy-duty equipment: 1 grader, 2 excavators, 2 crawler tractors, 2 scrapers, and 1 rubber-tired dozer - - all operating for 8 hours per day for an estimated 30 days. It is highly unlikely that temporary operations of backup generators at the Project site would result in air quality impacts greater than would result from the cited Project construction equipment operations. As with Project construction-source air quality impacts, any potential air quality impacts resulting from backup generator operations would be less-thansignificant. The commenter restates speculative remarks regarding potential development of cold storage warehouse uses at the Project. The Project does not propose or require development of cold storage warehouse use (see Response to Comment 11-9).

Comment 11-11
Comment states MND contains conflicting descriptions of future uses of hazardous materials with no mitigation provided and that Project is designed to be capable of supporting intensive warehouse uses and transport of hazardous materials need to be analyzed in an EIR.

Response to Comment 11-11
The City confirms that the Project Description 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.

compliance with State and local regulations. Additionally, all materials required during construction would be kept in compliance with State and local regulations and would comply with Best Management Practices. Further, the California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 includes provisions for Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory. The intent of the code is to protect the public health and safety and the environment; it is necessary to establish business and area plans relating to the handling and release or threatened release of hazardous materials. In San Bernardino County, this program is referred to as the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory (Business Plan) program and is operated by the SBFD CUPA. The Business Plan program is intended to provide information regarding hazardous materials at facilities to emergency responders and the general public, along with coordinating the reporting of releases and spill response among businesses to local, State, and federal government authorities.

include manufacturing, research, warehousing/ distributing, assembly of non-hazardous products and materials, and retail related to manufacturing. Operational activities would also include standard maintenance (i.e., landscape upkeep, exterior painting and similar activities) involving the use of commercially available products (e.g., pesticides, herbicides, gas, oil, paint, etc.) the use of which would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment.

The Proposed Project would require implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1718 of 2362
Mr. Brian Foote
Mr. Kevin Beery
June 4, 2024

compliance with all applicable regulations. Therefore, no significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

The City disagrees with conflicting commenter’s statements regarding hazardous materials transport, storage, and use. Further, compliance with local, State, and federal law provides that no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Compliance with existing and future laws related to hazardous materials are required for any business to remain viable and in operation. With less than significant impacts, and EIR is not required.

Comment 11-12
This comment provides CEQA guidelines regarding the establishment of a project’s baseline upon which impacts are determined significant . Comment does not identify any specific project-related Initial Study/MND deficiencies or errors.

Response to Comment 11-12
The comment is noted for the record and no response is required.

Comment 11-13
The commenter states that the MND relies on an inadequate baseline against which to analyze Project’s air quality and greenhouse gas impacts.

Response to Comment 11-13
The City disagrees. Legal citations provided by the commenter are noted. The project does not use a historical baseline, and even if it had, a historical GHG emissions baseline is an appropriate existing conditions setting for evaluation of the Project GHG emissions impacts. See North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (Plaza Camino Real, LP, et al., Real Parties in Interest) 241 Cal.App.4th 94 (holding historical level of use is proper CEQA baseline).

Comment 11-14
The commenter rephrases previous Comment 11-13 regarding GHG emissions baseline conditions.

Response to Comment 11-14
These comments are addressed at previous Response 13. As substantiated in the MND, all Project GHG emissions impacts would be less-than-significant.

Comment 11-15
The commenter rephrases previous Comments 13, 14 regarding GHG emissions baseline conditions. The commenter states that “the Air Quality Analysis in the MND relies on the same fictitious baseline to determine air quality and health risk impacts.” Specifically, all the Project’s baseline conditions are those existing from 2018 onward, following the closure of the Splash Kingdom amusement park. Commenter states that the City lacks substantial evidence to support Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1719 of 2362
Mr. Brian Foote
Mr. Kevin Beery
June 4, 2024

its reliance on fully operational amusement park baselines to inform its analysis of the Project’s impacts.

Response to Comment 11-15
The MND analysis of criteria pollutant emissions impacts and health risk impacts does not rely “on a fictious baseline.” All criteria pollutant emissions impacts and health risk impacts have been evaluated based on specific operational characteristics of this Project in the context of applicable SCAQMD thresholds.

All Project emissions modeling and related analyses conform with SCAQMD’s Modeling protocols, and employ the latest version of CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.12). All modeling inputs are consistent with applicable SCAQMD guidance, and reflect extensive practical experience of the MND air quality expert. The MND appropriately concludes that the Project would not result in or contribute to any potentially significant air quality impacts. Please refer to MND Item III.

Air Quality, and MND Appendix A, Air Quality Analysis.

All Project health risk impacts have been evaluated consistent with Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. All modeling inputs are consistent with applicable SCAQMD guidance, and reflect extensive practical experience of the MND air quality expert. The MND appropriately concludes that the Project would not result in or contribute to any potentially significant health risk impacts. Please refer to MND Item III. Air Quality, and MND Appendix C, Health Risk Assessment.

The City does not concur with alternative analyses offered by the commenter. In summary, the City has conducted necessary and appropriate analyses addressing the Project’s likely environmental impacts, including but not limited to potential air quality, GHG emissions, and health risk impacts.

All analyses have been conducted consistent with accepted professional practices, and are considered to accurately and adequately disclose the Project’s potential impacts. Via the MND, the City has made a good faith effort at full disclosure of the Project’s potential environmental impacts, including but not limited to the Project’s potential air quality, GHG emissions, and health risk impacts. On this basis, the City has concluded that the Project would not result in any significant air quality impacts, GHG emissions impacts, or health risk impacts. Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected.

Comment 11-16
Commenter states that 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’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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1720 of 2362
Mr. Brian Foote
Mr. Kevin Beery
June 4, 2024

Response to Comment 11-16
The commenter asserts that the Project could result in significant noise impacts. As discussed in the MND, construction-source noise impacts are considered less-than-significant based on compliance with date/time constraints outlined in the City’s Noise Control Ordinance. See MND at p. 44. Additionally, the Project would incorporate Construction Noise Best Management Practices acting to further control and reduce Project construction-source noise. See MND at pp. 44, 45. The MND properly concludes that Project construction-source noise impacts would be less-than-significant and would not contribute substantially to area noise conditions.

Additionally, the Project would not generate traffic that would substantially increase ambient noise levels along Study Area roadways. In this regard, assuming that the speed and vehicle mix do not change, a doubling of traffic volumes would be required to create a discernible (3 dBA) increase in vehicular-source noise levels. The Project would contribute less than 2 percent to average daily traffic volumes in the Study Area (MND Appendix B, Traffic Analysis pp. 40, 42).

Project traffic would therefore not contribute substantially to area noise conditions.

With regard to Project operational/area-source noise impacts, the current noise environment at the Project site is dominated by vehicular-source noise emanating from the adjacent I-10 freeway.

The City of Redlands General Plan (General Plan Figure 7-8 Existing Noise Contours, Figure 7- 9 Future Noise Contours Projected to 2035) indicates the Project site lies within the 70 CNEL noise contour paralleling the freeway. Noise analyses conducted for developments similar to the Project, including industrial projects of greater size adjacent to the project site, indicate that at 50 feet, received noise levels from operational activities could not exceed 66 dBA. Noise levels received at greater distances would be further reduced due to source-receptor noise attenuation factors (typically 1.5 dBA attenuation for each doubling of distance). Any 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 encompassing the Project site and properties adjacent to the freeway.

Comment 11-17
The commenter cites various CEQA requirements addressing impact significance, environmental analytic protocols, etc.

Response to Comment 11-17
Commenter remarks are noted. The commenter raises no issues regarding the Project’s MND. The City is aware of and has complied with all applicable CEQA requirements and protocols. No further response is required.

Comment 11-18
Commenter states that 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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1721 of 2362
Mr. Brian Foote
Mr. Kevin Beery
June 4, 2024

Response to Comment 11-18
The Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) modeling and the AQIA in total reflect the City’s understanding of the range and types of vehicles and vehicle trips that would result from the specific Project described in the MND. Employing this information and reflecting the MND air quality experts’ experience with similar developments in similar contexts, the AQIA appropriately estimates Project trip generation and trip lengths, and models the resulting air pollutant emissions accordingly. See Initial Study, pp. 12 – 19, pp. 30 – 34, pp. 51 – 55, MND Appendix A Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix B Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix F, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Appendix I VMT Screening Analysis.

Comment 11-19
Commenter again states that 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, and further that 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.

Comments cites their expert’s (Dr. Clark) conclusion that the Project results in significant air quality impacts.

Response to Comment 11-19
The City disagrees. In the first instance the MND substantiates in detail that the Project would not result in any potentially significant air quality impacts. See Initial Study, pp. 12 – 19, and MND Appendix A Air Quality Impact Analysis. CEQA does not require mitigation of impacts that are determined to be less-than significant. The City further does not concur with alternative analyses offered by the commenter.

Comment 11-20
Commenter states that the MND fails to accurately analyze or mitigate project’s construction and operational health risk based on their expert Dr. Clark who 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.

