Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutChapter 3 Response to CommentsSouth Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-1 Final EIR October 2023 3. Response to Comments This chapter of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the South Poplar Distribution Center Project (Project) includes a copy of all comment letters that were submitted for the DEIR, along with responses to comments in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088. The 45-day review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) began on July 14, 2023, and ended on August 28, 2023. A total of three comment letters were received in response to the Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period, and two comment letters were received after the close of the public review period. The responses amplify or clarify information provided in the DEIR and/or refer the reader to the appropriate place in the document where the requested information can be found. Comments that are not directly related to environmental issues (e.g., opinions on the merits of the Project unrelated to its environmental impacts) are noted for the record. Where text changes in the DEIR are warranted based on comments received, updated Project information, or other information provided by City staff, those changes are noted in the response to comment and the reader is directed to Chapter 2, Errata, of this Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). These changes to the analysis contained in the DEIR represent only minor clarifications/amplifications and do not constitute significant new information. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, recirculation of the DEIR is not required. All written comments on the DEIR are listed in Table 3-1. All comment letters received on the DEIR have been coded with a number to facilitate identification and tracking. The comment letters were reviewed and divided into individual comments, with each comment containing a single theme, issue, or concern. Individual comments and the responses to them were assigned corresponding numbers. To aid readers and commenters, electronically bracketed comment letters have been reproduced in this document and are included as Appendix A, with the corresponding responses provided immediately following each comment letter. The interested parties listed in Table 3-1 submitted letters during the public review period for the DEIR. Table 3-1. Comments Received on the DEIR Comment Letter Commenter Date 1 SCAQMD August 18, 2023 2 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance August 25, 2023 3 CARE CA August 28, 2023 4 CARB August 30, 2023 5 Advocates for the Environment September 27, 2023 To finalize the EIR for the Project, the following responses were prepared to address comments that were received during and after the public review period. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-2 Final EIR October 2023 Comment Letter 1: SCAQMD, dated August 18, 2023. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-3 Final EIR October 2023 Comment Letter 1: SCAQMD, dated August 18, 2023. Response to Comment 1.1: This comment states that South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) was able to access the DEIR and appendices via a provided web link. In addition, the commenter makes a request that all technical documents related to air quality, health risk and GHG analyses be provided to SCAQMD, via a Dropbox link by Wednesday, August 23rd, 2023, in order for SCAQMD staff to complete a review. The City provided SCAQMD with all the requested technical documentation via the provided Dropbox link on Tuesday, August 22nd, 2023. Therefore, no further response is warranted. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-4 Final EIR October 2023 Comment Letter 2: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, withdrawn October 6, 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-5 Final EIR October 2023 Comment Letter 2: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated August 25, 2023. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-6 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-7 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-8 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-9 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-10 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-11 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-12 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-13 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-14 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-15 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-16 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-17 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-18 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-19 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-20 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-21 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-22 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-23 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-24 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-25 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-26 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-27 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-28 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-29 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-30 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-31 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-32 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-33 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-34 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-35 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-36 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-37 Final EIR October 2023 Response to Comment Letter 2: Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, dated August 25, 2023 Response to Comment 2.0: This letter formally withdrawals Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance’s previous comment letter on the Project. The letter states the applicant has addressed Golden State’s concerns about environmental mitigation. Nonetheless, as a showing of good faith and full disclosure, all of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance’s comments are being responded to. See Responses 2.1 through 2b.20 below. Response to Comment 2.1: This comment states that the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR and formally requests to be added to the mailing list for all environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination related to the Project. This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 2.2: This comment provides a summary of the Project Description. This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 2.3: This comment expresses a concern that the Project is a piecemealed portion of a larger project to be developed within a larger Seefried Industrial Center in the City and states that at a minimum, all Duke Realty Industrial Center Buildings should be analyzed. The comment does not provide any substantial evidence of an environmental impact or substantial evidence of other projects, and therefore the commenter’s assertions that Project is part of a larger piecemealed project are based on speculation. The commenter’s explanation of piecemealing is inaccurate. Generally, Courts have considered distinct activities as one CEQA project and required them to be reviewed together: (1) when the project under review is designed to provide the necessary first step toward a larger development, and (2) when development of the project under review requires or presumes completion of another activity. Neither scenario is appliable here. Instead each of the projects identified have independent utility. That is, the approval or denial of one project has no effect on the other projects, and none of the projects are dependent upon the existence of any of the other projects. Each project listed by the commenter was submitted separately from the proposed Project and are not phases of the proposed Project. Additionally, Duke Realty is a separate entity from the Project applicant, and the two entities are not at all related. The Project analyzed in the DEIR consists of the demolition of the existing 40 residences, and associated structures, on the site, vacation of Rose Avenue, and a Tentative Tract Map for the merger of the 41 existing parcels into one 19.08-acre parcel, as well as the construction of an approximately 490,565 square foot building. The proposed Project would also include a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Residential Trucking (R-T) to General Industrial (I-G) and a Specific Plan Amendment to change the Southwest Industrial Park (SWIP) Specific Plan (SP) designation from Residential Trucking District (RTD) to Slover East Industrial District (SED). The City disagrees with the assertion that the Project is a piecemealed portion of a larger Seefried Industrial Center. Activities that will operate independently of one another and can be implemented separately may be treated as separate projects under CEQA if one activity is not a foreseeable consequence of the other. (See, e.g., Aptos Council v County of Santa Cruz (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 266, 281.) The proposed Project is not part of a larger project within the City of Fontana and applications for all of the projects listed by the commenter were submitted separately from the proposed Project and are not phases of the proposed Project nor are they reasonably foreseeable consequences of the proposed Project. Therefore, the DEIR accurately analyzes all potential environmental impacts from the Project and does not present unduly low environmental impacts. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-38 Final EIR October 2023 Response to Comment 2.4: The comment refers to comments provided by SWAPE, which are included as an attachment to the comment letter. Refer to Responses to Comments 2-b.1 through 2b.20 in which the comments presented by SWAPE are addressed. Response to Comment 2.5: This comment states that the DEIR does not include analysis of relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed Project to the surrounding community. The comment states that the Project is within a census tract ranked in the 95th percentile for ozone burden, the 94th percentile for PM 2.5 burden, the 78th percentile for diesel particulate matter burden, and the 80th percentile for traffic impacts which are all typically attributed to heavy truck activity in the area. The comment also states that the census tract is ranks in the 96th percentile for contaminated drinking water, the 85th percentile for toxic releases, the 87th percentile for solid waste facility impacts and the 94th percentile for hazardous waste facility impacts. The comment also states that the census tract consists of a diverse community that is especially vulnerable to impacts of pollution. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential environmental justice effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). Thus, consistent with CEQA, the DEIR includes an analysis of the Project’s potentially significant physical impacts on the environment and does not include substantial discussion of environmental justice. However, the DEIR provides a detailed evaluation of the potential cumulative air quality related impacts of the proposed Project upon the surrounding community (localized impacts) pursuant to SCAQMD methodology and thresholds, which is the appropriate due to the project’s location within the South Coast Air Basin. The DEIR also provides a detailed evaluation of the potential cumulative water supply, water quality, hazardous waste, and solid waste impacts of the proposed Project. The comment concerning heavy truck traffic, regarding possible traffic impacts, no longer constitutes a significant environmental impact under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3. CalEnviroscreen is a general policy tool. It is generally inappropriate for CEQA review. Regarding the existing pollution burden, the existing air quality in the Project area is described in DEIR Section 5.2, Air Quality. Table 5.2-2 provides data from the closest air quality monitoring station to the Project site (located at 14360 Arrow Boulevard, Fontana, California) between 2019 and 2021. Data from the air quality monitoring stations indicates that the PM2.5 federal standard had 3 exceedances in 2019, 4 exceedances in 2020, and no exceedances in 2021. The 1-hour ozone State standard was exceeded 41 times in 2019, 56 times in 2020, and an unknown number of times in 2021. The 8-hour ozone State standard was exceeded 71 times in 2019, 91 times in 2020, and an unknown number of times in 2021. The 8-hour ozone federal standard was 67 times in 2019, 89 times in 2020, and 81 times in 2021. While the Project vicinity has experienced exceedances of State and federal standards, the thresholds set forth by the SCAQMD are intended to be health protective and are based on Clean Air Act standards and recommendations by the EPA. Although there has been an increase in development in the South Coast Area Basin, emissions concentrations have declined, and air quality has generally improved over the last 30 years. As detailed under Impact AQ-2 in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR, pollutant emissions associated with construction and operation of the Project would be below SCAQMD thresholds and the Project would not result in a net increase of a pollutant for which the region in in non-attainment. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-39 Final EIR October 2023 As detailed on page 5.2-30 of the DEIR, a Construction Health Risk Assessment (included as Appendix B to the DEIR) was prepared to evaluate the health risk impacts as a result of exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a result of heavy-duty diesel trucks and equipment activities from Project construction. The results of the health risk assessment determined the maximum cancer risk for the sensitive receptor maximally effected individual (MEI) would be 0.23 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The work receptor risk would be 0.04 in one million, which would also not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk thresholds. The total chronic hazard index would be 0.003 for the worker receptor MEI and 0.000 for the sensitive receptor MEI, which is below the threshold of 1.0. In addition, the total acute hazard index would be nominal (0.000), which would also not exceed the threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity. An operational diesel mobile source health risk (included as Appendix B to the DEIR) was prepared to evaluate the operational health risk impacts as a result of exposure to DPM as a result of heavy-duty diesel trucks traveling to and from the Project site, maneuvering onsite, and entering and leaving the site during operation of the proposed industrial uses. Results of the operational health risk assessment identified the maximum cancer risk for the sensitive receptor MEI would be 2.34 in one million, which is below the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. The worker receptor risk would be lower at 0.4 in one million. The total chronic hazard index would be 0.001 for the worker receptor MEI and 0.001 for the sensitive receptor MEI, which is below the threshold of 1.0. In addition, the total acute hazard index would be nominal (0.000), which would also not exceed the threshold of 1.0. Therefore, all health risk levels to nearby residents from operation-related emissions of TACs would be well below the SCAQMD’s HRA thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. The DEIR also included a long-term microscale (CO Hot Spot) analysis which determined Project-related vehicles are not expected to contribute significantly to result in the CO concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards. Therefore, as concluded in the DEIR, the Project would not impact nearby residences or schools. Response to Comment 2.6: The comment claims that the CalEEMod-based modeling used in the DEIR does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and under-reports the Project’s significant energy impacts and fuel consumption to the public and decision makers. The comment states that since the EIR did not accurately or adequately model the energy impacts in compliance with Title 24, a finding of significance must be made and that a revised EIR with modeling using the California Building Energy Code Compliance Software (CBECC) must be circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the Project’s significant environmental impacts. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-40 Final EIR October 2023 The commenter incorrectly assumes the purpose of Title 24 and California Energy Commission approved software programs. The approved programs serve the purpose of being used under the performance approach (energy budget) method of compliance for the 2022 Energy Standards. Specifically, CBECC was approved for demonstrating compliance with the provisions of the 2022 Energy Code for an actual nonresidential building in operation and not for providing an estimate of overall energy use associated with a development project. The programs mentioned are not utilized for CEQA analysis because they do not provide construction and operational emissions or overall energy use associated with a particular project. CalEEMod, the California Emissions Estimator Model, is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions and energy use associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. CalEEMod contains default values for estimating water and energy use which may be useful for preparing hydrology and energy analyses in other sections of a CEQA document. The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California Air Districts. Additionally, the Project would be compliant with measures set forth in Title 24. Compliance with Title 24 would be verified through the plan check process. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR. No further response is warranted. Response to Comment 2.7: This comment states that it is inappropriate for the Project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions modeling to take credit for the existing residences when the baseline of the DEIR states the residences are vacant and uninhabited. The comment states that the DEIR is inconsistent as it chooses the level of occupancy/operation of the site based on the ability to reduce environmental impacts. The comment states that the DEIR should be revised to remove any credit given to existing uses in order to accurately and adequately analyze the Project’s environmental impacts. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 provides that “the lead agency should describe physical environmental conditions as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published. As demonstrated in Chapter 2, Errata, of this Final EIR, DEIR Chapter 3, Project Description, properly discussed that at the time the DEIR was published, the homes were vacant and uninhabited. However, at the time the NOP was circulated for public review on September 30, 2022, the existing homes were inhabited. Following the publishing of the NOP, as of October 2022 the homes were i vacated to address public health and safety considerations and in anticipation of the development of the proposed Project. Thus, because the homes were inhabited at the time the NOP was published, it is appropriate to take into account the GHG emissions stemming from the existing residential uses. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, the environmental baseline for the DEIR is September 30, 2022, the date the NOP was published.. As such, the GHG analysis conducted as part of the DEIR South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-41 Final EIR October 2023 properly takes credit for the existing emissions associated with the use of and the trips associated with onsite residences. Response to Comment 2.8: The comment states that the DEIR does not consider the Project’s required land use changes and associated significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable impacts to air quality in its discussion and analysis related to consistency with land use plans, policies, and regulations. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. As disclosed on page 5.2-24 of the DEIR, the Project would result in a conflict with implementation of the AQMP as buildout of the site would result in greater employment increases than included in the 2022 AQMP growth projections. As such, impacts related to conflict with the AQMP were determined to be significant and unavoidable. However, the commenter erroneously concludes that the AQMP serves as a land use plan, policy, or regulation. The AQMP is not considered a land use plan but instead is a regional blueprint for achieving air quality standards and healthful air. The 2022 AQMP represents a comprehensive analysis of emissions, meteorology, regional air quality modeling, regional growth projections, and the impact of control measures. The AQMP is regularly updated to reflect General Plan land use designations that occur. Therefore, a conflict with the AQMP does not constitute a significant impact related to land use and the analysis provided in Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, properly discloses potential impacts related to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation and no revisions are necessary to the DEIR. Response to Comment 2.9: This comment states that the DEIR does not include a consistency analysis for all the applicable goals and policies of the Fontana General Plan; the comment lists objectives, goals, policies, and actions from the Fontana General Plan. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-42 Final EIR October 2023 As discussed in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gases, the Project includes sustainability measures that would minimize GHG impacts. Additionally, as demonstrated in DEIR Table 5.7-2, the Project is consistent with the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan and the policies contained within the document for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. Table 5.10-2 in Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning, provides a discussion of consistency with applicable policies from the Fontana General Plan. The goal of the consistency analysis is to provide the reader with a general overview of whether the Project is in harmony with the overall intent of the applicable goals and policies. It is within the City’s purview to decide if the Project is consistent or inconsistent with applicable goals or policies. CEQA only requires evaluation of potential goals and policies adopted to avoid or mitigate physical impacts on the environment. The remaining policies listed by the comment do not involve physical environmental impacts, and are focused on market trends, efficient use of land, economic benefits of development, and development location. Thus, evaluation of these policies is not required. CEQA is an environmental protection statute that is concerned with physical changes to the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(b)). The environment includes land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15360). The Project’s potential economic and social effects are not considered effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15131(a)). The intermediate economic or social changes need not be analyzed in any detail greater than necessary to trace the chain of cause and effect. The focus of the analysis shall be on the physical changes. Each section of the DEIR includes applicable City goals and policies as well as an analysis of the Project’s consistency, as applicable, throughout the Project’s impact analysis. Additionally, a compiled table of applicable goals and policies, along with the Project’s consistency is included in Section 5.10, Land Use and Planning. No further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 2.10: This comment claims that DEIR Table 5.10-1 SCAG RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis, does not provide an adequate consistency analysis with SCAG’s 2020-2045 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS. The comment also mentions that there are errors in modeling and states that the Project is inconsistent with Goal 5, Goal 6, and Goal 7 of Table 5.10-1. The comment states that the EIR must be revised to include findings of significance due to inconsistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Connect SoCal document. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. As discussed in Responses 2b.3 through 2b.10 below, appropriate CalEEMod defaults were utilized and there are no errors in modeling. Substantial evidence supporting the SCAG RTP/SCS consistency analysis is provided in Section 5.2, Air Quality and Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Project consistency discussion within Table 5.10-1 provides justification for consistency with each goal. Thus, the DEIR does not need to be revised due to an inconsistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Connect SoCal document. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-43 Final EIR October 2023 Response to Comment 2.11: This comment states that the Project conflicts with the statutory requirements of the Housing Crisis Act (HCA) of 2019/Senate Bill (SB) 330 and therefore must be revised to include a finding of significant due to the inconsistency. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The DEIR appropriately relies upon the City’s Ordinance No. 1906 to comply with the provisions of SB 330. SB 330 requires in part that where a development project results in reducing the number of housing units allowed under existing City zoning, the City must identify a way in which an equivalent number of units could be accommodated in the city. In order to comply with SB 330, on October 11th, 2022, the Fontana City Council took action to approve Ordinance No. 1906; adding Article XV to Chapter 30 of the City’s Municipal Code creating a No Net Loss Program. The article provides, concurrent with the approval of any change in zone from a residential use to a non-residential use, a density bonus will become available to project applicants subsequently seeking to develop property for residential use within the City. In doing so, the proposed ordinance will ensure that there is no net loss of residential capacity within the City as required by SB 330. SB 330 specifically provides for alternative approaches beyond just rezoning property to ensure no net loss in residential capacity. Government Code 66300. Section (i)(1) states that “This section does not prohibit an affected county or an affected city from changing a land use designation or zoning ordinance to a less intensive use if the city or county concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity”. Ordinance 1906 ensures that upon rezoning properties subject to SB 330, the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels are concurrently changed to ensure no net loss in residential capacity. As it relates to the proposed Project, the applicant is utilizing this program to comply with the requirements of SB 330. The loss of 38 dwelling units, as allowed per the existing zoning of the Project site, or 40 dwelling units, which previously existed on the Project site, as a result of development of the Project would be added to the “No Net Loss Bank” to be used by subsequent residential developers to build their residential site at a higher density than what the zoning designation allows for. Ordinance No. 1906 has been deemed legally adequate; therefore, it is appropriate for the Project to rely on the use of the No Net Loss Bank in order to comply with SB 330. Further, the legality of Ordinance No. 1906 is outside of the purview of CEQA and this EIR. Response to Comment 2.12: This comment states that utilizing the DEIR’s calculation of 411 employees, the Project represents 2.2% of the City’s employment growth from 2016 - 2045. The comment states that a single project accounting for this amount of projected growth over 29 years represents a significant amount of growth. The comment also states that the DEIR must include a cumulative analysis of the impact of the South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-44 Final EIR October 2023 proposed Project in combination with previous projects since 2016 and projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the Project would result in a cumulative exceedance of employment and population growth forecasts. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. As discussed in Section 5.12, Population and Housing, impacts from cumulative population growth are considered in the context of their consistency with local and regional planning efforts. The employment growth that is expected to occur from the Project is within the growth projections used to prepare SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Additionally, as shown on DEIR Table 5.12-4, the 2016 jobs-to-housing ratio for the City of Fontana was 1.10 and is projected to be 0.97 in 2045. This means that the City is housing rich. As described in DEIR Section 6.0, Other CEQA Considerations, the Project would improve the jobs-household ratio by providing employment within the housing-rich City of Fontana. The City of Fontana has an unemployment rate of 3.9% (Employment Development Department 2023), and most of the new jobs that would be created by the Project would be positions that do not require a specialized workforce, and this type of workforce exists in the City of Fontana and surrounding communities. Further, the projects referenced by the commenter would result in 5,180 employees or approximately 28 percent of the City’s job growth over 29 years. However, these projects are all warehouse projects which, like the proposed Project, do not require a specialized workforce. Due to the significant amount of housing in comparison to jobs within the City, the workforce needed for the listed cumulative projects could be accounted for within the existing population of the City. Therefore, due to existing unemployment and the availability of a workforce, it is anticipated that new jobs generated from Project implementation and cumulative projects would be filled by people within the City of Fontana and surrounding communities and would not result in cumulatively considerable population growth resulting in an impact to the environment. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(c)(3), an indirect physical change, such as population growth, is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. An indirect physical change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable. Therefore, an estimate of construction workers relocating to the City or resulting in growth would be speculative and is not required under CEQA. Therefore, no further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 2.13: The comment reiterates that the DEIR states future employees of the proposed Project are anticipated to come from within the region and would therefore not generate the need for additional housing. The comment also states the DEIR does not define “commuting distance” and notes that the commute needed to fill the Project’s positions will increase significant rates of VMT and emissions. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-45 Final EIR October 2023 supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. As described in Response 2.12 above, most of the new jobs that would be created by the Project would be positions that do not require a specialized workforce, and this type of workforce exists in the City of Fontana and surrounding communities. DEIR Section 5.12, Population and Housing, notes it is possible that the demand for workers could induce some people to move to the region. However, this consideration would be highly speculative and de minimis, relative to the total number of workers in the region. The DEIR notes according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 9,473 individuals are employed in the construction industry in the City of Fontana and 60,801 individuals are employed in the construction industry in San Bernardino County as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau 2023). Therefore, the existing labor pool in the region can meet the construction needs of the Project, and this labor pool would increase with the continued projected growth of Fontana and surrounding communities. Additionally, the DEIR estimates operation of the Project would create up to 411 permanent jobs. The employees that would fill these roles are anticipated to come from the region, as the unemployment rate of the City of Fontana as of November 2022 was 3.9 percent, City of Rialto was 4.6 percent, City of Rancho Cucamonga was 3.0 percent, and the County of San Bernardino was 4.1 percent (State Employment Development Department 2023). Thus, due to existing unemployment and the availability of a workforce, it is anticipated that new jobs generated from Project implementation would be filled by people within the City of Fontana and surrounding communities and would not result in cumulatively considerable job growth. Further, as noted in Response 2.12 above, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(c)(3), an indirect physical change, such as population growth, is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. An indirect physical change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable. Therefore, an estimate of workers relocating to the City or resulting in growth would be speculative and is not required under CEQA. Additionally, the EIR is not required by CEQA to provide demographic or geographic information as to where these potential employees would come from, as such analysis would be speculative. Therefore, no further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 2.14: The comment states that the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy, and Transportation sections of the DEIR underestimate Project trips in order to reduce impacts to below significance thresholds. The comment asserts that credit for existing uses is inappropriate as the existing residences had been vacated at the time the DEIR was prepared. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-46 Final EIR October 2023 complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. As discussed in Response to Comment 2.7, and as demonstrated in Chapter 2, Errata, of this Final EIR, DEIR Chapter 3, Project Description, properly discussed that at the time the DEIR was published, the homes were vacant and uninhabited. However, at the time the NOP was circulated for public review on September 30, 2022, the existing homes were inhabited. After the NOP was published, the homes were vacated. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 provides that “the lead agency should describe physical environmental conditions as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published.” Thus, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, the environmental baseline for the DEIR is September 30, 2022, the date the NOP was published. As such, the air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, and transportation analysis conducted as part of the DEIR properly takes credit for the existing emissions associated with the use of and the trips associated with onsite residences. Response to Comment 2.15: The comment states that preparation of LOS/VMT analyses would be required if credit for existing trips is not accounted. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. As described in Response to Comment 2.14, the DEIR properly took credit for trips associated with the existing residences within the trip generation as occupation of the residences constitutes the environmental baseline for the Project. Therefore, no LOS analysis is required for the Project. Under Senate Bill (SB) 743, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion may no longer serve as the basis for determining significant impacts. As part of the 2019 amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, SB 743 directed that the revised CEQA Guidelines “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1]); and that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][2]). As such, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), the DEIR is not required to include a LOS analysis. Response to Comment 2.16: The comment states that the DEIR has underreported the quantity of VMT generated by the proposed Project. This is inaccurate as the Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis prepared by EPD on September 8, 2022 (Appendix M of the DEIR) does not report the quantity of VMT since the Project meets the City’s small project screening threshold and no further VMT analysis was required. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-47 Final EIR October 2023 supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Regarding the assertion that truck VMT should be included in the analysis, CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3 states the following: “For the purposes of this section, "vehicle miles traveled" refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel” Additionally, the City of Fontana Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines for VMT and LOS Assessment is based on the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 2018 guidance for analyzing transportation impacts in CEQA. The OPR Guidance states that VMT is intended to be a measure of passenger vehicles (automobiles and light trucks), and not intended to measure truck trips intended for goods movement. While SB 743’s intent includes reducing GHG, it is not the sole intent of SB 743, as additional goals include encouraging the diversity of land uses, and encouraging alternative modes of transportation, etc. It should be noted that the GHG emissions from trucks are analyzed in DEIR Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gases. Further, the threshold adopted by Fontana was created by removing trucks and only analyzing passenger vehicles. As such, including trucks would not be consistent with the City’s threshold, since it would not be an apples-to-apples comparison. Therefore, truck VMT was not included and is not warranted for CEQA. Response to Comment 2.17: The comment states that the DEIR has not adequately analyzed the Project’s potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses; or the Project’s potential to result in inadequate emergency access. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-48 Final EIR October 2023 The comment incorrectly states that Figure 2 of DEIR Appendix M shows overlapping truck turning lines. Figure 2 was re-evaluated and it was determined that the Figure does not show any overlapping truck turning lines when considering ingress and egress of trucks as they turn. Additionally, the truck turning lines do not overlap at curves. Furthermore, the figures below show detailed truck turning templates. As seen in the figures below, sufficient spacing would be provided for trucks making turning movements as they enter and leave the site as well as circulating on-site. The comment also mentions the lack of horizontal and vertical sight distance analysis in the DEIR. Regarding sight distance, Poplar Avenue and Catawba Avenue lack any horizontal curves since both roads are straight and lack any vertical curves since both roads are at grade. Additionally, the east and west Project driveways are perpendicular to Poplar Avenue and Catawba Avenue and on-street parking is not permitted; therefore, no objects would obstruct the view. As depicted in the Figures below, the line of sight shown at Project driveways clearly shows no view obstruction. The building plans will still go through additional plan checking to ensure sufficient sight distance is being provided in accordance with sight distance standards. As such, the DEIR correctly discloses potential impacts related to hazards from a geometric design features or emergency access and impacts would be less than significant. Figure 1: Truck Turning Template A South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-49 Final EIR October 2023 Figure 2: Truck Turning Template B Response to Comment 2.18: The comment states the DEIR relies on erroneous energy modeling to determine the Project will meet sustainability requirements. The comment also states that the DEIR does not discuss the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact related to air quality (consistency with AQMP) and the Project’s required land use changes and therefore the DEIR must be revised. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. As discussed in Response 2.6 above, there is no requirement under CEQA that a project’s energy modeling must be completed with CBECC. Thus, the City of Fontana affirms that the CalEEMod adequately discloses the Project’s energy usage. The commenters’ statement that the modeling provided in the DEIR does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and under-reports the Project’s significant energy impacts is incorrect. As noted in Section 5.5, Energy, page 5.5-8, the Project would be required to comply with California Energy Code (Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 6), demonstration of which is required prior to issuance of building permits). Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with idling limits imposed by CCR Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling and the City of Fontana’s Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards. Therefore, the Project would comply with energy efficiency (Title 24) standards, idling restrictions imposed by CCR Title 13, and Fontana’s Industrial Commerce Centers South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-50 Final EIR October 2023 Sustainability Standards and would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy, and preparation of a revised or recirculated EIR is not necessary nor required. As discussed in Chapter 6.0, Other CEQA Considerations, the Project includes a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment that causes the Project land use designation to be inconsistent with the assumptions used to prepare the SCAQMD 2022 AQMP. However, while the Project has a significant and unavoidable air quality impact, the Project would comply with all other applicable City plans, policies, and ordinances. In addition, Project features and mitigation measures have been identified within the DEIR to ensure that the Project minimizes environmental impacts to all other environmental topic areas. As discussed in each respective environmental topic section within DEIR, the Project would not be anticipated to considerably contribute to other cumulative impacts. Therefore, no further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 2.19: This comment states that the Project took credit for “existing uses” that are vacant and therefore the less than significant impact conclusions related to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation are invalid. The comment states that the DEIR should be revised to remove any credit given to existing uses in order to accurately and adequately analyze the Project’s environmental impacts. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. As discussed in Response to Comment 2.7, and as demonstrated in Chapter 2, Errata, of this Final EIR, DEIR Chapter 3, Project Description, properly discussed that at the time the DEIR was published, the homes were vacant and uninhabited. However, at the time the NOP was circulated for public review on September 30, 2022, the existing homes were inhabited. After the NOP was published, the homes were vacated, As such, the GHG analysis conducted as part of the DEIR properly takes credit for the existing emissions associated with the use of and the trips associated with onsite residences. Response to Comment 2.20: This comment also states that the DEIR did not include a cumulative analysis of the Project in combination with other planned projects in the city of Fontana and should be revised to include a cumulative analysis discussion. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-51 Final EIR October 2023 addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The DEIR uses a combination of the list method and the projection method based on different topic areas. Table 5-1 of the DEIR lists cumulative projects utilized in the cumulative analysis of the Project. The list of cumulative projects was developed using a list of past, present and future projects within the Project vicinity. Cumulative impacts have been analyzed by environmental topic area within each respective environmental topic section (e.g., cumulative air quality impacts under Section 5.2, Air Quality etc.). In regard to employment growth associated with the Project and cumulative projects, as discussed in Section 5.12, Population and Housing, impacts from cumulative population growth are considered in the context of their consistency local and regional planning efforts. The employment growth that is expected to occur from the Project is within the growth projections used to prepare SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Additionally, as shown on DEIR Table 5.12-4, the 2016 jobs-to-housing ratio for the City of Fontana was 1.10 and is projected to be 0.97 in 2045. This means that the City is housing rich. As described in DEIR Section 6.0, Other CEQA Considerations, the Project would improve the jobs-household ratio by providing employment within the housing-rich City of Fontana. The City of Fontana has an unemployment rate of 3.9 (Employment Development Department 2023), and most of the new jobs that would be created by the Project would be positions that do not require a specialized workforce, and this type of workforce exists in the City of Fontana and surrounding communities. Further, the projects referenced by the commenter would result in 5,180 employees or approximately 28 percent of the City’s job growth over 29 years. However, these projects are all warehouse projects which, like the proposed Project, do not require a specialized workforce. Due to the significant amount of housing in comparison to jobs within the City, the workforce needed for the listed cumulative projects could be accounted for within the existing population of the City. Therefore, due to existing unemployment and the availability of a workforce, it is anticipated that new jobs generated from Project implementation and cumulative projects would be filled by people within the City of Fontana and surrounding communities and would not result in cumulatively considerable population growth resulting in an impact to the environment. Therefore, cumulative impacts were disclosed within the DEIR, and determinations were made regarding the Project’s cumulatively considerable impacts. Response to Comment 2.21: This comment states that the DEIR does not adequately discuss that the Project’s required land use designation changes increase the developable nonresidential area of the city. The comment states that due to the required land use changes, the growth generated by the Project was not anticipated by the General Plan, SWIP, RTP/SCS, or AQMP. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-52 Final EIR October 2023 The proposed land use changes were analyzed throughout the DEIR as part of the proposed Project. While the Project requires a General Plan and Specific Plan amendment to change the zoning of the site, the proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation and zoning designation after the amendment and consistent with the surrounding industrial uses. Additionally, as detailed within DEIR Table 5.10-2 and 5.10-3 below, the proposed Project would still be consistent with applicable City General Plan and SWIP Goals and Policies. The Project would contribute to the economic and population growth in the City of Fontana and the surrounding areas. However, the growth would not be unexpected or constitute substantial unplanned growth. According to regional population projections included in SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the City of Fontana is projected to increase its population by 36 percent and its housing stock by 51 percent by 2045 at an annual growth rate of 1.76 percent (between 2016 and 2045). Over this same time period, employment in the City is expected to increase 1.1 percent annually. The Project’s anticipated employment would make up approximately less than one percent of the city’s annual population growth between 2016 and 2045. Thus, while the Project would contribute to employment growth through the proposed development within the Project site, projected increases in employment from the Project are within SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS increases. Further, as detailed within DEIR Table 5.10-1, SCAG RTP/SCS Consistency Analysis, the Project as proposed would not conflict with the adopted RTP/SCS. The DEIR determined that the Project would have a significant and unavoidable inconsistency with the AQMP because the required land use change from residential to industrial would be inconsistent with SCAG's forecast projections and therefore with the AQMP. Further, while the DEIR states that buildout would result in a greater employment generation in the air quality analysis and would result in “exceedance of SCAG’s growth projections” for the designated land use, the DEIR does not state that this would result in “substantial” unplanned growth or that the Project would be inconsistent with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS overall growth projection for the City of Fontana. Additionally, Section 5.12, Population and Housing of the DEIR discusses that the Project would generate approximately 411 jobs based on SCAG’s employment generation factor of 1,195 SF of industrial space per employee, which would represent approximately 2.2 percent of SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS overall projected employment growth within the City of Fontana. Thus, while the Project would contribute to growth, it would be within the overall growth projections and would not be “substantial.” Therefore, the Project’s growth inducement analyses included in the DEIR are adequate and no further response is provided or required. Response to Comment 2.22: This comment states that the DEIR does not provide an adequate analysis and discussion regarding the impact of the proposed Project in a cumulative setting. The comment provides a list of cumulative projects and warehouses in the vicinity of the proposed Project that the commenter asserts should have been included in the DEIRs cumulative Project analysis. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed Project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-53 Final EIR October 2023 Table 5-1 of the DEIR lists cumulative projects utilized in the cumulative analysis of the Project. The list of cumulative projects was developed using a list of past, present and future projects within the Project vicinity whose impacts would have the potential to combine with those associated with the proposed Project. The additional projects that the commenter provided were not included in the cumulative project list for the following reasons: • Citrus Commerce Center was not included in the cumulative project list as it has been constructed and is currently fully operational. Therefore, the project is a current environmental condition and considered part of the proposed Project’s environmental baseline. • 16270 Jurupa Avenue was not included in the cumulative project list as it has been constructed and is currently fully operational. Therefore, the project is a current environmental condition and considered part of the proposed Project’s environmental baseline. • 13032 Slover Avenue was not included in the cumulative project list as it is located outside of the vicinity of the proposed Project and would utilize a different truck route to access Interstate 10, which would limit potential cumulative impacts from this project in combination with the proposed Project. • Master Case No. 20-049 was not included in the cumulative project list as it is located north of Interstate 10 and would utilize a different truck route to access the Interstate, which would limit potential cumulative impacts from the project in combination with the proposed Project. As discussed in Table 5-1 of the DEIR and shown in Figures 5-1a and 5-1b, Fontana Corporate Center was included as cumulative project number 1, Sierra Business Center was included as cumulative project number 26, Citrus and Oleander at Santa Ana Avenue was included as cumulative project number 40, and Cypress and Slover Warehouse was included as cumulative project number 24. These projects were therefore considered within the cumulative analysis throughout the DEIR. Cumulative impacts have been analyzed by environmental topic area within each respective environmental topic section (e.g., cumulative air quality impacts under Section 5.2, Air Quality etc.). Therefore, cumulative impacts were disclosed within the DEIR, and determinations were made regarding the Project’s cumulatively considerable impacts. In regard to cumulative population growth, the commenter is referred to Response to Comment 2.20. Response to Comment 2.23: This comment states that the DEIR does not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives as only one alternative beyond the required No Project alternative is analyzed. The DEIR included a comprehensive analysis of Project Alternatives as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. The “range of alternatives” to be evaluated is governed by the “rule of reason” and feasibility, which requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives that are feasible and necessary to permit an informed and reasoned choice by the lead agency and to foster meaningful public participation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) emphasizes that the selection of project alternatives be based primarily on the ability to reduce impacts relative to the proposed project. As detailed in DEIR Section 8.0, Alternatives, two alternatives (Alternate Site Alternative and No Project/Buildout of Existing Land Use Alternative) were considered but ultimately rejected due to their infeasibility and failed ability to meaningfully reduce Project impacts while still meeting Project objectives. Instead, a No Project/No Development Alternative and a Reduced Project Alternative that would reduce the Project by 25 percent was considered. As such, the alternatives utilized by the EIR (No Project/No Development Alternative and Reduced Project Alternative) are sufficient pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. No further response is required. Response to Comment 2.24: This comment states that the commentor believes the DEIR is flawed and a revised EIR must be prepared for the proposed Project and circulated for public review. The commentor requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-54 Final EIR October 2023 notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this Project. Therefore, no further response is required or provided. The comment is conclusionary in nature and does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other specific CEQA issue. As substantiated by the responses above and below, none of the conditions arise which would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and the Draft EIR is not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature. Response to Comment 2b.1: This comment states that SWAPE has reviewed the DEIR and states that the EIR fails to adequately evaluate the air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. As substantiated by the responses above and below, none of the conditions arise which would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and the Draft EIR is not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature. Response to Comment 2b.2: This comment states that the CalEEMod default data was changed for modeling of the proposed Project and that CEQA requires such changes be justified by substantial evidence. The comment states that when default values in the program are changed, output files are produced which disclose to the reader which values within the program have been changed. The comment is informational in nature and does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other specific CEQA issue. No revisions per this comment are required and no further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 2b.3: This comment states that CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information and that the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. The comment states that once all of the values are inputted into the model, the project’s construction and operational emissions are calculated, and “output files” are generated that disclose what parameters are utilized in calculating the project’s air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected. The comment claims that CalEEMod version 2022.1 is relied upon to South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-55 Final EIR October 2023 estimate project emissions, which poses a problem as the currently available version of CalEEMod 2022.1 is described as a “soft release” which fails to provide complete output files. Further, the comment states that the “User Changes to Default Data” table no longer provides the quantitative counterparts to the changes to the default values and that previous CalEEMod Versions, such as 2020.4.0, include the specific numeric changes to the model’s default values. The commenter claims that to remedy this issue, the DEIR should have provided access to the model’s “.JSON” output files, which allow third parties to review the model’s revised input parameters. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. First, the commenter is incorrect that CalEEMod 2022.1 is a “soft release”. As indicated in the CalEEMod release notes, CalEEMod version 2022.1 was approved for full launch on 12/21/2022 and the “soft release” message was removed1. As such, CalEEMod version 2022.1 is appropriate for use and previous CalEEMod versions, such as 2020.4.0 are outdated. Therefore, the appropriate version of CalEEMod was used and this analysis is adequate as presented. In addition, as discussed on pages 10 and 11 of the CalEEMod User’s Guide for CalEEMod version 2022.1, CalEEMod was designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or project-specific information when available. As discussed in the CalEEMod User’s Guide, if the user chooses to modify any defaults, an explanation will be required in the Justification box. Modifications to CalEEMod defaults are used when more detailed information is known about the project such as the construction timeline and the mix of equipment use. Modifications made to the CalEEMod defaults as a part of this Project were done in order to provide a more accurate snapshot of the Project’s construction and operational details. Modifications to defaults and the explanations are noted in the output report. Further, the User’s Guide states that comments are important because they show the user’s justification for the modifications, which allows reviewers the ability to determine whether the modifications are appropriate and sufficiently justified. Page 81 of the CalEEMod outputs (Appendix A of the AQ/HRA/GHG/Energy Report) identifies the user changes that were made CalEEMod. The “.JSON” files are input files, not output files. As such, all output files were included in Appendix A of the AQ/HRA/GHG/Energy Report. Response to Comment 2b.4: This comment states that the DEIR does not provide complete CalEEMod output files. The comment also states that several model inputs are not consistent with information disclosed in the DEIR. As a result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are underestimated and that an updated EIR should be prepared. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be 1 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). Release Notes. Website: https://www.caleemod.com/release- notes (accessed September 2022). South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-56 Final EIR October 2023 accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. This comment is introductory in nature and does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other specific CEQA issue. Comments provided on CalEEMod inputs are further responded to in Responses 2b.5 through 2b.8 below. No revisions per this comment are required and no further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 2b.5: This comment claims that the CalEEMod output includes only 210 parking spaces and that the DEIR should have modeled 308 total parking spaces to account for 210 vehicle parking spaces and 98 truck trailer parking spaces. This comment also states that by underestimating the proposed parking land use size, the models may underestimate the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. As shown in Appendix A of the AQ/HRA/GHG/Energy Report (Appendix B of the DEIR), the CalEEMod output included 210 parking spaces to account for the passenger vehicle parking spaces. CalEEMod does not calculate parking area by the number of parking spaces. It is calculated by the acreage of the area. The DEIR Appendix B, page 97 details that 14.5 acres of the Project site would be used for the proposed warehouse building and 4.58 acres of the site would be used for parking lot. This totals 19.08 acres, which is the size of the Project site. Thus, development of the entire site has been included in the CalEEMod modeling and it does not underestimate the emissions from the construction or use of the parking area. In addition, as shown on page 81 of the CalEEMod outputs, the overall acreage was adjusted to 19.08 acres to reflect the Project site acreage. Further, the default lot acreage for the parking lot land use was adjusted to reflect the Project site plan from 1.89 acres to 4.58 acres to account for the truck trailer parking spaces. As such, the proposed Project’s parking lot was properly modeled and analyzed. The analysis conducted for the technical report and as presented in the DEIR is correct and is adequate. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-57 Final EIR October 2023 Additionally, emissions from vehicles entering and leaving the site were quantified through the trip generation prepared for the Project (Table 8-1 of the DEIR) which was factored into the CalEEMod data. Therefore, the CalEEMod data for not underestimate the emissions from vehicles entering and leaving the site. Response to Comment 2b.6: This comment states that the architectural coating phase was increased from the default value to 75 days and asserts that by altering and extending some of the individual construction phase lengths, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the extended phases resulting in less construction activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The Project’s construction duration in CalEEMod was based on the Project’s anticipated construction schedule, as provided by the applicant, shown in Table 3-2 in the Project Description of the DEIR, which assumes that construction would be completed in 10 months. As such, the Project's construction schedule in CalEEMod is consistent with the Project Description. This is consistent with the instructions in the CalEEMod User’s Guide that directs the user to use site-specific phasing. As discussed in the CalEEMod User’s Guide, pages 33 through 35, the construction tab contains default information obtained from a survey of construction sites with a range of project types and sizes and provides default construction equipment lists and phase length data based on the total lot acreage of a project. The User’s Guide states that if the user has more detailed site-specific equipment and phase information, the user should override the default values. The analysis properly relied on Project-specific construction phases that accurately reflect the required construction activities necessary for Project buildout. The commenter has not provided any supporting documentation as to why the construction assumptions used in the analysis would not be representative of the Project’s construction. This analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 2b.7: This comment claims that a review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Poplar South Distribution Center Project - Vehicles and Light Duty Truck Trips” and “Poplar South Distribution Center Project - Heavy Heavy Truck Trips” models include changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages. The comment claims that these changes remain unsubstantiated and that the output files for CalEEMod 2022.1 do not present the numeric changes to any model defaults. Further, the comment claims that these unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses operational vehicle fleet mix percentages to calculate the Project’s operational emissions associated with on-road vehicles and that by including several unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, the model may underestimate the Project’s mobile-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-58 Final EIR October 2023 This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. As discussed on pages 46 and 47 of the AQ/HRA/GHG/Energy Report (Appendix B of the DEIR), trip generation rates used in CalEEMod for the Project were based on the Project’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis (Appendix M of the DEIR), which identifies that the proposed Project would generate approximately 687 average daily trips, including 547 passenger vehicle trips, 24 two-axle truck trips, 32 three-axle truck trips, and 84 four-axle truck trips. This analysis assumes that the four+-axle truck trips would travel approximately 40 miles. To be conservative, separate CalEEMod analyses were prepared for the operational analysis. One CalEEMod run evaluated operational and vehicle trip emissions and another CalEEMod run evaluated four+-axle truck trip emissions. Therefore, the modeling is conservative as it increases the percentage of medium duty truck trips from the default 1.73% to 5.3% and increases the percentage of heavy heavy duty (HHD) truck trips from the default of 1.76% to assume 12.23% consistent with the VMT Screening Analysis prepared for the proposed Project. Further, the modeling increases the HHD trip length from the default lengths of 18.44 miles, 7.85 miles, and 6.39 miles to 40 miles consistent with SCAQMD recommendations for warehouse projects. As such, the commenter is incorrect that the modeling included unsubstantiated changes that may underestimate the Project’s mobile source emissions. This analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 2b.8: This comment states that the use of Tier 4 Final construction equipment is not formally included as mitigation measures, and therefore the use of Tier 4 Final construction equipment cannot be verified. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-59 Final EIR October 2023 As identified on page 46 of the AQ/HRA/GHG/Energy Report (Appendix B of the DEIR), the proposed Project would utilize Tier 4 construction equipment as required by the City of Fontana’s Industrial Commerce Center Sustainability Standards. As such, the use of Tier 4 construction equipment is considered part of the Project, not mitigation, and would be included in construction documents and specifications. Further, the use of Tier 4 construction equipment is required by the Fontana Industrial Commerce Sustainability Standards, which require that project applicants use the highest rated CARB Tier technology available at the time of construction. The Applicant has confirmed that the construction equipment on the Project would comply with Tier 4 Final emissions standards. As such, this analysis is adequate as presented. Therefore, no further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 2b.9: This comment states that the commenter prepared an updated CalEEMod model, using the Project-specific information provided by the DEIR, omitting the unsubstantiated changes to the operational vehicle fleet mix and the inclusion of tier 4 mitigation and states that VOC emissions would increase by approximately 553% and exceed the applicable significance threshold resulting in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not previously identified or addressed in the DEIR. As defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, and evidence of social or economic impacts which does not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment do not constitute substantial evidence. While the comment letter presents modeling that states that significant impacts would occur, this modeling is based on inaccurate data, erroneous fact, and speculation. Therefore, none of the modeling presented rises to the level of substantial evidence. SWAPE Modeling Based on Clearly Erroneous Fact: This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact and relies on speculation and clearly erroneous fact that does not accurately represent Project-specific conditions. The commenter’s analysis provided in Attachment A to the letter was carefully reviewed for purposes of considering the potential of the Project to result in air quality impacts. The CalEEMod model run prepared by the commenter does not accurately represent the proposed Project and does not include the specific construction details that the applicant has provided that have been utilized in the CalEEMod model run that was prepared for the project in order to provide the most accurate possible representation of the air quality and GHG impacts created by the Project. Further, the remodeling prepared improperly utilized an inaccurate, shorter construction schedule in CalEEMod. As shown, SWAPE incorrectly used a lower tier of construction equipment and decreased default construction timing, including construction timing for the architectural coating phase in order to intentionally and inaccurately increase construction impacts of VOCs. Further, SWAPE increased certain fleet mix defaults in order to further inflate impacts. Comment 2b.9 does not provide credible evidence of significant impacts that require the preparation of an EIR. No further response is warranted. Response to Comment 2b.10: This comment asserts that the health risk assessment (HRA) is flawed due to the inputting of several purportedly incorrect values into the CalEEMod analysis. In addition, the comments claim that the DEIR fails to mention or provide the exposure assumptions for the HRA, such as age sensitivity factors or fraction of time at home, and that the HRA uses the incorrect equation when calculating the Project’s cancer risks, and is therefore inconsistent with guidance set forth by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-60 Final EIR October 2023 of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The HRA input parameters are included in Appendix B, HRA Model Output, of the AQ/HRA/GHG/Energy Report (Appendix B of the DEIR). The HRA was prepared to evaluate construction-period and operational health risk to off-site receptors associated with the proposed Project. The equation for calculating cancer risk as well as exposure assumptions used in the construction HRA was based on and consistent with OEHHA guidance. The following limits for maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and noncancer acute and chronic Hazard Index (HI) from project emissions of TACs are based on regulatory guidance for use in determining the health risk for projects in the South Coast Air Basin: • MICR: MICR is the estimated probability of a maximally exposed individual (MEI) contracting cancer as a result of exposure to TACs over a period of 30 years for adults and 9 years for children in residential locations and over a period of 25 years for workers. The MICR calculations include multipathway consideration. The cumulative increase in MICR that is the sum of the calculated MICR values for all TACs would be considered significant if it would result in an increased MICR greater than 10 in 1 million (1 x 10-5) at any receptor location. • Chronic HI: Chronic HI is the ratio of the estimated long-term level of exposure to a TAC for a potential MEI to its chronic reference exposure level. The chronic HI calculations include multipathway consideration. The Project would be considered to have a significant health risk impact if the cumulative increase in total chronic HI for any target organ system would exceed 1.0 at any receptor location. • Acute HI: Acute HI is the ratio of the estimated maximum 1-hour concentration of a TAC for a potential MEI to its acute reference exposure level. The Project would be considered to have a significant health risk impact if the cumulative increase in total acute HI for any target organ system would exceed 1.0 at any receptor location. For the purposes of an HRA, emissions are analyzed for acute health impacts, chronic, and carcinogenic health impacts. A multi-pathway assessment was conducted to evaluate the Project’s emissions during construction following the modeling techniques recommended in the OEHHA Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines2. The OEHHA has determined that long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particulates poses the highest cancer risk of any toxic air contaminant (TAC) it has evaluated. Exposure to diesel exhaust can also have immediate health effects. For risk assessment procedures, the OEHHA specifies that the surrogate for whole diesel exhaust is diesel particulate matter (DPM). The HRA analyses used PM10 emissions to represent DPM emissions, consistent with OEHHA guidance. 