Response to Comment 11-20
In the first instance the MND substantiates in detail that the Project would not result in any potentially significant health risk impacts. See Initial Study, pp. 17 – 19, 30 – 34, and MND Appendix C Health Risk Assessment. CEQA does not require mitigation of impacts that are determined to be less-than significant. The City disagrees with the alternative analyses offered by the commenter.

Comment 11-21
The commenter states that “the MND fails to account for potentially significant health risk impacts associated with building downwash effect.”
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1722 of 2362
Mr. Brian Foote
Mr. Kevin Beery
June 4, 2024

Response to Comment 11-21
For this Project, idling emissions are effectively line volume sources and have been modeled as such consistent with applicable AERMOD protocols. Per User's Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), Section 3.3.9, Specifying Building Downwash Information, the 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. The Lead Agency does not concur with alternative analyses offered by the commenter. The commenter lists various measures that generally act to control or reduce air pollutant emissions. As noted previously, the Project would not result in any potentially significant air quality impacts. CEQA does not require mitigation for impacts determined to be less-than-significant.

Comment 11-22
Commenter notes that the Initial Study/MND makes no reference to the Kaiser Permanente seeking to expand their Redlands Medical Offices (located north of the Warehouse Project Site across Lugonia Avenue) into a full-service hospital. The City Municipal Code requires that warehouse project that abut uses including hospitals include a ten-foot-high screen wall and extra landscaping.

Response to Comment 11-22
According to the March 5, 2024 Project Site Plans 12% (82,104 s.f.) of the site will be landscaped and an 8-foot high metal fence will be provided at the north property boundary. These design parameters meet current Specific Plan Development Code (not the Municipal Code) as no uses currently exist adjacent to the Project Site to require more than what is provided. A project is not required to provide protection from uses that do not exist. Further, the City will adopt appropriate conditions of approval on the project post-entitlement as part of the detailed site plan review.

Comment 11-23
The commenter asserts that the MND did not adequately analyze the Project’s operational-source noise impacts.

Response to Comment 11-23
See Response to Comment 11-16. With specific regard to the Redlands Municipal Code noise standard cited by the commenter, in the first instance, the land use 140 feet west of the Project site already lies within the 70 CNEL contour of the I-10 freeway. Any noise generated by the Project would be imperceptible against the background freeway noise. Further, the potential maximum received 60 dBA noise level cited by the commenter would be the exterior noise level, not the interior noise level limit governed by Municipal Code Section 8.06.080 Conventional construction typically provides a minimum 20 dBA noise attenuation from exterior to interior noise environments. As such, the received interior noise level at a building 140 feet from the Project would be 40 dBA, not 60 dBA as stated by the commenter. The received 40 dBA noise level would not exceed the Redlands Municipal Code standards.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1723 of 2362
Mr. Brian Foote
Mr. Kevin Beery
June 4, 2024

Comment 11-24
Commenter states that their expert, 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. This would result in an exceedance of Municipal Code thresholds. Construction may therefore result in a significant vibration impact
Response to Comment 11-24
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 . . .” Further, the relevant threshold consideration here is whether Project activities would result in excessive vibration impacts. In this context, excessive vibration impacts would comprise vibration that could result in damage at proximate sensitive land uses or structures. Caltrans has established a maximum continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec) when considering whether construction-source vibration activities could result in damage at proximate sensitive land uses or structures. The Lead agency considers this the appropriate threshold applicable to the Project construction activities. Even assuming the received 0.016 in/sec vibration level cited by the commenter is accurate, Project construction-source vibration would not exceed the applicable 0.3 PPV in/sec threshold.

Comment 11-25
The commenter asserts that the Project would result in cumulatively significant air quality, public health, and greenhouse gas emissions impacts.

Response to Comment 11-25
The MND substantiates in all circumstances that Project air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas emissions impacts would be less-than-significant. SCAQMD is the regulatory agency governing air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas emissions considerations relevant to the Project. Per SCAQMD guidance, less-than-significant impacts at the Project level are not cumulatively considerable or cumulatively significant.
1 Further, the Lead agency does not concur
with alternative analyses offered by the commenter
Comment 11-26
This comment is a concluding remark that the City should withdraw the MND and direct staff to prepare an EIR because as detailed 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.
1 As a Lead Agency, South Coast AQMD “uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts […]” (Appendix D, 2003 White Paper). Meaning, projects that exceed the project-specific significance threshold are considered cumulatively considerable and vice-versa. As a CEQA Commenting Agency, South Coast AQMD “recommends that other public agencies perform cumulative impact analysis relative to air quality in the same manner as does AQMD” (Appendix D, 2003 White Paper).

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1724 of 2362
Mr. Brian Foote
Mr. Kevin Beery
June 4, 2024

Response to Comment 11-26
The City as noted in above responses, does not concur there are significant and unmitigated Impacts (“risks”) to the public. The MND and MND technical analyses together with the Responses provided herein comprise substantial evidence supporting the MND findings and conclusions that the Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. The City has made the determination that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA document to use in approval of the project.

Staff Conclusion
The Planning Commission should note that an Initial Study may rely upon expert opinion supported by facts, technical studies, or other substantial evidence to document its findings. Courts have found that disagreement among experts does not make a CEQA document inadequate.

We conclude that: 1) no new significant impacts have been identified; 2) there is no need for additional mitigation measures other than those presented in the circulated Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 3) there is no need to recirculate the IS/MND.

The City does not have an obligation to provide formal responses to the commenters however, this letter should be included in the Administrative Record for the project.

If you should have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to give us a call.

Sincerely,
Cheryl A. Tubbs
Vice President
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1725 of 2362
DATE: April 30, 2024
TO: Kevin Beery, City of Redlands
FROM: Urban Crossroads
JOB NO: 15517-04 RTC SCAQMD
1101 CALIFORNIA WAREHOUSE RESPONSE TO SCAQMD

COMMENTS
This letter has been prepared per the City’s request for Urban Crossroads, Inc. to provide response to the comment letter from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) dated April 17, 2024 regarding the CEQA Initial Study prepared for the 1101 California Street Warehouse Project (Project). The response provided herein is intended to provide the Planning Commission with information to proceed with adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) based on the Initial Study. The Initial Study has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse. The State-assigned Clearinghouse reference number is SCH No. 2024031107 and dates of the public review period for the Initial Study is March 28 through April 29, 2024.

OVERVIEW
CEQA Guidelines state that an Initial Study may rely upon expert opinion supported by facts, technical studies, or other substantial evidence to document its findings. (CEQA Guidelines §15603 (a) (3)) Consistent with the City’s CEQA environmental process, the Initial Study prepared for the Project evaluated potential impacts under 20 environmental resources areas. Among the evaluated Initial Study environmental resources topics is the issue of potential impacts to air quality. As part of the Initial Study analysis, air quality technical studies (Air Quality Impact Analysis [AQIA], Greenhouse Gas Analysis [GHGA], and Health Risk Assessment [HRA]) – each with applicable supporting background information and modeling, were prepared specifically for the Project.

With specific regard to air quality issues addressed in the Initial Study, the AQIA, GHGA, and HRA prepared by Urban Crossroads Inc. concluded that the Project would not result in or cause any potentially significant impacts related to criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, or health risks related to air pollutants (Initial Study, pp. 12 – 19, 30 – 34, Appendix A Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix C Health Risk Assessment, Appendix F Green House Gas Analysis.

SCAQMD COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
In their comments, SCAQMD cites requirements established under SCAQMD Rule 2305 Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program. As noted in the SCQAMD comments, the Project warehouse owners Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1726 of 2362
will be required to comply with Rule 2305 once the warehouse is occupied. Consistent with SCAQMD requirements, the Project warehouse owner(s) will implement incumbent Rule 2305 provisions. Though not required, the City may want to notify the Applicant of Rule 2305 requirements via the Project Conditions of Approval. SCAQMD comments here do not raise any new environmental issues or concerns. Findings and conclusions of the Initial Study are not affected. No revision to the Initial Study is required.

SCAQMD comments further that SCAQMD permitting will be required for “the use of new stationary and portable sources, including but not limited to emergency generators, fire water pumps, boilers, spray booths, etc.” With regard to the need for or use of the SCQAQMD-cited “stationary and portable sources,” specific locations for, and types of, these potential sources are unknown at this preliminary stage of Project development. When these specific factors become available, SCAQMD will be contacted, and all SCAQMD permitting requirements will be complied with, thereby precluding potential impacts that may result from operations of any new stationary or potable uses that could generate air pollutant emissions. Again, though not required, the City may want to notify the Applicant of SCAQMD permitting requirements via the Project Conditions of Approval.

Further, that the Project does not propose or require boilers or spray booths that would comprise substantial emissions sources. Additionally, 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. In this latter regard, as a means of comparison, maximum emissions resulting from Project construction equipment operations would not exceed any SCAQMD significance thresholds (Initial Study pp. 37 – 40, 44 – 51). Within the context of Project construction, grading operations would involve the following heavy-duty equipment: 1 grader, 2 excavators, 2 crawler tractors, 2 scrapers, and 1 rubber-tired dozer - - all operating for 8 hours per day for an estimated 30 days. It is highly unlikely that temporary and intermittent operations of a few emergency generators at the Project site would result in air quality impacts greater than would result from the cited Project construction equipment operations. As with Project construction-source air quality impacts, any potential air quality impacts resulting from emergency generator operations would be less-than-significant. Findings and conclusions of the Initial Study are not affected. No revision to the Initial Study is required.

The Planning Commission should again note that an Initial Study may rely upon expert opinion supported by facts, technical studies, or other substantial evidence to document its findings.

Courts have found that disagreement among experts does not make a CEQA document inadequate. (CEQA Guidelines § 15151) Despite comments provided by SCAQMD, the Initial Study prepared for the Project including, but not limited to, supporting AQIA, GHGA, and HRA are considered adequate, complete, and represent a good faith effort at full disclosure of the Project’s potential air quality impacts.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on the preceding and substantial evidence presented in the Initial Study and supporting technical analyses we conclude that: 1) no new significant impacts have been identified by SCAQMD; 2) there is no need for mitigation other than is presented in the circulated Initial Study Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1727 of 2362
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 3) there is no need to recirculate the IS/MND.

The City is not required to provide a formal response to SCAQMD. (CEQA Guidelines § 15074(b)) However, this letter should be included in the Administrative Record for the Project. Additionally, the City is required to provide written notification to SCAQMD regarding any public hearing for the Project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15073(e))
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1728 of 2362
DATE: June 4, 2024
TO: Kevin Beery, City of Redlands
FROM: Urban Crossroads
JOB NO: 15517-04 RTC ABJ&C
1101 CALIFORNIA WAREHOUSE RESPONSE TO ABJ&C COMMENTS

MASTER RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Multiple comments provided by the commenter assert that the MND technical analyses improperly evaluate the Project’s potential environmental impacts. The Lead Agency disagrees with this assertion. The Lead Agency considers the MND technical analyses in all respects to accurately represent the extent and magnitude of the Project impacts.

Consistent with the City’s CEQA environmental process, the Initial Study prepared for the Project evaluated potential impacts under 20 environmental resources areas. As part of the Initial Study analysis, supporting technical studies, each with applicable background information and modeling, were prepared specifically for this Project.

Analytic efforts provided by the commenter are acknowledged. Analysis and remarks provided by the commenter evidence a “difference of opinion” regarding how to undertake these analyses. In this regard, CEQA Guidelines Section 15151. Standards for Adequacy of an EIR [MND], provides the following:
“An EIR [MND] should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible.

Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure” [emphasis added].

Despite disagreement expressed by the commenter, the MND prepared for the Project including supporting technical analyses are considered adequate, complete, and represent a good faith effort at full disclosure of the Project’s potential environmental impacts.

Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected. No revisions to the MND are required or proposed. Preparation of an EIR is not required.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1729 of 2362
Comment 11-9
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. 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 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.

CARB also explains that TRUs’ emissions of GHGs contribute towards climate change, 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.” 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 ever-increasing population and market demands in Southern California, Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1730 of 2362
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. 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.

Response 11-9
The commenter states that the “MND fails to substantiate the assumption that project operation will not involve cold storage uses.” The commenter then describes various issues and environmental concerns surrounding cold storage warehouse uses. These narratives are noted.

To be clear, the Project does not propose or require cold storage warehouse uses. There is no requirement that the MND evaluate actions or uses that are not proposed by the Project.

Commenter assumption that the Project would involve or require cold storage warehouse uses is purely speculative. There is no need for the City to impose a “no refrigerated warehouse space” or similar title restriction for the Project. Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected.

No revision to the MND is required. Preparation of an EIR is not required.

Comment 11-10
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, 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.” 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.” 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.”
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1731 of 2362
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.

In Los Angeles County, two circuits had 4 PSPS events during that period, lasting an average of 35 to 38 hours. The total duration of the PSPS events lasted between 141 hours to 154 hours in 2019.

According to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) de-energization report 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. 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. Backup generators commonly rely on fuels such as natural gas or diesel, and thus can significantly impact air quality, GHG emissions, and public health through toxic DPM emissions. Since the Project may include cold storage, it is reasonably foreseeable that the Project would require on-site backup generators.

Generators can emit criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and toxic air contaminants (“TACs”). Backup generators commonly rely on fuels such as natural gas or diesel, and thus can significantly impact public health through DPM emissions. 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”).

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.

Response 11-10
The commenter speculates that use of backup generators at the Project site could result in potentially significant impacts not addressed in the MND. The Lead Agency disagrees. 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.

Even if operated for protracted periods as speculated by the commenter, use of backup generators at the Project site would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1732 of 2362
MND. As a means of comparison, maximum emissions resulting from Project construction equipment operations would not exceed any SCAQMD significance thresholds (Initial Study pp. 37 – 40, 44 – 51) and would not result in any significant impacts. Within the context of Project construction, grading operations would involve the following heavy-duty equipment: 1 grader, 2 excavators, 2 crawler tractors, 2 scrapers, and 1 rubber-tired dozer - - all operating for 8 hours per day for an estimated 30 days. It is highly unlikely that temporary operations of backup generators at the Project site would result in air quality impacts greater than would result from the cited Project construction equipment operations. As with Project construction-source air quality impacts, any potential air quality impacts resulting from backup generator operations would be less-than-significant. The commenter restates speculative remarks regarding potential development of cold storage warehouse uses at the Project. The Project does not propose or require development of cold storage warehouse uses. These comments are addressed at previous Response 12-9.

Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected. No revision to the MND is required.

Preparation of an EIR is not required.

Comment 11-13
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....’” 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. 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.

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 four boilers that produced steam for refinery operations. 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. 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.” 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. The Court rejected the “maximum level permitted” baseline because it did not aim to reflect existing conditions.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1733 of 2362
Some subsequent cases, as well as the CEQA Guidelines, 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.

For example, in Association of Irritated Residents v. Kern County Board of Supervisors, 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:

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.” The court noted that suspension of operations was intended as temporary, and that the refinery had a “history of fluctuating operations” – 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.” 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.

In North County Advocates v. County of Carlsbad, 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 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.” 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.” 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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1734 of 2362
Response 11-13
The commenter states that the MND relies on an inadequate baseline against which to analyze Project’s air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. The Lead Agency disagrees. Legal citations provided by the commenter are noted. For the specific Project considered here, the Lead Agency has determined that the historical GHG emissions baseline is the applicable and appropriate existing conditions setting for evaluation of the Project GHG emissions impacts. See North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (Plaza Camino Real, LP, et al., Real Parties in Interest) 241 Cal.App.4th 94 (holding historical level of use is proper CEQA baseline).

Moreover, the Project total gross GHG emissions (3,534.58 MTCO2e/yr) does not approach much less exceed the applicable SCAQMD 10,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold. Even assuming the commenter’s inaccurate baseline conditions, Project GHG emissions would not directly or indirectly have a significant impact on the environment, and impacts would be less-thansignificant. Additionally, the MND at pp. 32, 33, and Appendix F, Greenhouse Gas Emissions substantiate that the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts in these regards would be lessthan-significant. Based on the preceding, the GHG emissions baseline employed in the MND GHG analysis is appropriate. As substantiated in the MND, all Project GHG emissions impacts would be less-than-significant.

With regard to evaluation of the Project’s criteria pollutant emissions, the MND analyses conform with SCAQMD’s Modeling protocols, and employ the latest version of CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.12). All modeling inputs are consistent with applicable SCAQMD guidance, and reflect extensive practical experience of the MND air quality expert. The MND appropriately concludes that the Project would not result in or contribute to any potentially significant criteria pollutant air quality impacts. Please refer to MND Item III. Air Quality, and MND Appendix A, Air Quality Analysis.

Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected. No revision to the MND is required.

Preparation of an EIR is not required.

Comment 11-14
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. 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. 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.” This is incorrect. The City’s choice to use fictitious emissions values as the existing baseline is misplaced. The “normal” baseline described Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1735 of 2362
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. No sources of emissions are operational at the Project Site, or have been since the water park’s closure in 2018 or demolition in 2021.

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, CBE v. SCAQMD,89 North County Advocates v.

County of Carlsbad, and other leading cases 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.” 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.” 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. 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.

Response 11-14
The commenter rephrases previous Comment 13 regarding GHG emissions baseline conditions.

These comments are addressed at previous Response 13. As substantiated in the MND, all Project GHG emissions impacts would be less-than-significant.

Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected. No revision to the MND is required.

Preparation of an EIR is not required.

Comment 11-15
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. Specifically, the reliance on fictitious emissions associated with a 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. The MND’s analysis includes a calculation that Net Emissions is calculated by subtracting Existing Emissions from the Proposed Emissions from Total CO2 emissions.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1736 of 2362
The MND’s conclusions based on subtracting the fictitious 2,228.88 Existing Emissions from the Total Emissions of 3,534.58, are incorrect. 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. 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.

Response 11-15
The commenter rephrases previous Comments 13, 14 regarding GHG emissions baseline conditions. These comments are addressed at previous Responses 13, 14. As substantiated in the MND, all Project GHG emissions impacts would be less-than-significant.

The commenter states that “the Air Quality Analysis in the MND relies on the same fictitious baseline to determine air quality and health risk impacts.” This is incorrect. The MND analysis of criteria pollutant emissions impacts and health risk impacts does not rely “on a fictious baseline.” All criteria pollutant emissions impacts and health risk impacts have been evaluated based on specific operational characteristics of this Project in the context of applicable SCAQMD thresholds.

All Project emissions modeling and related analyses conform with SCAQMD’s Modeling protocols, and employ the latest version of CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.1.12). All modeling inputs are consistent with applicable SCAQMD guidance, and reflect extensive practical experience of the MND air quality expert. The MND appropriately concludes that the Project would not result in or contribute to any potentially significant air quality impacts. Please refer to MND Item III. Air Quality, and MND Appendix A, Air Quality Analysis.

All Project health risk impacts have been evaluated consistent with Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis. All modeling inputs are consistent with applicable SCAQMD guidance, and reflect extensive practical experience of the MND air quality expert. The MND appropriately concludes that the Project would not result in or contribute to any potentially significant health risk impacts.

Please refer to MND Item III. Air Quality, and MND Appendix C, Health Risk Assessment.

The Lead Agency does not concur with alternative analyses offered by the commenter. Please refer to the introductory Master Response and Responses provided herein substantiating accuracy and adequacy of all MND technical analyses.

In summary, the Lead Agency has conducted necessary and appropriate analyses addressing the Project’s likely environmental impacts, including but not limited to potential air quality, GHG emissions, and health risk impacts. All analyses have been conducted consistent with accepted professional practices, and are considered to accurately and adequately disclose the Project’s Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1737 of 2362
potential impacts. Via the MND, the Lead Agency has made a good faith effort at full disclosure of the Project’s potential environmental impacts, including but not limited to the Project’s potential air quality, GHG emissions, and health risk impacts. On this basis, the Lead agency has concluded that the Project would not result in any significant air quality impacts, GHG emissions impacts, or health risk impacts. Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected. No revision to the MND is required. Preparation of an EIR is not required.

Comment 11-16
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.” “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.”
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. 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.

Response 11-16
The commenter asserts that the Project could result in significant noise impacts. The Lead Agency disagrees. As discussed in the MND, construction-source noise impacts are considered less-thansignificant based on compliance with date/time constraints outlined in the City’s Noise Control Ordinance. See MND at p. 44. Additionally, the Project would incorporate Construction Noise Best Management Practices acting to further control and reduce Project construction-source noise.

See MND at pp. 44, 45. On-road construction equipment accessing the Project site would be required to travel along designated haul routes that avoid sensitive land uses, thereby minimizing potential noise impacts at sensitive land uses. On this basis, the MND properly concludes that Project construction-source noise impacts would be less-than-significant and would not contribute substantially to area noise conditions.

Additionally, the Project would not generate traffic that would substantially increase ambient noise levels along Study Area roadways. In this regard, assuming that the speed and vehicle mix do not change, a doubling of traffic volumes would be required to create a discernible (3 dBA) increase in vehicular-source noise levels. The Project would contribute less than 2 percent to Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1738 of 2362
average daily traffic volumes in the Study Area (MND Appendix B, Traffic Analysis pp. 40, 42).

Project traffic would therefore not contribute substantially to area noise conditions.

With regard to Project operational/area-source noise impacts, the current noise environment at the Project site is dominated by vehicular-source noise emanating from the adjacent I-10 freeway.

The City of Redlands General Plan (General Plan Figure 7-8 Existing Noise Contours, Figure 7-9 Future Noise Contours Projected to 2035) indicates the Project site lies within the 70 CNEL noise contour paralleling the freeway. Noise analyses conducted for developments similar to the Project, including industrial projects of greater size adjacent to the project site, indicate that at 50 feet, received noise levels from operational activities could not exceed 66 dBA. Noise levels received at greater distances would be further reduced due to source-receptor noise attenuation factors (typically 1.5 dBA attenuation for each doubling of distance). Any noise generated by the Project operations as received at any land use greater that 50 feet from the Project boundary would not exceed 66 dBA, and would be imperceptible in the context of the 70 CNEL noise contour encompassing the Project site and properties adjacent to the freeway. Based on the preceding, the Project would not result in significant noise impacts, or contribute substantially to area noise conditions. Project impacts in these regards would be less-than-significant.

The Lead agency does not concur with alternative analyses offered by the commenter. Please refer to the introductory Master Response and Responses provided herein substantiating accuracy and adequacy of all MND technical analyses.

Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected. No revision to the MND is required.

Preparation of an EIR is not required.

Comment 11-17
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. An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.

Moreover, the failure to provide information required by CEQA is a failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA. 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. 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.”
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.’”
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1739 of 2362
Response 11-17
The commenter cites various CEQA requirements addressing impact significance, environmental analytic protocols, etc. Commenter remarks are noted. The commenter raises no issues regarding the MND. The Lead Agency is aware of and complies with all applicable CEQA requirements and protocols. No further response is required.

Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected. No revision to the MND is required.

Preparation of an EIR is not required.

Comment 11-18
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”). 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.

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:

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 Analysis 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). SCAQMD has explained that this guidance is not intended to replace an analysis of actual truck trip distances to and from the ports.

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.” And CEQA requires that significance determinations be “based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data.” 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 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1740 of 2362
destinations for the Project’s 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. 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. This would result in a nearly 200% longer trip than estimated in the air quality assessment in the MND. 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. 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[sic].

Response 11-18
The commenter asserts “[t]he MND fails to use actual truck trip lengths, resulting in an underestimation of vehicle emissions.” The Lead Agency disagrees. The AQIA modeling and the AQIA in total reflect the Lead Agency’s understanding of the range and types of vehicles and vehicle trips that would result from the specific Project described in the MND. Employing this information and reflecting the MND air quality experts’ experience with similar developments in similar contexts, the AQIA appropriately estimates Project trip generation and trip lengths, and models the resulting air pollutant emissions accordingly. The AQIA thus provides an analysis of likely vehicular-source air quality impacts based on the best available information and what is reasonably feasible in the context of this specific Project. The MND analysis substantiates that Project VMT impacts and vehicular-source emissions impacts would be less-than-significant. See Initial Study, pp. 12 – 19, pp. 30 – 34, pp. 51 – 55, MND Appendix A Air Quality Impact Analysis, Appendix B Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix F, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Appendix I VMT Screening Analysis.

The Lead agency does not concur with alternative analyses offered by the commenter. Please refer to the introductory Master Response and Responses provided herein substantiating accuracy and adequacy of all MND technical analyses.

Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected. No revision to the MND is required.

Preparation of an EIR is not required.

Comment 11-19
B. The MND Fails to Accurately Analyze or Mitigate the Project’s Potentially Significant Air Quality Impacts
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1741 of 2362
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 associated with yard equipment used on the Project site. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Response 11-19
The commenter states that the MND “[f]ails to accurately analyze or mitigate the project’s potentially significant air quality impacts.” The Lead Agency disagrees. In the first instance the MND substantiates in detail that the Project would not result in any potentially significant air quality impacts. See Initial Study, pp. 12 – 19, and MND Appendix A Air Quality Impact Analysis.

CEQA does not require mitigation of impacts that are determined to be less-than significant.

The Lead agency does not concur with alternative analyses offered by the commenter. Please refer to the introductory Master Response and Responses provided herein substantiating accuracy and adequacy of all MND technical analyses.

Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected. No revision to the MND is required.

Preparation of an EIR is not required.

Comment 11-20
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. Dr. Clark calculated that the health risk estimate for ages 2 to 30 years is off by a factor of 1.3. 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.

Response 11-20
The commenter states that the MND “fails to accurately analyze or mitigate the project’s construction and operational health risk.” The Lead Agency disagrees. In the first instance the MND substantiates in detail that the Project would not result in any potentially significant health risk impacts. See Initial Study, pp. 17 – 19, 30 – 34, and MND Appendix C Health Risk Assessment.

CEQA does not require mitigation of impacts that are determined to be less-than significant.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1742 of 2362
The Lead agency does not concur with alternative analyses offered by the commenter. Please refer to the introductory Master Response and Responses provided herein substantiating accuracy and adequacy of all MND technical analyses.

Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected. No revision to the MND is required.

Preparation of an EIR is not required.

Comment 11-21
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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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:

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 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 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1743 of 2362
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 offroad 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 medium-duty 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.

Response 11-21
The commenter states that “the MND fails to account for potentially significant health risk impacts associated with building downwash effect.” The Lead Agency disagrees. For this Project, idling emissions are effectively line volume sources and have been modeled as such consistent with applicable AERMOD protocols. Per User's Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), Section 3.3.9, Specifying Building Downwash Information, the 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.

The Lead Agency does not concur with alternative analyses offered by the commenter. Please refer to the introductory Master Response and Responses provided herein substantiating accuracy and adequacy of all MND technical analyses.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1744 of 2362
The commenter lists various measures that generally act to control or reduce air pollutant emissions. As noted previously, the Project would not result in any potentially significant air quality impacts. CEQA does not require mitigation for impacts determined to be less-thansignificant.

Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected. No revision to the MND is required.

Preparation of an EIR is not required.

Comment 11-23
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.”
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. 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). Operation of the Project’s HVAC system may result in potentially significant noise impacts, and must be analyzed and mitigated in an EIR.

Response 11-23
The commenter asserts that the MND did not adequately analyze the Project’s operational-source noise impacts. The Lead Agency disagrees. These comments are addressed at previous Response 12-16. With specific regard to the Redlands Municipal Code noise standard cited by the commenter, in the first instance, the land use 140 feet west of the Project site already lies within the 70 CNEL contour of the I-10 freeway. Any noise generated by the Project would be imperceptible against the background freeway noise. Further, the potential maximum received 60 dBA noise level cited by the commenter would be the exterior noise level, not the interior noise level limit governed by Municipal Code Section 8.06.080 Conventional construction typically provides a minimum 20 dBA noise attenuation from exterior to interior noise environments. As such, the received interior noise level at a building 140 feet from the Project would be 40 dBA, not Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1745 of 2362
60 dBA as stated by the commenter. The received 40 dBA noise level would not exceed the Redlands Municipal Code standards, and impacts would therefore be less-than-significant.

Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected. No revision to the MND is required.

Preparation of an EIR is not required.

Comment 11-24
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. This would result in an exceedance of Municipal Code thresholds. 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.

Response 11-24
The commenter asserts that the Project could result in potentially significant vibration impacts.

The Lead Agency disagrees. 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 . . .” Further, the relevant threshold consideration here is whether Project activities would result in excessive vibration impacts. In this context, excessive vibration impacts would comprise vibration that could result in damage at proximate sensitive land uses or structures. Caltrans has established a maximum continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec) when considering whether construction-source vibration activities could result in damage at proximate sensitive land uses or structures. The Lead agency considers this the appropriate threshold applicable to the Project construction activities. Even assuming the received 0.016 in/sec vibration level cited by the commenter is accurate, Project construction-source vibration would not exceed the applicable

0.3 PPV in/sec threshold, and impacts would therefore be less-than-significant.

Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected. No revision to the MND is required.

Preparation of an EIR is not required.

Comment 11-25
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. “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.” The MND asserts without substantial evidence that the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable environmental impact. 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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1746 of 2362
CEQA requires lead agencies to conduct an analysis of “past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” 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 cumulative emissions, and fails to estimate cumulative health impacts to on-site and off-site workers.

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. 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. The three additional projects will add another 600,000 square feet of warehouse space to the area.

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). The Project will contribute additional emissions, exacerbating this 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.

Response 11-25
The commenter asserts that the Project would result in cumulatively significant air quality, public health, and greenhouse gas emissions impacts. The Lead Agency disagrees. The MND substantiates in all circumstances that Project air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas emissions impacts would be less-than-significant.

SCAQMD is the regulatory agency governing air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas emissions considerations relevant to the Project. Per SCAQMD guidance, less-than-significant impacts at the Project level are not cumulatively considerable or cumulatively significant.1 Further, the Lead agency does not concur with alternative analyses offered by the commenter.

Please refer to the introductory Master Response and Responses provided herein substantiating accuracy and adequacy of all MND technical analyses.
1 As a Lead Agency, South Coast AQMD “uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts […]” (Appendix D, 2003 White Paper). Meaning, projects that exceed the project-specific significance threshold are considered cumulatively considerable and vice-versa. As a CEQA Commenting Agency, South Coast AQMD “recommends that other public agencies perform cumulative impact analysis relative to air quality in the same manner as does AQMD” (Appendix D, 2003 White Paper).

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1747 of 2362
Based on the preceding, the Project would not result in cumulatively significant air quality, health risk, or greenhouse gas emissions impacts.

Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected. No revision to the MND is required.

Preparation of an EIR is not required.

Comment 11-26
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.

Response 11-26
The Lead Agency disagrees with the commenter statements and analyses in total. The MND and MND technical analyses together with the Responses provided herein comprise substantial evidence supporting the MND findings and conclusions that the Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. Further, the MND fully discloses the Project’s potential environmental impacts, and provides the Lead Agency with the information necessary to evaluate the Project in the context of its potential environmental implications. Findings and conclusions of the MND are not affected. No revision to the MND is required. Preparation of an EIR is not required.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1748 of 2362
1 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8619 Denying Planned Development No. 7_1101 California St.docx-ms RESOLUTION NO. 8619

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS DENYING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 7, A PROPOSAL TO
CONSTRUCT A 357,610 SQUARE-FOOT WAREHOUSE/LOGISTICS
DISTRIBUTION CENTER AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON 16.0 NET ACRES AT 1101 CALIFORNIA STREET, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE

OF CALIFORNIA STREET BETWEEN LUGONIA AVENUE AND
INTERSTATE 10
WHEREAS, CRP/NPP Redlands Industrial Owner, LLC has filed applications for Lot Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7, in conjunction with a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, requesting approval to merge two parcels encompassing approximately 16.0 net acres and thereon construct a 357,610 square-foot warehouse and related site improvements located on the west side of California Street between Lugonia Avenue and Interstate 10 (APNs:
0292-033-11-000; 0292-033-13-0000) (the “Project” or “Project Entitlements”); and, WHEREAS, the subject site has a General Plan land use designation of “Commercial/Industrial”, and is located in the Special Development District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (Specific Plan),
WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 5116, which establishes Planned Development application procedures, allows a Planned Development application to be submitted as a single stage for the approval of a comprehensive and detailed site plan, and shall be “quasi-legislative” in nature subject to final review and approval by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, an initial study and mitigative negative declaration (MND) were prepared for the Project and circulated for public review for a period beginning on March 28, 2024, and ending on April 29, 2024; and,
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the staff report, oral report, the testimony, and the written evidence submitted by and on behalf of the applicant, and by members of the public; and, WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024, after closing the public hearing and deliberating on the proposed Project, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council not approve Lot Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7; and, WHEREAS, on or about July 5, 2024, notice of the City Council’s public hearing for the Project was published in a newspaper of general circulation by the City Clerk; and, WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the City Council considered the staff report, oral report, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the testimony and written evidence submitted by and on behalf of the applicant, and written comments and testimony by members of the public, for the Project.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1749 of 2362
2 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8619 Denying Planned Development No. 7_1101 California St.docx-ms

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Findings for Denial of the Project. The City Council hereby denies Planned Development No. 7 based upon the inability to make the following findings:

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

This finding cannot be made. 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 its surroundings, 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 uses 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.

2. That the proposed Planned Development would not adversely affect the surrounding area or the Redlands community in general.

This finding cannot be made. The proposed Planned Development would adversely affect the surrounding area because surrounding properties to the north and east are developed with commercial buildings that must be protected from 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 nonindustrial 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.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1750 of 2362
3 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8619 Denying Planned Development No. 7_1101 California St.docx-ms Section 2. California Environmental Quality Act. 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. The City Council hereby determines that the action to disapprove the project is exempt from CEQA and authorizes staff to prepare and file a Notice of Exemption with the County Recorder and Office of Planning & Research State Clearinghouse.

Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption.

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 16th day of July, 2024. ______________________________
Eddie Tejeda, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1751 of 2362
4 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8619 Denying Planned Development No. 7_1101 California St.docx-ms I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of July, 2024.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1752 of 2362
1 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8620 Adopting MND and SECB Approving Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7.docx-ms RESOLUTION NO. 8620

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS

ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ADOPTING A

SOCIO-ECONOMIC COST/BENEFIT STUDY, AND APPROVING LOT
MERGER NO. 8 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 7 AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 357,610 SQUARE-FOOT WAREHOUSE/LOGISTICS DISTRIBUTION FACILITY AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON 16.0

NET ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CALIFORNIA STREET BETWEEN LUGONIA AVENUE AND INTERSTATE 10
WHEREAS, CRP/NPP Redlands Industrial Owner, LLC has filed applications for Lot Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7, in conjunction with a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, requesting approval to merge two parcels encompassing approximately 16.0 net acres and thereon construct a 357,610 square-foot warehouse and related site improvements located on the west side of California Street between Lugonia Avenue and Interstate 10 (APNs:
0292-033-11-000; 0292-033-13-0000) (the “Project” or “Project Entitlements”); and, WHEREAS, the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 40) requires an application for a Planned Development for new land uses and developments within the plan area, and the proposed type of land use is a permitted land use within the subject zoning district; and, WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 5116 allows a Planned Development application to be submitted as a single stage for the approval of a comprehensive and detailed site plan, and shall be “quasi-legislative” in nature subject to final review and approval by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Project and was circulated for public review for a period beginning on March 28, 2024, and ending on April 29, 2024; and,
WHEREAS, the Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City has prepared an Initial Study and exercised its own independent judgement and analysis, there is no substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment, the custodian of records is the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the staff report, oral report, the testimony and the written evidence submitted by and on behalf of the applicant and by members of the public; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024, after closing the public hearing and deliberating on the proposed Project, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council not approve Lot Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7; and, WHEREAS, on or about July 5, 2024, notice of the City Council’s public hearing for the Project was published in a newspaper of general circulation by the City Clerk; and, Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1753 of 2362
2 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8620 Adopting MND and SECB Approving Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7.docx-ms WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the City Council considered the staff report, oral report, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the testimony and written evidence submitted by and on behalf of the applicant, and written comments and testimony by members of the public, for the Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. CEQA Compliance and Environmental Determination. As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), related technical studies and analyses, public comments received, the Responses to Comments, and supporting documentation.

The City Council determines that the MND and related documents contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Project. The City Council finds that the MND was prepared in compliance with CEQA, and that the City complied with CEQA’s procedural and substantive requirements.

The MND for the Project, prepared by the City’s environmental consultant, reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. The City has exercised independent judgment and analysis in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3) in managing as appropriate the environmental consultant, and directing the consultant in the preparation of the MND. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the MND and accompanying technical studies/reports, and finds that the MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

The City Council finds on the basis of the whole record that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment, including mitigation measures and any project design features, and hereby adopts the MND for the Project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program attached to the MND and all mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval for the Project.

Section 2. Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. The City Council hereby adopts the SocioEconomic Cost/Benefit Study prepared for the proposed project based on the below findings. The study concludes that the Project 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.

A. 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 Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1754 of 2362
3 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8620 Adopting MND and SECB Approving Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7.docx-ms 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.

B. The benefits to the City resulting from 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 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 by Redlands voters.

Section 3. Findings for Approval of Planned Development No. 7. The City Council hereby approves Planned Development No. 7, based upon the following findings, and subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B.”

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 in the City of Redlands are abutting and available to the project site, and the project site abuts the Interstate 10 freeway Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1755 of 2362
4 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8620 Adopting MND and SECB Approving Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7.docx-ms with several freeway ramps immediately adjacent to the project site. 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 points (for large trucks and tractor-trailers) are adjacent to the subject site, and several ramps accessing Interstate 10 are located abutting the project site and elsewhere in the vicinity.

The project will dedicate land to widen and improve the westbound California Street onramp to Interstate 10 abutting the project site. Truck traffic to and from the proposed warehouse facility will minimally affect the Redlands community and 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.

Section 4. Approval of Lot Merger No. 8. The City Council hereby approves Lot Merger No. 8 for the proposed development project, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B.”
Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption.

ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 16
th day of July, 2024.
______________________________
Eddie Tejeda, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1756 of 2362
5 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8620 Adopting MND and SECB Approving Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7.docx-ms I, Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk of the City of Redlands, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16 th day
of July, 2024.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:
______________________________
Jeanne Donaldson, City Clerk
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1757 of 2362
6 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8620 Adopting MND and SECB Approving Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7.docx-ms

EXHIBIT A

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. This permit/approval is for Lot Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7 authorizing the merger of two parcels encompassing approximately 16.0 net acres and the construction thereon of a 357,610 square-foot warehouse and related site improvements located on the west side of California Street between Lugonia Avenue and Interstate 10 (APNs: 0292-033-11-0000; 0292-033-13-0000).

2. The issuance of any permits shall comply with the provisions of the Redlands Municipal Code and the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (EVCSP).

3. Unless construction has commenced pursuant to a building permit, or a time extension is granted in accordance with Code, this approval shall expire two (2) years from the date of City Council approval.

4. Pursuant to Government Code 66020(d), certain fees, dedications, reservations, or exactions imposed by the City as a condition of approval of this project are subject to a statutory ninety (90)-day protest period for those fees, dedications, reservations and exactions which are subject to Government Code 66020(a) has commenced to run on the date this project was approved by the City.

5. The applicant for this permit, and its successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Redlands, and its elected officials, officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, actions, and proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this permit by the City, or brought against the City due to acts or omissions in any way connected to the applicant’s project that is the subject of this permit. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees, costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in such actions or proceedings, including damages for the injury to property or persons, including death of a person, and any award of attorneys’ fees. In the event any such action is commenced to attack, set aside, void or annul all, or any, provisions of this permit, or is commenced for any other reason against the City for acts or omissions relating to the applicant’s project, within fourteen (14) City business days of the same, the applicant shall file with the City a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit (together, the “Security”) in a form satisfactory to the City and in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000), to ensure applicant’s performance of its defense and indemnity obligations under this condition. The failure of the applicant to provide the Security shall be deemed an express acknowledgement and agreement by the applicant that the City shall have the authority and right, without objection by the applicant, to revoke all entitlements granted for the project pursuant to this permit. The City shall have no liability to the applicant for the exercise of City’s right to revoke this permit.

6. All plans submitted to the City shall reflect the City Council approval and any other changes required by the Council and/or staff. This condition applies to the site plan, landscape plans, building elevations and materials, grading, and all other illustrations, text, or plans submitted to the City in connection with this project.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1758 of 2362
7 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8620 Adopting MND and SECB Approving Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7.docx-ms

7. The applicant shall not make any modifications or changes during construction that are in conflict or contrary to the Project’s approved site design, grading plan, landscaping plan, or building elevations without first consulting the Development Services Director or his designee. The Development Services Director is authorized to approve minor modifications to the approved project plans if such modifications shall achieve substantial compliance with said plans and conditions.

8. A copy of the approved Conditions of Approval shall be included on the cover page of the construction plans submitted to the Building Division.

9. No final inspection or certificate of occupancy shall be granted until all conditions of approval have been satisfied.

10. The project site shall be kept in a weed and dust free condition throughout all periods of development.

11. All existing and new utilities of 12 kV or less within the project and along adjacent major arterials shall be installed underground. Plans shall be submitted that detail the undergrounding of all on-site utilities, subject to review and approval by the Development Services Director, prior to issuance of building permits.

12. Roof and ground-mounted equipment shall be screened from public view on all sides subject to review and approval by the Development Services Director, prior to issuance of building permits. All required screening from public view, such as storage spaces, loading docks, and equipment, shall be architecturally integrated with the surrounding building design through the use of concrete, masonry, or other similar materials pursuant to Section EV4.0235(h) of the EVCSP. Solid walls within the buildable lot area shall not exceed a height of eight (8) feet from the highest finished grade. If the height of the wall is not sufficient, appropriate landscaping shall be required to screen the required areas from the freeway.

13. Transformer cabinets and commercial gas meters shall not be located within required setbacks and shall be screened from public view either by architectural; treatment or with landscaping. Multiple electrical meters and panels shall be fully enclosed and incorporated into the overall architectural design of the building(s). Backflow preventers shall be enclosed with landscaping that will provide complete screening upon maturity.

The location and method of enclosure or screening of this equipment shall be shown on the construction plans and landscape plans prior to building permit issuance. Location fo said equipment shall be coordinated with the appropriate utility company (e.g., Southern California Gas Company or Southern California Edison). The applicant shall submit plans showing details of screening subject to review and approval by the Development Services Director, prior to issuance of building permits.

14. Facility operations shall adhere to the performance standards under Section EV4.0225 of the EVCSP. No truck queuing is permitted in the public right-of-way.

15. No outdoor storage of materials, containers, structures, heavy equipment, vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 14,000 pounds, semi-trucks and/or trailers shall occur in parking lots and/or yards between the building and the public right-of-way.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1759 of 2362
8 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8620 Adopting MND and SECB Approving Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7.docx-ms

16. To ensure compliance with the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan and adherence to the development plans, the following design features shall be incorporated into the development and represented on the drawings submitted as part of the applications for construction permits (i.e., grading, building, landscaping):
a. Landscaped berms, or a combination of berms, landscaping and/or wall treatments of sufficient height to substantially screen parking areas shall be provided between parking areas and the public right-of-way along California Street and Lugonia Avenue. (Code: EVCSP § EV4.0255; § EV4.0115(e,g)) b. Earth berms adjacent to the public right-of-way shall be constructed to a smooth, rounded, continuous natural contour, with slope not to exceed 3:1. Construction of berms shall not interfere with normal drainage of water anywhere on the site. (Code: EVCSP § EV4.0275(a))
c. No cut or fill slopes shall be steeper than 3:1. Cut or fill slopes shall be graded with smooth vertical transitions. (Code: EVCSP § EV4.0275(c)) d. In-lieu of providing minimum landscaping coverage, public art shall be displayed in a setting which enhances pedestrian spaces and building architecture. The minimum cost of public art shall be one (1%) percent of the overall cost of the project as stated on the building permit. The style, appearance, design and location of the public art shall be approved by the Development Services Director prior to installation. The public art shall be installed and inspected by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. e. A tree protection plan shall be submitted as part of the landscape permit application. Tree protection measures shall also be identified on grading plans.

17. The trash area(s) shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Section EV4.0230 of the EVCSP.

18. Before placing or constructing any signs on the property, Developer shall obtain a sign permit from the City and comply with the applicable sign code criteria. Sign locations and illumination are subject to review and approval under separate permit(s).

19. During the plan check review process, the Developer shall provide a lighting plan that provides design details (light standards, bollards, wall mounted packs, etc.) and illumination information within pathways, streetscapes, and open spaces proposed throughout the development. An electrical engineer shall prepare the site lighting and/or photometric plan demonstrating that adequate lighting ranges will be provided throughout the development without creating spillover, light pollution, or conflicts with surrounding factors such as tree locations, off-site or adjacent lighting. The illumination within the parking lot shall be a minimum of 0.5-foot candle and illumination along all property lines of the project site shall not exceed 0.5-foot candle. To ensure adherence to the Community Design Standards under Division 4 of the EVCSP, the lighting plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following requirements:
a. Walkway lighting shall have a maximum height of 12 feet, all parking lot lighting Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1760 of 2362
9 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8620 Adopting MND and SECB Approving Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7.docx-ms shall have a maximum height of 30 feet, and such light fixtures shall include shielding permanently attached to fixtures to contain illumination and prevent glare overspill onto abutting or nearby residential properties. b. Lighting shall be required at (i) pedestrian walkways and plazas, (ii) building entries, driveway entries and parking, and (iii) hazardous locations such as changes of grade and stairways which must be well-lit with lower-level supplemental lighting or additional overhead units.
c. All light fixtures are to be concealed source fixtures except for pedestrianoriented accent lights. d. Security lighting fixtures are not to project above the fences or roof line of the building and are to be shielded. The shields shall be painted to match the surface to which they are attached. Security lighting fixtures are not to be substituted for parking lot or walkway lighting fixtures and are restricted only to loading and storage locations or similar service areas.
e. Exterior wall-mounted floodlights are expressly prohibited except for security lighting approved by the Development Services Director. f. All illuminated signs are to be internally illuminated. g. The design of all lighting fixtures and their structural support shall be architecturally compatible with the surrounding buildings. h. When walkway lighting is provided primarily by low fixtures, there shall be sufficient peripheral lighting to illuminate the immediate surroundings to ensure public safety. Shatter-proof coverings are recommended on low-level fixtures.

20. Plans submitted for plan check shall include an exterior lighting plan, including fixture and pole designs, for review and approval by the Development Services Director or his designee.

21. All lighting shall be shielded, and no light or glare shall impact the surrounding properties.

22. Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall demonstrate that light standards will not conflict with tree locations. Developer shall submit a plan showing both the lighting and landscape on the same sheet.

23. The Final Landscaping Plan shall incorporate the following:
a. The landscape plan shall comply with all requirements for landscaping in parking areas according to Section EV4.0255 of the EVCSP.
b. Final landscape plans, irrigation system plans, tree preservation techniques and preservation guarantees shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director prior to issuance of a building permit.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1761 of 2362
10 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8620 Adopting MND and SECB Approving Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7.docx-ms c. Trees shall be installed in automobile (passenger vehicle) parking areas to provide at least thirty five percent (35%) shade cover of parking areas within fifteen years pursuant to Redlands Municipal Code Section 18.156.930.D. This requirement is in addition to the applicable standard design requirements for parking lot landscape and related improvements.

24. All landscaped areas noted on the site plan shall be permanently maintained with healthy planting material, and whenever necessary shall be replanted with suitable vegetation.

25. Landscape and Irrigation plans shall provide water use calculations on the submitted plans, and Developer shall demonstrate compliance with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance prior to permit issuance. The plans shall be prepared by a California-licensed landscape architect.

26. Unless a Minor Exception Permit is obtained, open and solid fencing within the required front yard area shall not exceed four feet and three feet, respectively, and fencing along side and rear property lines shall not exceed six feet in height. A Minor Exception Permit is not required for screening walls up to eight feet in height located within the buildable lot area in accordance with EVCSP § EV4.0235(h).

27. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided within parking areas to destination points.

28. All necessary equipment for use of non-potable water as a condition of occupancy of onsite structures in accordance with the City’s master-planned non-potable water system shall be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Necessary equipment shall be as determined by the City of Redlands and may include pipes, pumps, storage and other facilities including “backbone” or “distribution” lines.

29. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall be required to obtain approval of a construction site safety plan by the Redlands Police Department providing adequate security measures such as lights, video cameras, vehicle transponders, locks, alarms, trained security personnel, fencing, etc. The nature of the measures will depend on the specific requirements of the site and may vary with the different stages of construction.

The applicant shall be responsible for the compliance of all subcontractors working on the site.

30. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall record a covenant on the title of the subject property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide chilled, cooled, or freezer warehouse space. Prior to recordation of the covenant, the form shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and the City Attorney.

31. Entry gates into the loading dock/truck court area with more than twenty (20) loading docks shall be positioned after a minimum of one hundred forty (140) feet of total available stacking depth inside the property line (or alternatively, if one hundred forty (140) feet of depth is not feasible due to site constraints, then provide seventy (70) feet of available stacking depth for two trucks side-by-side as an alternative design). The stacking distance shall be increased by seventy (70) feet for every twenty (20) loading docks beyond 50 docks. Queuing, or circling of vehicles, on public streets immediately Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1762 of 2362
11 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8620 Adopting MND and SECB Approving Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7.docx-ms pre- or post-entry to an industrial commerce facility is strictly prohibited unless queuing occurs in a deceleration lane or right turn lane exclusively serving the facility.

32. The following facility signage shall be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a. Anti-idling signs indicating a five (5) minute restriction on engine idling for diesel trucks shall be posted at warehouses and industrial commerce facilities along entrances to the site and within the dock areas and shall be strictly enforced by the facility operator.
b. Signs shall be installed at all truck exit driveways directing truck drivers to the truck route as indicated in the Truck Routing Plan to be routed to the Interstate Freeway System.
c. Signs and drive aisle pavement markings shall clearly identify the onsite circulation pattern to minimize unnecessary on-site vehicular travel. d. Facility operators shall post signs in prominent locations inside and outside of the building indicating that off-site parking for any Medium Heavy-Duty trucks, Heavy Heavy-Duty trucks, truck trailers or cabs, and other operations-related vehicles is strictly prohibited.
e. All signs shall be legible, durable, and weather-proof.

33. The following sustainable energy measures shall be implemented and specified on the drawings submitted as part of a building permit application as applicable:
a. A minimum of ninety percent (90%) of the on-site motorized operational equipment shall be zero emission (ZE).
b. All warehouse building roofs shall install photovoltaic (PV) solar collector system or other form of on-site renewable energy, provided such renewable energy source is recognized by the State of California as a renewable resource under the Renewable Portfolio Standard Program. The renewable energy system shall be metered separately from the nonrenewable metered power usage of the building (if not in conflict with other applicable regulations). The renewable energy system shall be built to generate an amount of electricity sufficient to meet the following criteria:
i. Annualized building demand based on the approved use or, if no use is proposed, then the demand for the most energy intensive use that could occupy the building; and
ii. Annualized demand required to charge fully electric vehicles and trucks, assuming that all vehicles and trucks to the site are fully electric; and iii. A reasonable rate of efficiency loss over ten (10) years.

Note: Electricity demand that exceeds the generation capacity of the on-site Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1763 of 2362
12 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8620 Adopting MND and SECB Approving Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7.docx-ms renewable energy system may be obtained from off-site energy sources or suppliers.
c. The warehouse building's rooftop that is not covered with solar panels or other utilities shall be constructed with light colored roofing material with a solar reflective index (SRI) in accordance with current California Energy Code regulations. This material shall be the minimum solar reflective rating of the roof material for the life of the building.
d. The on-site passenger vehicle parking shall include electric vehicle (EV) ready parking spaces in accordance with current requirements of the California Building Code, and at least fifty percent (50%) of the required EV parking spaces shall be equipped with working Level 2 Quick Charge EV charging stations installed and operational, prior to building occupancy. Signage shall be installed indicating EV charging stations and specifying that spaces are reserved for clean air/EV vehicles. Unless superior technology is developed that would replace the EV charging units, facility operator and any successors in interest shall be responsible for maintaining the EV charging stations in working order for the life of the facility.

34. The developer and/or facility operator shall comply with the following operation and construction standards:
a. Cool surface treatments shall be added to all drive aisles and parking areas, or such areas shall be constructed with a solar-reflective cool pavement such as concrete. Solar collectors may be installed on support structures that provide shade over parking areas to achieve minimum requirements. b. To ensure that warehouse electrical rooms are sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential need for additional electrical panels, either a secondary electrical room shall be provided in the building, or the primary electrical room shall be sized twenty-five percent (25%) larger than is required to satisfy the service requirements of the building or the electrical gear shall be installed with the initial construction with twenty-five percent (25%) excess demand capacity. c. All exterior light fixtures (including but not limited to parking lot lighting, wall fixtures, roof fixtures, light poles, etc.) visible from public right-of-way or abutting properties shall have shielding affixed to contain illumination within the subject property and prevent light trespass and glare overspill. d. The facility operator shall be required to perform regular maintenance of building structures, landscaping, and paved surfaces to ensure good physical condition and appearance.
e. Any outdoor storage of materials, high-pile storage, or any other manner of storage or staging shall not exceed the height of the enclosing screen walls.

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1764 of 2362
13 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8620 Adopting MND and SECB Approving Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7.docx-ms Environmental Mitigation Measures

35. BIO-1: Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey: If construction or other Project activities are scheduled to occur during the nesting bird season (February 1 through August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified avian biologist to ensure that active bird nests will not be disturbed or destroyed. The survey shall be completed no more than three days prior to initial ground disturbance. The nesting bird survey shall include the Project Site and adjacent areas where Project activities have the potential to affect active nests, either directly or indirectly, due to construction activity, noise, human activity, or ground disturbance. If an active nest is identified, a qualified avian biologist shall establish an appropriately sized non-disturbance buffer around the nest using flagging or staking. Construction activities shall not occur within any nondisturbance buffer zones until the nest is deemed inactive by the qualified avian biologist.

If initial ground-disturbing activities are scheduled to occur during the nesting bird season, then a biological monitor shall be present during all vegetation removal activities to ensure no impacts to nesting birds occur.

36. CR-1: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.

37. CR-2: If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area until a determination can be made regarding the provenance of the human remains, and the following procedures as set forth in CEQA Section 15064.5(e), the California Public Resources Code (Sec. 5097.98), and the State Health and Safety Code (Sec. 7050.5) shall be undertaken. All work shall be directed away from the location of the discovery and any nearby area reasonably suspected of overlaying adjacent human remains until a determination can be made by the medical examiner. The medical examiner will determine if the remains are or are most likely to be of Native American origin. If human remains are determined to be Native American, the medical examiner will notify the NAHC within 24 hours. If human remains are not Native American, the medical examiner will determine the appropriate course of action with the city staff (Public Resources Code 5097.98).

38. GEO-1: The recommendations regarding site preparation and construction, as described in a Final Geotechnical Investigation as approved by the City Engineer, shall be incorporated into project design.

39. GEO-2: Establish a procedure for the management of paleontological materials found onsite during project development, including the following provisions:

If materials are found on-site during grading, it is required that work be halted Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1765 of 2362
14 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8620 Adopting MND and SECB Approving Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7.docx-ms until a qualified paleontologist evaluates the find to determine if it represents a significant paleontological resource.

If the resource is determined to be significant, the paleontologist shall supervise removal of the material and determine the most appropriate archival storage of the material.

Appropriate materials shall be prepared, catalogued, and archived at the applicant’s expense and shall be retained within San Bernardino County if feasible.

40. TCR-1: Tribal Monitoring Services Agreement: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into a Tribal Monitoring Services Agreement with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI) for the Project. The Tribal Monitor shall be on-site during all ground-disturbing activities (including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind). The Tribal Monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground-disturbing activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources.

41. TCR-2: Retention of Archaeologist: Prior to any ground-disturbing activities (including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post replacement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases of any kind),and prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall retain a Qualified Archaeologist who meets the U.S.

Secretary of the Interior Standards (SOI). The Archaeologist shall be present during all ground- disturbing activities to identify any known or suspected archaeological and/or cultural resources. The Archaeologist will conduct Cultural Resource Sensitivity Training, in conjunction with the Tribe[s] Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), and/or designated Tribal Representative. The training session will focus on the archaeological and tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during grounddisturbing activities as well as the procedures to be followed in such an event.

42. TCR-3: Cultural Resource Management Plan: Prior to any ground-disturbing activities the project Archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) and/or Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan (AMTP) to address the details, timing, and responsibilities of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the project site. This Plan shall be written in consultation with the consulting Tribe[s] and shall include the following: approved Mitigation Measures (MM)/Conditions of Approval (COA), contact information for all pertinent parties, parties’ responsibilities, procedures for each MM or COA, and an overview of the project schedule.

43. TCR-4: Pre-Grade Meeting: The retained Qualified archeologist and Consulting Tribe[s] representative shall attend the pre-grade meeting with the grading contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring plan.

44. TCR-5: On-site Monitoring: During all ground-disturbing activities the Qualified Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1766 of 2362
15 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8620 Adopting MND and SECB Approving Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7.docx-ms Archaeologist and the Tribal Monitor shall be on-site full-time. The frequency of inspections shall depend on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and any discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 21074. Archaeological and Tribal Monitoring will be discontinued when the depth of grading and the soil conditions no longer retain the potential to contain cultural deposits. The Qualified Archaeologist, in consultation with the Tribal Monitor, shall be responsible for determining the duration and frequency of monitoring.

45. TCR-6: Significant Resources: The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.

46. TCR-7: Project Documents: Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of the project.

47. TCR-8: 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. After approval of all parties, the final reports are to be submitted to the Eastern Information Center, and the Consulting Tribe[s].

Building & Safety Division:

48. When the Entitlement Review is approved, submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations, energy calculations and a soils report 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.

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

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

Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1767 of 2362
16 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8620 Adopting MND and SECB Approving Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7.docx-ms Other City Departments/Divisions:

51. 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 1768 of 2362
17 I:\cmo\Resolutions\8620 Adopting MND and SECB Approving Merger No. 8 and Planned Development No. 7.docx-ms

EXHIBIT B

LAND USE ENGINEERING DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
[ Attached ]
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1769 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1770 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1771 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1772 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1773 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1774 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1775 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1776 of 2362
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1777 of 2362
City Council Meeting K. 1.

DATE: 07/16/2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBJECT: Consideration of a sole source purchase with Horizon Structures, LLC for a modular kennel building not to exceed the amount of $275,000, an additional appropriation of the same, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute all documents pertaining to the purchase (Facilities and Community Services Director Crocker)
MOTION(S):

If the City Council determines that staff’s recommendations are appropriate, the following motion is provided:

I move to approve the sole source purchase of a modular dog kennel building from Horizon Structures, LLC for $275,000, an additional appropriation of the same, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute all documents pertaining to the purchase.

1. RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that City Council approve a sole source purchase with Horizon Structures, LLC for a modular dog kennel building, an additional appropriation of the same, and authorize the City Manager or his designer to execute all documents pertaining to the purchase.

DISCUSSION:

The Animal Services Division of the Facilities and Community Services Department at the City of Redlands oversees the operation of the Redlands Animal Shelter, which provides essential care and shelter for lost and stray animals within the city limits. Constructed in 1985, the shelter originally accommodated 28 dog kennels. However, nearly four decades of operation, coupled with the city's population growth, have significantly increased the demand for animal services. Consequently, the shelter has consistently Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1778 of 2362
operated at or above its capacity in recent years. To address this critical need, the staff has identified the expansion of kennel space as a priority. After a thorough evaluation, it was determined that a modular kennel building would be the most efficient and timely solution. Horizon Structures, LLC specializes in the manufacture and delivery of turnkey modular dog kennel buildings constructed to commercial standards. This solution offers a rapid deployment option that meets the immediate need for additional kennel space. The proposed acquisition for the Redlands Animal Shelter includes a 24'x60' modular kennel building, which will provide 24 kennels equipped with both indoor and outdoor running spaces.

The interior spaces of these kennels will be climate-controlled to ensure the comfort and well-being of the animals. Horizon Structures, LLC has been selected as the sole source vendor for this project, as they are the exclusive provider of turnkey commercial dog kennel modular buildings. Their expertise and product offerings uniquely qualify them to meet the shelter's expansion requirements efficiently and effectively. This item includes the purchase of the pre-fabricated modular building. However, a future action will be brought before the City Council for contractual services to prepare the site and install the building. The total project cost is estimated not to exceed $500,000 and will be funded by the capital project reserve.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council may elect not to approve the purchase of a modular dog kennel building and provide alternative direction to staff.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

N/A
SUBMITTED BY:

Tabitha Crocker, Facilities and Community Services Department Director RECOMMENDED BY:

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

Christopher Boatman, Assistant City Manager
Danielle Garcia, Management Services/Finance Director
Dana Abramovitz-Daniel, Procurement Manager
PREPARED BY:

Don Craw, Facilities and Community Services Senior Manager Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1779 of 2362
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year: 2025
Revenue Generating: N
Appropriation Required Y/N: Y
Amount: $275,000
Budgeted Y/N: N
Account No.: 101311-8502
Discussion:

Funding for the new modular dog kennel building will be from the Capital Expense over $50k reserve account. The current balance of this reserve account is $906,084 and the new balance after appropriation will be $631,084.

Attachments
Additional Appropriation
Sole Source
Product Quote
Redlands Regular meeting of 07-16-24 1780 of 2362
DATE OF REQUEST:

An additional appropriation is hereby requested as follows:

Department:

JUSTIFICATION:

Requested By:

Recommended By Finance Director: Recommended:

Yes No Signed
Comments: Approved by City Council:

Date:

Signed:

City Clerk
REVENUE APPROPRIATION INCREASE (if applicable)
EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATION INCREASE (if applicable)
$ -
$ -
TRANSACTION NO:

ACCOUNTING PERIOD:

Account Description Orgkey Object Code Job Ledger (If
applicable) Amount
Job Ledger (If
applicable) Account Description Orgkey Object Code Amount Department Head
City Manager

CITY OF REDLANDS

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION

FINANCE USE ONLY