2 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. March. Website: https://oehha.ca.gov/air/air-toxics-hot-spots (accessed September 2023). South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-61 Final EIR October 2023 The conservative nature of this analysis is due primarily to the following three factors: • The California Air Resources Board (CARB)-adopted diesel exhaust unit risk factor (URF) of 300 in 1 million per microgram per cubic meter (μg/m3) is based on the upper 95th percentile of estimated risk for each of the epidemiological studies used to develop the URF. Therefore, the risk factor is already representative of the conservative risk posed by DPM. • The risk estimates assume sensitive receptors would be subject to DPM 24 hours per day, 350 days per year. As a conservative measure, the SCAQMD does not recognize indoor adjustments for residents. However, typical people spend the majority of their time indoors versus remaining outdoors 24 hours per day, 350 days per year. • The exposure to DPM is assumed to be constant for the given period analyzed (i.e., 30 years for the residential receptors and 25 years for the worker receptors). However, emissions from DPM are expected to substantially decrease in the future with the implementation of standard regulatory requirements and technological advancement to reduce DPM. As described on pages 47 and 48 of the AQ/HRA/GHG/Energy Report (Appendix B of the DEIR), a construction HRA, which evaluates construction-period health risk to off-site receptors, was performed for the proposed Project. To estimate the potential cancer risk associated with construction of the proposed Project from equipment exhaust (including DPM), a dispersion model was used to translate an emission rate from the source location to a concentration at the receptor location of interest (i.e., a nearby residence and worksites). The HRA analyses used PM10 emissions to represent DPM emissions, consistent with OEHHA guidance3. Dispersion modeling varies from a simpler, more conservative screening-level analysis to a more complex and refined detailed analysis. This refined assessment was conducted using the CARB exposure methodology with the air dispersion modeling performed using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) dispersion model AERMOD. The model provides a detailed estimate of exhaust concentrations based on site and source geometry, source emissions strength, distance from the source to the receptor, and meteorological data. Meteorological and terrain model inputs are included in the AERMOD input files. In addition, as described on pages 47 and 48 of the AQ/HRA/GHG/Energy Report (Appendix B of the DEIR), an operational HRA was conducted for the proposed Project using three models: (1) EMFAC2021 for on-road vehicle emissions factors and percentages of fuel type within the overall vehicle fleet; (2) the USEPA AERMOD air dispersion model to determine how the TACs would move through the atmosphere after release from sources both on site and on surrounding roadways; and (3) CARB’s HARP2 model to translate the pollutant concentrations from AERMOD into individual health risks at any sensitive receptor locations surrounding the Project site. The proposed Project would generate approximately 687 average daily trips, including 547 passenger vehicle trips, 24 two-axle truck trips, 32 three-axle truck trips, and 84 four-axle truck trips. The trucks would access the site by two driveways located in Poplar Avenue and two driveways located in Catawba Avenue. The proposed Project would provide 42 dock doors; as the Project would contain multiple loading docks, off-site queuing of trucks is not anticipated. While the TAC emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles have a small health effect compared to DPM, the HRA included both gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicle emissions. For the diesel exhaust emissions, it is sufficient to only consider the DPM (PM10 and PM2.5) portions of the exhaust; all the TACs for the gasoline exhaust emissions are contained in the reactive organic gases (ROG) emissions. Using speciation data from CARB, the emission rates of the TAC components are derived from the total ROG emissions. EMFAC2021 was used to determine the emissions factors of idling and operating diesel trucks to determine the total emissions of DPM. As such, the commenter is incorrect that the HRA underestimated DPM concentrations to calculate the health risks. The dose-response relationship for a specific pollutant describes the association between exposure and the observed response (health effect). In other words, the relationship estimates how different levels of exposure 3 CalEPA OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. March. Website: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/hotspots2015.html (accessed September 2023). South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-62 Final EIR October 2023 to a pollutant change the likelihood and severity of health effects. The dose-response relationship (the response occurring with increasing doses) varies with each pollutant, individual sensitivity, and type of health effect. Combining the results of the emission characterization and dispersion modeling described above with the dose-response assessment gives an estimate of the increased health risk for an individual exposed to the maximum predicted long-term concentrations of TACs. The residential risk incorporates both the risk for a child living in a nearby residence for 9 years (the standard period of time for child risk) and an adult living in a nearby residence for 30 years (considered a conservative period of time for an individual to live in any one residence). The HRA modeling utilized discrete variants for daily breathing rates, exposure frequency, and exposure duration based on default rates as presented in the OEHHA guidance document entitled Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments4 and guidance from the SCAQMD. The HRA analysis properly relied on OEHHA guidance, and the commenter has not provided any supporting documentation as to why the health risk assumptions and calculations used in the analysis would not be representative of the proposed Project. The analysis is adequate as presented and the DEIR correctly discloses potential DPM impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. No additional analysis is required. Response to Comment 2b.11: This comment states that the DEIR GHG analysis is incorrect because it relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model, an outdated threshold, fails to identify a potentially significant impact, and fails to consider the performance-based standards under CARB’s Scoping Plan. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. This comment is introductory in nature and does not provide substantial evidence of any environmental impact. Responses to the concerns brought up in this comment are addressed through Response to Comment 2b.12 through 2b.15. Response to Comment 2b.12: This comment states that the DEIR’s quantitative analysis is unsubstantiated because several of the values inputted into the models as referred to by previous comments are not consistent with information disclosed in the DEIR, and that emissions may be underestimated. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered 4 CalEPA OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. March. Website: https://oehha.ca.gov/air/air-toxics-hot-spots (accessed September 2023). South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-63 Final EIR October 2023 significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. This comment refers to previous comments presented by SWAPE regarding CalEEMod inputs. As detailed previously in responses 2b.3 through 2b.10, modeling inputs are either Project detailed specific or CalEEMod defaults, which provide a conservative analysis of potential impacts of the Project. This comment does not provide specific details of which values may not be consistent; thus, no further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 2b.13: This comment states that the use of a 3,000 MT CO2e is outdated and that a service population efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year should be used which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 provides discretion to the lead agency to determine what methodology and threshold to use to determine if GHG emissions are potentially significant. SCAQMD used the Executive Order S-3-05-year 2050 goal as the basis for the 3,000 MT CO2e. Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm, thus stabilizing global climate. In addition, a non-zero threshold approach based on Approach 2 of the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change handbookis the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold. Threshold 2.5 (Unit-Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture) of the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change handbook establishes a numerical threshold based on capture of approximately 90 percent of emissions from future development. The latest threshold developed by SCAQMD using this method is the 3,000 MTCO2e per year screening threshold. In setting the threshold at 3,000 MTCO2e per year, SCAQMD researched a database of projects kept by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). That database contained 798 projects, 87 of which were removed because they were very large projects and/or outliers that would skew emissions values too high, leaving 711 as the sample population to use in determining the 90th percentile capture rate. The SCAQMD analysis of the 711 projects within the sample population combined commercial, residential, and South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-64 Final EIR October 2023 mixed-use projects. It should be noted that the sample of projects included warehouses and other light industrial land uses but did not include industrial processes (i.e., oil refineries, heavy manufacturing, electric generating stations, mining operations, etc.). Emissions from each of these projects were calculated by SCAQMD to provide a consistent method of emissions calculations across the sample population and from projects within the sample population. In calculating the emissions, the SCAQMD analysis determined that the 90th percentile ranged between 2,983 to 3,143 MTCO2e per year. The SCAQMD set their significance threshold at the low-end value of the range when rounded to the nearest hundred tons of emissions (i.e., 3,000 MTCO2e per year) to define small projects that are considered less than significant and do not need to provide further analysis. The City understands that the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold was proposed by SCAQMD over a decade ago and was adopted as an interim policy; however, no permanent, superseding policy or threshold has since been adopted. The 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold was developed and recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (2008) document and subsequent Working Group meetings (latest of which occurred in 2010). SCAQMD has not withdrawn its support of the interim threshold and all documentation supporting the interim threshold remains on the SCAQMD website on a page that provides guidance to CEQA practitioners for air quality analysis (and where all SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional and local criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants also are listed). Further, as stated by SCAQMD, this threshold “uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal [80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050] as the basis for deriving the screening level” and, thus, remains valid for use in 2023 (SCAQMD, 2008, pp. 3-4). Lastly, this threshold has been used for hundreds, if not thousands of GHG analyses performed for projects located within the SCAQMD jurisdiction. Overall, the City has the discretion to select an evidence-based threshold, which is not outdated and is consistent with both regional and local evaluations of GHG emissions impacts and provides a conservative analysis of GHG related environmental effects. Therefore, no further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 2b.14: This comment states that an analysis provided by the commenter exceeds the commenter recommended service population threshold and states that since there is no population, it included the employees as the population. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The use of a service population threshold as described by the comment is not supported by substantial evidence that adequately explains how a service population threshold derived from Statewide data could constitute an appropriate GHG metric to be used for the proposed warehouse Project. As described in Response to Comment 2b.13, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 provides discretion to the lead agency to determine what methodology and threshold to use to determine if GHG emissions are potentially significant, South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-65 Final EIR October 2023 and the City’s use of the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold is supported by substantial evidence. Further, as detailed in DEIR Table 5.6-1, the proposed Project would result in net annual emissions of 2,893.3 MT/year CO2e. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not generate significant GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. Response to Comment 2b.15: This comment states that the DEIR failed to consider performance-based standards under CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan and therefore cannot claim that the Project would not conflict with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. CARB does not set the VMT thresholds for the City. Instead, the City sets their own thresholds for determining VMT impacts as described in their City guidelines, as allowed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7. As discussed in DEIR Section 5.14, Transportation, the proposed Project’s VMT-related transportation impacts were evaluated using the City of Fontana’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines which contain four screening thresholds to assess whether a project has the potential to result in an impact and further VMT analysis is required. According to the City’s guidelines, projects which would generate fewer than 500 average daily trips (ADT) would not cause a substantial increase in the total citywide or regional VMT. As shown in DEIR Table 5.14-1, the Project would result in an increase of 300 daily trips. Because the Project would generate an increase of less than 500 ADT, it would satisfy the requirements for Screening Criteria 4 – Net Daily Trips less than 500 ADT. Therefore, the Project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with CARB’s performance standards for VMT as the Project TAZ’s VMT/employee is below the performance standards set forth by CARB. Response to Comment 2b.16: This comment states that the commenter’s analysis in Comment 2b.13 shows that impacts would be potentially significant and provides a list of mitigation measures found in the California Department of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices document. As discussed throughout this Final EIR, the Project would not result in any significant impacts to air quality emissions (with the exception of conflict with the AQMP related to growth projections), greenhouse gas emissions, or health risks. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, subd. (a)(4)(A)–(B), there is no nexus between mitigation outlined in the comment letter and impacts from the Project. Further, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are not required for impacts deemed less than significant. While the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable air quality impact due to the Project’s required land use changes, all other air quality impacts were determined to be less than significant. There are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce impacts related to the Project’s conflict with the AQMP, therefore this impact remains significant and unavoidable. The comment provides the commenter’s opinion and does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-66 Final EIR October 2023 Response to Comment 2b.17: This comment states that as it is policy of the State that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045, we emphasize the applicability of incorporating solar power system into the Project design. As described on DEIR page 5.5-8, the proposed Project would be required to meet the CCR Title 24 energy efficiency standards in effect during permitting of the proposed Project. In addition, the Project would provide a solar-ready roof. Future building tenants would be able to install solar panels in order to offset 100 percent of the facility’s future operational energy demands. Thus, solar power would be incorporated into the Project design. Therefore, no further response is required or provided. The comment provides the commenter’s opinion and does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Also, the comment provides no substantial evidence of a significant impact. Therefore, no further response is required. Response to Comment 2b.18: This comment states that a revised EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. As detailed in previous responses herein and in DEIR Sections 5.2, Air Quality, and 5.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed Project would not exceed any of the SCAQMD or City thresholds for air quality and GHG emissions with incorporation of existing SCAQMD regulations for construction and operation of the proposed Project. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, subd. (a)(4)(A)–(B), there is no nexus between mitigation outlined in the comment letter and impacts from the Project. The comment provides the commenter’s opinion and does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. As substantiated by the responses above and below, none of the conditions arise which would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. No new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, there is no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, no feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and the Draft EIR is not fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature. Response to Comment 2b.19: This comment states that the commenter has received limited discovery regarding the Project, additional information may become available in the future; and the commentor retains the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. The comment is conclusionary in nature and does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required. Response to Comment 2b.20 Attachments A through D: These attachments to the comment letter provide multiple CalEEMod model runs used to substantiate the comments provided and responded to above and provides resumes of SWAPE professionals who provided the SWAPE comments. The comment does not raise any specific concerns with the adequacy of the DEIR or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-67 Final EIR October 2023 Comment Letter 3: CARE CA, dated August 28, 2023. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-68 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-69 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-70 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-71 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-72 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-73 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-74 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-75 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-76 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-77 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-78 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-79 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-80 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-81 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-82 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-83 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-84 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-85 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-86 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-87 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-88 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-89 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-90 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-91 Final EIR October 2023 Response to Comment Letter 3: CARE CA, dated August 28, 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-92 Final EIR October 2023 Response to Comment 3.1: This comment states that the commenter is writing on behalf of CARE CA and summarizes the Project description. This comment also states that they have reviewed the DEIR and conclude that the DEIR fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA because the DEIR does not adequately analyze cumulative impacts or accurately disclose impacts related to air quality, health risk, GHG, and growth inducement. The comment concludes that the City must revise and adequately analyze significant, indirect, and cumulative Project impacts and incorporate feasible mitigation measures in the DEIR. This comment is introductory and does not provide substantial evidence of any environmental impact. No changes to the DEIR, or further response, is warranted. Response to Comment 3.2: This comment provides a statement of interest from CARE CA and background on the organization. The comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR evaluation or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 3.3: This comment provides an overview of the legal background and purposes of CEQA. More specifically, the comment states that CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project, that CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when feasible, and that CEQA requires an EIR to include enough detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project. The comment is introductory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR evaluation or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 3.4: This comment provides an overview of CEQA requirements to disclose all potentially significant impacts of a project and to implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less than significant levels. The comment states that the failure to proceed in a manner required by CEQA and an agency’s failure to proceed in a manner by CEQA such as the failure to disclose environmental effects or alternatives are subject to a less deferential standard than challenges to an agency’s factual conclusions. The comment also states that a clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference. The comment does not provide substantial evidence of any environmental impact. The commenter provides no evidence supporting their claims that the DEIR fails to adequately disclose and mitigate potentially significant impacts. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is not credible, and evidence of social and economic impacts does not constitute substantial evidence. As discussed throughout the DEIR and Chapter 2, Errata, of the FEIR, all potentially significant impacts have been disclosed and feasible mitigation measures have been included to reduce potentially significant impacts. As discussed in Section 8.0, Alternatives, feasible alternatives were provided to be considered by the City of Fontana. Thus, no further response is warranted. Response to Comment 3.5: This comment states that an EIR must evaluate a cumulative impact if the Project’s impacts combined with impacts of other projects is “cumulatively considerable.” The comment states that proper cumulative impact analysis is vital because environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources which can appear insignificant when considered individually. The comment is introductory to Comment 3.6 and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR evaluation. Therefore, no further response is warranted. Response to Comment 3.6: This comment states that CEQA Guidelines provide two methods for satisfying the cumulative impacts analysis requirement—the list of projects approach or summary of projections approach. The comment states that the DEIR “purports” to use the summary of projects approach for some sections and the list of projects approach for the rest. The comment further states that the cumulative projects list used for the DEIR is incomplete because it excludes existing industrial/warehouse projects directly adjacent to the proposed Project site which the DEIR failed to include on the list therefore rendering the South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-93 Final EIR October 2023 analysis incomplete. The comment references DEIR Figure 5-1b and the commentor marks several existing industrial buildings/warehouses with a red X to illustrate the projects in question. The comment concludes that analyses relying on the cumulative projects list are therefore unsupported by substantial evidence because they fail to consider industrial/warehouse uses closest to the Project site and as a result the City must revise and recirculate the DEIR. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Bare assertions, unsupported by supporting evidence, that relevant projects were improperly excluded are insufficient to establish that the project list adopted by the lead agency is defective or misleading. (South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 336.) This comment is general and makes a claim without raising a specific issue to a specific analysis from the DEIR demonstrating how any of the cumulative analyses under each environmental section is inadequate. (CEQA Guidelines, §15088(c) [general response is sufficient for a general comment].) The projects identified by the commenter with a red X are all fully constructed and operational. Therefore, these buildings are already considered in the existing environment as the Project’s CEQA baseline. Therefore, these projects have been considered in the air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, and transportation analysis. Cumulative impacts related to air quality were evaluated using methodology from SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP which maintains if an individual project would result in air emissions of criteria pollutants that exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants. As discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the DEIR, emissions from construction and operation of the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds for any criteria pollutant at the regional or local level after implementation of existing regulations. Therefore, construction and operational-source emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. The geographic area for analysis of cumulative GHG emissions impacts is the state of California because emissions of GHGs cannot be defined by a geographic boundary and are effectively part of the global issue of climate change. As noted under SCAQMD's interim Tier 3 GHG threshold, projects with GHG emissions less than the adopted screening level are considered to be small projects, and therefore are not cumulatively considerable. As discussed in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gases, or the DEIR, estimated GHG emissions from development and operation of the Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Further, the Project would not conflict with the CARB Scoping Plan as it would implement multiple measures from the City of Fontana Ordinance No. 1891 to increase the Project’s energy efficiency and reduce Project GHG emissions. Therefore, the contribution of the Project to significant cumulative GHG impacts is less than significant and not cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts related to noise were evaluated using the list method (DEIR Table 5-1, Cumulative Projects). Cumulative noise assessment considers development of the proposed Project in combination with ambient growth and other development projects within the vicinity of the Project area. Construction noise is localized in nature and decreases substantially with distance. The nearest development projects to the Project site include Administrative Site Plan No. 19-017 (Sunshine Parking), Cumulative Project No. 35 (James Hardie Development), and Cumulative Project No. 37 (First Industrial Catawba Warehouse (see DEIR Figure 5-1b, Cumulative Projects Map). The project associated with Administrative Site Plan No. 19-017 is currently under construction and would be operational and no longer under construction during construction of the proposed Project. Thus, it was not considered in the Project’s cumulative construction noise analysis. The Project site and the projects that are associated with Cumulative Project No. 35 and No. 37 are located in an area dominated by industrial development. Further, the distance from construction activities to nearby sensitive receptors is greater than 1,000 feet. Construction activities associated with the cumulative projects could overlap with the construction of the proposed Project. However, cumulative noise increases due to construction would be temporary and localized to the immediately surrounding industrial area. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-94 Final EIR October 2023 In terms of cumulative mobile source noise, the Project would contribute a net of 300 daily trips, split between Catawba Avenue and Poplar Avenue. Based on the size of cumulative projects within the nearby vicinity of the Project, these cumulative projects would add limited additional trips to Catawba Avenue and Poplar Avenue. Therefore, the cumulative development along Catawba Avenue and Poplar Avenue would not result in a doubling of roadway volumes, which would in turn result in a cumulative noise level increase of less than 3 dBA. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable traffic noise impacts and impacts would be less than significant. The Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA states that “a project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term environmental goals and relevant plans would have no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact.” Therefore, cumulative impacts related to VMT would not occur because the Project would generate fewer than 500 ADT and could be presumed to result in less than significant impacts related to VMT. Cumulative impacts related to aesthetic resources were evaluated using an assessment of past, present, and probable future projects in the surrounding viewshed, including the proposed James Hardie Development (#35) at the corner of Santa Ana Avenue and First Industrial Catawba Warehouse (#37) at the corner of Catawba Avenue north of Jurupa Avenue in (DEIR Table 5-1, Cumulative Projects). The proposed building height, massing, setbacks, new sidewalks and layered landscaping along Catawba Avenue and Poplar Avenue is consistent with surrounding industrial development and would ensure that public views of the Jurupa Mountains remain visible to vehicles and pedestrians traveling north to south. Further, all other developments proposed in the cumulative study area would be required to comply with the applicable governing policies, including applicable design regulations of the City of Fontana General Plan, SWIP SP, and Fontana Municipal Code, which include policies and regulations to preserve vistas and important scenic resources. Accordingly, with buildout of the Project and other developments within the Project’s viewshed, impacts to scenic vistas would not be cumulatively significant and the Project’s contributions would be less than cumulatively considerable. Further, as described in Section 5.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the DEIR, different types of cumulative impacts occur over different geographic areas. For example, the geographic scope of the cumulative air quality analysis, where cumulative impacts occur over a large area, is different from the geographic scope considered for cumulative analysis of aesthetic resources, for which cumulative impacts are limited to project area viewsheds. Thus, in assessing aesthetic resources impacts, only development within and immediately adjacent to the Project area would contribute to a cumulative visual effect is analyzed, whereas cumulative transportation impacts are based upon annual growth projections and the other proposed and/or foreseeable development within the traffic study area of roadways and intersections. Similarly, existing industrial buildings/warehouses would not contribute to cumulative impacts to certain topic areas such as Biological Resources and/or Cultural Resources because those sites have already been developed on. Thus, because the geographic scope and other parameters of each cumulative analysis discussion can vary, the cumulative geographic scope, and the cumulative projects included in the geographic scope (when the list of projects approach is used), are described for each environmental topic. As such, Table 5-1, which provides a list of relevant projects considered in the cumulative environmental analysis, was compiled per information provided by each agency and is an appropriate cumulative projects list and the cumulative analyses throughout the DEIR are adequate. CEQA requires the standard for compiling such a list is that projects should be included when it is reasonable, feasible, and practical to do so, given the information available about the projects, and when failure to include such projects would lead to an inadequate analysis of the severity and significance of the cumulative impacts in question. (Golden Door Property LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467, 529.)No further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 3.7: This comment claims that the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project’s cumulative air quality emissions and the SCAQMD approach conflicts with the California Attorney General’s (AG) recent guidance document setting forth best practices for evaluating the environmental impacts of warehouse projects like this one under CEQA. The comment states that with respect to cumulative air quality South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-95 Final EIR October 2023 and GHG emissions analysis, the Attorney General’s guidance states that best practices include “when analyzing cumulative impacts, thoroughly considering the project’s incremental impact in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, even if the project’s individual impacts alone do not exceed the applicable significance threshold.” A cumulative impact is an impact created by the combination of the project reviewed in the DEIR together with other projects causing related impacts. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(a)(1).) “Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15355(b).) For an adequate analysis of cumulative impacts, CEQA requires that an DEIR evaluate whether the environmental effects from past, present, and probable future projects taken together would result in a significant impact (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(b)(1), (4), (5)), and then assess whether the incremental effect of the project at issue is “cumulatively considerable” when combined with the effects of the other projects (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(a)). The discussion of cumulative impacts need not provide detail as extensive as that required for effects attributable solely to the proposed Project. The discussion of cumulative impacts should be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(b).) A disagreement over the method used to assess cumulative impacts is not a basis for rejecting a DEIR’s analysis as inadequate. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15151.) A reasonable, good faith effort to disclose the impact is sufficient (See Citizens for Open Gov’t v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 320.) There is no methodology to quantify the cumulative areawide or localized health risks within a community-wide area. The SCAQMD’s non-attainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in non-attainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. While SCAQMD is reviewing its approach to analyzing cumulative impacts, it is too speculative at this point to assume what SCAQMD will or will not decide in terms of how cumulative impacts should be analyzed. Therefore, until SCAQMD finalizes their approach to analyzing cumulative impacts, it is appropriate to follow their currently adopted approach. The SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds of significance apply to individual development projects and evaluate the incremental increase in emissions from a proposed source. In developing these thresholds, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. Thus, if a project exceeds the identified SCAQMD significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. The case law provided by the commenter does not demonstrate the Draft EIR’s analysis to be deficient. The court in Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 718, found a draft EIR’s cumulative air quality impacts analysis deficient where the DEIR concluded the cumulative impact would be less than significant because the coal-fired cogeneration plant at issue would emit relatively minor amounts as compared to the already significant air quality problems in the area as a whole. This “ratio theory” expressed in the Kings County Farm Bureau DEIR is not utilized here. Rather, the Draft EIR concluded that the Project-specific emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds for any criteria pollutant at the regional or local level after implementation of existing regulations. The City relies on the SCAQMD’s recommended methodology to evaluate the Project’s cumulative impacts. As discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality of the DEIR and the AQ/HRA/GHG/Energy Report, the proposed Project would generate operational air quality emissions that are below the SCAQMD’s thresholds. As such, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulative air quality impact and additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is not required. Further, climate change is a global environmental problem in which: (a) any given development project contributes only a small portion of any net increase in GHGs, and (b) global growth is continuing to contribute South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-96 Final EIR October 2023 large amounts of GHGs across the world. Land use projects may contribute to the phenomenon of global climate change in ways that would be experienced worldwide, and with some specific effects felt in California. However, no scientific study has established a direct causal link between individual land use project impacts and global warming. The analysis of impacts related to GHG emissions is inherently cumulative. The proposed Project would have no conflict with applicable Statewide and regional climate action measures. In addition, as discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality of the DEIR and the AQ/HRA/GHG/Energy Report, the Project’s operational-related GHG emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric threshold. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant, and the cumulative impact would also be less than significant. As such, identification and analysis of mitigation measures or the emission reduction strategies would not be required. No further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 3.8: This comment asserts that the DEIR’s analysis of cumulative health risks is flawed as it fails to analyze the Project’s cumulative effects with the existing and proposed warehouses surrounding the Project site. The comment also claims that the DEIR’s approach of using a Project-level analysis as a substitute for a cumulative impacts analysis fails to address that the Project would be impacting a community already bearing a high pollution burden. As discussed on pages 47 and 48 of the AQ/HRA/GHG/Energy Report (Appendix B of the DEIR), an HRA was prepared for the proposed Project to evaluate the potential impact on sensitive receptors from construction and operation of the proposed Project. The HRA evaluates the potential health risk to people living and working near the proposed Project associated with the exhaust of diesel-powered trucks and equipment. As discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality of the DEIR, health risk levels from Project construction and operation to the nearest sensitive receptors would also be below SCAQMD thresholds. Although the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) identifies that the Project site scores 95.3 in AQ-Ozone, 93.5 in AQ-PM, and 78.3 in AQ-DPM, there is no methodology to quantify the cumulative areawide or localized health risks within a community-wide area. The SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds of significance apply to individual development projects and evaluate the incremental increase in emissions from a proposed source. In developing thresholds of significance for individual projects, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The City relies on the SCAQMD’s recommended methodology to evaluate cumulative impacts, which is to conclude that an impact considered to be significant on a project- specific basis would also cause a significant cumulative impact.See Response to Comment 3.7 for further discussion on this. As such, the proposed Project would not contribute to significant cumulative health risk impacts.. Additionally, as determined by the Friant Ranch Case (discussed in detail on page 5.2-29 of the DEIR), it may not be feasible to perform a health risk assessment for airborne toxics that will be emitted by a generic industrial building that was built on "speculation" (i.e., without knowing the future tenant(s)). Even where a health risk assessment can be prepared, however, the resulting maximum health risk value is only a calculation of risk--it does not necessarily mean anyone will contract cancer as a result of the Project. Therefore, the emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level. No further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 3.9: This comment claims that the DEIR’s emissions calculations using Tier 4 Final equipment are not supported with substantial evidence that the Project’s construction would exclusively use Tier 4 equipment. Further, the comment claims that as a result, the DEIR’s conclusion that the Project’s construction emissions would be less than significant because Tier 4 Final equipment achieves greater emissions reductions than lower-tier equipment is unsupported. The comment also states that the Project’s construction emissions may be higher than the emissions calculated in the DEIR and that the Project’s air quality, GHG, and health risk impacts may be greater than calculated in the DEIR and are similarly unsupported by substantial evidence. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-97 Final EIR October 2023 The use of Tier 4 construction equipment is required by the Fontana Industrial Commerce Sustainability Standards (Chapter 9, Section V of the Fontana Municipal Code) which require that project applicants use the highest rated CARB Tier technology available at the time of construction. In addition to compliance with the Municipal Code, the Project Applicant has also confirmed that the construction equipment used on the Project site would comply with Tier 4 Final emissions standards. Thus, as identified on page 46 of the AQ/HRA/GHG/Energy Report (Appendix B of the DEIR), the proposed Project would utilize Tier 4 construction equipment. The use of Tier 4 construction equipment is considered part of the Project, not mitigation, and would be included in construction documents and specifications. Response to Comment 3.10: This comment states that although the DEIR acknowledges that the Project is covered by the Southwest Industrial Specific Plan (SWIP), the DEIR fails to address the Project’s consistency with project-level mitigation measures required by the SWIP PEIR and to adopt applicable mitigation measures. This comment also states that because the Project is a large warehouse located in the SWIP specific plan area and the SWIP PEIR identified a significant and unavoidable long-term air quality impact, the Project must comply with the applicable mitigation measures identified in the SWIP (4.2-2a, 4.2-2b, 4.2-2f, 4.2-2h, 4.2-2i). Lastly, the comment states that the DEIR identifies a significant and unavoidable air quality impact and therefore must adopt all feasible air quality mitigation measures such as the ones identified in the SWIP PEIR. As described in Section 5.2, Air Quality of the DEIR, all impacts related to air quality, except for Impact AQ-1 would be less than significant. The DEIR determined that Impact AQ-1would be significant and unavoidable because the land use change from residential to industrial would be inconsistent with SCAG’s forecast projections and therefore with SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP. However, as described in Impacts AQ-2 through AQ-4 of Section 5.2, Air Quality, the Project would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds, therefore the Project would not have significant air quality impacts. None of the mitigation measures listed by CARE would be applicable to Impact AQ-1 nor would they reduce impacts related to the land use change associated with the Project. However, because the Project is located within the SWIP, the Project would still be required to comply with SWIP PEIR Mitigation Measures 4.2-2a, 4.2-2b, 4.2-2f, 4.2-2h, 4.2-2i. Response to Comment 3.11: This comment states that the SWIP EIR identifies a less than significant GHG impact after mitigation and further explains Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a which states that prior to the issuance of building permits, future development projects shall demonstrate the incorporation of project design features that achieve a minimum of 28.5 percent reduction in GHG emissions from non-mobile sources as compared to business-as-usual conditions. As described in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas, all impacts related to GHG would be less than significant therefore no mitigation measures are required. Nonetheless, the Project would comply with SWIP PEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a which includes a number of energy efficiency, renewable energy, water conservation and efficiency, solid waste measures, and transportation measures aimed at reducing GHG emissions. In addition, given that the Project would be over 400,000 SF, the Project would be required to comply with Ordinance No. 1891, also known as Chapter 9: Section V, Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards in the City of Fontana Municipal Code and which includes standards that are more stringent than the ones listed in the SWIP EIR. For example, the SWIP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-5a states under Renewable Energy that projects should “install solar panels on carports and over parking areas and ensure buildings are designed to have ‘solar-ready roofs’” while Chapter 9, Section V of the Municipal Code states that prior to the issuance of a business license “the City shall ensure rooftop solar panels are installed and operated in such a manner that they will supply 100 percent of the power needed to operate all non- refrigerated portions of the facility including the parking areas” under Alternative Energy demonstrating that the Project would substantially reduce GHG emissions from energy use. All additional development standards that the Project would comply with are described in Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gas of the DEIR. Lastly, the Project would be required to comply with the 2022 CalGreen building standards under Title 24— many of which are equivalent or similar measures mentioned in the SWIP EIR. Thus, since no mitigation would be required and the Project would comply with all relevant GHG reduction development standards, no further response is required or provided. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-98 Final EIR October 2023 Response to Comment 3.12: This comment states that the DEIR fails to adopt recommended mitigation measures in the Attorney General’s Warehouse Guidance and includes sample mitigation measures that a local agency should consider when evaluating the air quality and GHG environmental impacts of warehouse industrial projects. The commenter asserts that the Project should consider and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in order to mitigate air quality and GHG emissions of the Project. As provided in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the DEIR, the Project would result in a less than significant impact on GHG therefore no mitigation would be necessary. In addition, as discussed above in Comment 3.10, the DEIR determined that based on AQ/HRA/GHG/Energy Report (Appendix B of the DEIR), all impacts related to air quality, except for Impact AQ-1 would be less than significant. The DEIR determined that Impact AQ- 1would be significant and unavoidable because the land use change from residential to industrial would be inconsistent with SCAG’s forecast projections and therefore with SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP. However, as described in Impacts AQ-2 through AQ-4 of Section 5.2, Air Quality, the Project would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds, therefore the Project would not have significant air quality impacts and further, no mitigation would be applicable to Impact AQ-1 that would reduce impacts related to the land use change associated with the Project. No further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 3.13: This comment states that the DEIR fails to analyze the significance of the magnitude of the noise increase. Further, this comment suggests that inconsistent distances were used for the construction noise assessment as compared to construction vibration assessment. The distances are different, but appropriately so. The distance of 55 feet is utilized to assess potential vibration damage which is based on a peak particle velocity determination or a “maximum” condition. This occurs when a piece of heavy equipment is operating at the perimeter of the Project site. The assessment for construction noise impacts is based on an Leq, or average noise level condition. The average condition is based on the center of the project site being the typical average location of equipment as it traverses the site. The commenter’s suggestion that the amount of equipment be reduced as compared to the CalEEMod modeling printouts is overly assumptive because it presumes multiple pieces of equipment would not operate at the same time. The more conservative approach which was used by the DEIR’s Noise Report is presenting a more likely scenario. In this case, the more likely scenario is to assume multiple pieces of equipment would be operating simultaneously. In regard to the CEQA cases mentioned in the supporting memorandum, it should be noted that the decision for King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. Cnty. of Kern also states the following: 2. Agency Discretion to Determine Thresholds of Significance: The absence of a mandatory standard in CEQA, the Guidelines or judicial decisions for determining the significance of a noise increase means it is the responsibility of lead agencies to choose the thresholds of significance to be applied to a project’s noise impacts. In regard to the appropriateness of the FTA Manual criteria being used as a threshold for construction noise impact determination, this criteria is used because the City does not have its own construction noise criteria. It is very common in the environmental assessment industry to rely on such criteria as to not solely exempt potential impacts from things like construction noise due to the regulation of hours within the City’s Municipal Code. To that point, it should be noted that in the Municipal Code, the City only requires noise limits to be assessed at residential property lines. The assessment at the non-noise sensitive industrial uses was presented for a conservative assessment. According to the DEIR, “the construction noise levels anticipated from usage of construction equipment needed to implement the proposed Project were combined with the existing ambient noise level measurements at the sensitive receiver locations.” (DEIR, p. 5.11-12.) These construction noise levels were then compared against the FTA’s threshold to assess the level of significance. With a composite construction noise level of 70 dBA Leq at the nearest industrial use, expected noise levels would be approximately 20 dBA Leq less than the appropriate threshold. Furthermore, it should be noted that no sensitive outdoor areas are present at the industrial properties surrounding the Project site. Thus, the South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-99 Final EIR October 2023 DEIR appropriately considered the Project’s noise impacts, including the maximum noise levels and the increase in the level of noise, before concluding that the construction noise impacts would be less than significant. Lastly, it should be pointed out that construction noise would not generate a long-term elevation of noise in proximity of the site. Once the Project is completed, there would be no permanent construction noise. All construction would occur only during the hours allowed by Fontana’s Municipal Code Section 18-63 which exempts construction related noise between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Further, as described in the Noise Report (Appendix L of the DEIR), a potential operational noise impact would occur if (1) the quietest daytime ambient hour is less than 70 dBA Leq and project noise impacts are greater than 70 dBA Leq, or (2) the quietest daytime ambient hour is greater than 70 dBA Leq and project noise impacts are 3 dBA greater than the quietest daytime ambient hour. Tables L and M of the Noise Report note that the existing quietest daytime noise levels measured at the closest sensitive receptors to the Project site range from 57.0-65.9 dBA Leq while the existing quietest nighttime noise levels range from 49.9-58.1 dBA Leq at the same locations. At those same locations, during operation of the Project, noise levels are anticipated to range between 26.3-42.6 dBA Leq during the daytime and nighttime. Therefore, Project noise levels would not generate a noise level that exceeds existing ambient noise levels by 3 dBA or exceed the City’s noise thresholds. Therefore, no further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 3.14: This comment states that the DEIR determined that induced growth from the proposed Project would not be unexpected or would constitute substantial unplanned growth because the growth as a result of employment from the proposed development are within SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS increases. The comment further states that this determination contradicts the air quality analysis in the DEIR which explicitly states that the Project would exceed SCAG’s growth projections and references Impact AQ- 1 which the DEIR found was significant and unavoidable. The comment concludes that the growth inducement impacts analysis must be revised to disclose Project’s impacts. There is a distinction between the determination made in the air quality analysis and the determination of whether the Project would constitute “substantial” unplanned growth. The Impact AQ-1 threshold of Section 5.2, Air Quality asks whether the Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. To answer this, the DEIR used SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook methodology which evaluates two criteria to determine whether a project involving a legislative land use action (such as the proposed General Plan land use and zoning designation changes) would be consistent or in conflict with the AQMP. Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to the SCAG’s growth forecast and associated assumptions included in the AQMP. SCAG’s regional growth forecasts are based upon, among other things, land uses designated in general plans. If a project is consistent with the general plan land use designation, it is also consistent with the SCAG’s regional forecast projections and therefore consistent with the AQMP. Given that the proposed Project would require a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the existing land use designation from Residential Trucking (R-T) to General Industrial (I-G) and a Specific Plan Amendment to change the site’s existing SWIP designation from Residential Trucking District (RTD) to Slover East Industrial District (SED), the DEIR determined that Impact AQ-1would be significant and unavoidable because the land use change from residential to industrial would be inconsistent with SCAG’s forecast projections and therefore with SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP. While the DEIR states that buildout would result in a greater employment generation in the air quality analysis and would result in “exceedance of SCAG’s growth projections” for the designated land use, the DEIR does not state that this would result in “substantial” unplanned growth or that the Project would be inconsistent with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS overall growth projection for the City of Fontana. Additionally, Section 5.12, Population and Housing of the DEIR discusses that the Project would generate approximately 411 jobs based on SCAG’s employment generation factor of 1,195 SF of industrial space per employee, which would represent approximately 2.2 percent of SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS overall South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-100 Final EIR October 2023 projected employment growth within the City of Fontana. Thus, while the Project would contribute to growth, it would not contribute to substantial unplanned growth because the Project fits within the City’s overall growth projections. Therefore, the air quality and growth inducement analyses determined by the DEIR are adequate and no further response is provided or required. Response to Comment 3.15: This comment concludes the comment letter and states that the is inadequate under CEQA therefore it must be revised and recirculated to ensure that the Project’s potentially significant impacts are adequately analyzed and mitigated to less than significant levels. The comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise a specific CEQA issue. The commenters’ concerns were addressed above in Responses 3.1 through 3.15, and appropriate revisions were made, as incorporated into Chapter 2, Errata. In reviewing the above listed comments and making the appropriate revisions, when necessary, no significant new information was incorporated, and further, the impacts disclosed in the DEIR accurately reflect the proposed Project and subsequent potential environmental impacts. Therefore, per CEQA Guidelines and CA Code of Regulations 15088.5, DEIR recirculation would not be warranted. Response to Comment 3b.1: This comment provides general information regarding the Project and the memo preparer’s qualifications. This comment is introductory and does not provide substantial evidence of any environmental impact. No changes to the DEIR, or further response, is warranted. Response to Comment 3b.2: This comment provides reference information from an outside source regarding noise effects. The comment does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR evaluation or raise any other CEQA issue. Therefore, no further response is required or provided. Response to Comment 3b.3: This comment provides Wilson Ihrig’s opinion on proper construction noise assessment methodology and impact determination. The first paragraph of the comment provides the following statement, “The cited FTA Manual is a guidance document, and it discourages projects against using its absolute criteria values without consideration of local conditions stating, “Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment” (FTA page 179).” While the FTA Manual does contain this text it also states “While it is not the purpose of this manual to specify standardized criteria for construction noise impact, the following guidelines can be considered reasonable criteria for assessment. If these criteria are exceeded, there may be adverse community reaction.” Editorially, it can be interpreted from this statement that if the FTA Manual criteria is not exceeded, that is possible an adverse community reaction would not occur. The second paragraph offers the opinion of Wilson Ihrig that the construction analysis utilizes the incorrect distance for construction noise assessment. As described above in Response 3.13, it is the commenters opinion that the DEIR’s assessment is overly conservative; however, the DEIR’s analysis is consistent with the CalEEMod construction equipment outputs and the analysis correctly utilizes an Leq or average noise level assessment. Because the assessment is replicating an average condition, the center of the Project site is used as the equipment would be transversing the site and at times be closer or further away from each property line. The commenter’s suggestion of combining one dozer, one saw and one excavator at one point at the edge of the construction activity would be likely impossible in reality during construction as all three pieces would not be able to operate in the same spot. Additionally, as stated in Response 3.13, most construction equipment does not remain in one place for any significant amount of time. It should also be noted that the distances referenced are different and should be different. Potential construction vibration damage utilizes a peak condition or peak particle velocity. It should also be noted that the assessment is complete for potential damage to a structure which can occur regardless of the use type. It is correct in this instance to use the distance from the edge of construction to the surrounding structure. The third paragraph of the comment seems to suggest that construction noise would cause an increase of 27 dBA at the closest receptor. As stated above, the recommended noise level of an average condition by Wilson Ihrig is 84 dBA at 55 feet, however that condition is not accurate to a potential real-world situation for the duration of an hour. Most importantly, however, is that the construction noise levels at the adjacent South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-101 Final EIR October 2023 industrial uses are not necessarily intended to determine a potential noise impact. The correct average noise level generated at the nearest industrial use of 70 dBA is provided for information purposes only as the adjacent industrial use is not considered a sensitive receptor and there are no exterior areas on the property that would be considered noise sensitive or are areas were people would gather. Thus, the construction noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors (residences located 1,325 feet northeast and 1,500 feet south of the Project boundary line) were conservatively assessed at 56 dBA Leq because only distance propagation was considered in an effort to provide a conservative analysis. Had intervening structures been considered, construction noise impacts at the closest residential uses would be further reduced. Lastly, this conservative construction related noise level would be approximately 10 dBA below the quietest daytime hour measured at the residential uses to the south which were measured at 65 dBA (Table G of Appendix L to the DEIR). Based on the responses above, it has been determined that construction of the proposed Project would not expose any sensitive outdoor areas or residence to a perceptible noise increase above existing ambient conditions. The Noise Analysis conducted for the proposed Project is adequate and no further response is required. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-102 Final EIR October 2023 Comment Letter 4: CARB, dated August 30, 2023. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-103 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-104 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-105 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-106 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-107 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-108 Final EIR October 2023 Response to Comment Letter 4: CARB, dated August 30, 2023 Response to Comment 4.1: This comment provides a summary of Project-related information contained in the DEIR, including a brief Project description and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors. The comment also states that due to the Project’s proximity to residences and schools already burdened by multiple sources of air pollution, the commenter is concerned with the potential cumulative health impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project. In addition, the comment states that industrial facilities, like the Project, can result in high volumes of heavy-duty diesel truck traffic, and operation of on-site equipment (e.g., forklifts and yard tractors) that emit toxic diesel emissions, and contribute to regional air pollution and global climate change and that CARB staff urges the City to plan for the use of zero-emission technologies within the Project area. As identified in Table 5.2-7 of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance criteria for peak daily VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. As such, operation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the proposed Project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. As such, identification and analysis of mitigation measures or emission reduction strategies would not be required to reduce emissions to a less than significant level. Further, a Construction and Operational Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B of the DEIR) was prepared to evaluate the health risk impacts as a result of exposure to DPM as a result of heavy-duty diesel trucks traveling to and from the site, maneuvering onsite, and entering and leaving the site during construction and operation of the proposed Project. The Heath Risk Assessment considered the closest sensitive receptors to the site which are residences located approximately 0.3 mile northeast of the Project site. As described in DEIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, the results of the Health Risk Assessment indicate the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction and operational activity. Additionally, any future tenants that have heavy heavy duty fleets would be required by law to meet the CARB’s Statewide Truck and Bus regulations, as well as CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck and forthcoming Advanced Clean Fleets regulations. Also, any equipment would be subject to permitting requirements and other regulations identified by CARB under Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Section 93155 (the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines), which sets strict emission standards for engines and limits on run times to reduce diesel particulate matter and criteria pollutant emissions. As such, the Project Applicant will comply with all applicable current CARB rules and regulations and will continue to implement additional CARB rules and regulations when they become in effect. Response to Comment 4.2: This comment states that Section 3.5, Description of the Project, of the DEIR states that the proposed warehouse building will not be designed to accommodate and will not include any warehouse cold storage or refrigerated uses. The letter also states air pollutant emissions associated with cold storage operation were not included in the Draft EIR. The commenter recommends that the City to include one of the following design measures in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR): • A project design measure requiring contractual language in tenant lease agreements that prohibits tenants from operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) within the project-site; or • A condition requiring a restrictive covenant over the parcel that prohibits the applicant’s use of TRUs on the property, unless the applicant seeks and receives an amendment to its conditional use permit allowing such use As identified on page 3-33 of the DEIR, the building is not designed to accommodate and will not include any warehouse cold storage or refrigerated uses. As such, cold storage is not included as part of this Project. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-109 Final EIR October 2023 Additionally, the Project has been condition to prohibit future cold storage uses. Should the Project later be modified to propose cold storage, the analysis would be revised under subsequent CEQA evaluation to evaluate the Project change, including air toxic emissions and health impacts from cold storage and TRUs. Response to Comment 4.3: The comment states that the City and applicant assumed the Project would require 72.9 truck trips to export the 8,743 cubic yards of net soil from the site. The comment also states that according to the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User Guide (Version 2022.1), a truck can haul 16 cubic yards of soil per trip. Assuming each truck can hold 16 cubic yards per trip, the number trips would equate to approximately 546 truck trips. As shown on page 67 of the CalEEMod outputs (Appendix A to the AQ/HRA/GHG/Energy Report), the proposed Project would result in 72.9 one-way hauling trips per day. The grading phase is anticipated to occur for 15 days, therefore, CalEEMod assumes 1,094 total one-way haul trips (547 two-way trips). Therefore, the DEIR appropriately evaluated haul trucks during grading and construction air pollutant emissions does not need to be remodeled. Response to Comment 4.4: The comment states that the DEIR concluded that the Project would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds and potential impacts are expected to be less than significant. Therefore, the Project has no mitigation measures specific to air quality except for Project Design Measures AQ-1 through AQ- 4, which would require the City to comply with the SCAQMD’s existing rules. The letter also asserts that due to the Project’s proximity to residences and schools, CARB is concerned with the potential cumulative health impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project. As such, the commenter recommends the inclusion of several industrial/warehouse emission reduction strategies to reduce diesel particulate matter and NOx emissions. There is no methodology to quantify the cumulative areawide or localized health risks within a community-wide area. The SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds of significance apply to individual development projects and evaluate the incremental increase in emissions from a proposed source. These thresholds do not apply to cumulative projects. The City relies on the SCAQMD’s recommended methodology to evaluate cumulative impacts, which is to conclude that an impact considered to be significant on a project-specific basis would also cause a significant cumulative impact. Further, the SCAQMD’s non-attainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in non-attainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the SCAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified SCAQMD significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. As demonstrated in the DEIR and the AQ/HRA/GHG/Energy Report, the proposed Project would generate operational emissions that are below the SCAQMD’s thresholds. As such, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulative air quality impact and additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is not required. As such, identification and analysis of mitigation measures or the emission reduction strategies suggested in the comment would not be required to reduce emissions to a less than significant level. (CEQA Guidelines, §15126.4(a)(3) [mitigation measures are not required for less than significant effects].) Nevertheless, the Project is required to comply with adopted CARB regulations regardless of the Project’s less than significant air quality impacts. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-110 Final EIR October 2023 Response to Comment 4.5: This comment provides a closing to the comment letter and restates that due to the Project’s proximity to nearby industrial uses, residences, and schools, CARB is concerned the construction and operation of the Project may negatively contribute to cumulative impacts to the surrounding community. CARB urges the City to include more mitigation measures or project design features to reduce air pollutant emissions emitted by the Project. CARB also urges the City to fully account for heavy-duty truck trips during the Project’s construction grading phase, and to include a design measure restricting the operation of TRUs within the Project site. See Responses to Comments 4.1 through 4.4. No further response is provided or required. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-111 Final EIR October 2023 Comment Letter 5: Advocates for the Environment, dated September 27, 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-112 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-113 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-114 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-115 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-116 Final EIR October 2023 South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-117 Final EIR October 2023 Response to Comment Letter 5: Advocates for the Environment, dated September 27, 2023 Response to Comment 5.1: This comment states that the letter is written by “Advocates for the Environment” and summarizes the project description. This comment also states that they have reviewed the DEIR and have submitted comments on the insufficiency of the DEIR’s GHG analysis under CEQA. The comment is introductory in nature and does not provide substantial evidence of any environmental impact. No further response is warranted. Response to Comment 5.2: This comment states that construction and operation of buildings is responsible for a very large portion of global GHG emissions. The comment states that it is more feasible and less expensive to construct new buildings to be net zero emission than it is to retrofit existing buildings to be net zero. Therefore, the comment claims that there is no reason for new buildings to not be constructed as net zero. The comment refers to two case laws where development projects moved forward to net zero communities after environmental groups sued and won after CEQA. The comment urges the City to change the GHG significance threshold to net zero and require full fair share mitigation. The comment continues to refer to CARB 2017 Scoping Plan references that further encourage the net-zero threshold for GHG emissions. The comment states that the City should adopt the net zero GHG significance threshold and require fair-share mitigation from the Project. The Project in question is an industrial building, whereas the examples in this comment refer to non-industrial projects. Therefore, the examples provided in this comment do not necessarily apply to the Project and are not reliable enough to warrant a response. As described in DEIR Section 5.7, Greenhouse Gases, the Project would not result in significant impacts related to GHG emissions or inconsistencies with plans, policies, or regulations aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Moreover, the comment’s suggestion to apply a net-zero threshold is not feasible or appropriate for this Project. This Project is located within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD and therefore is evaluated against SCAQMD’s thresholds which are appropriate and supported by substantial evidence, as described in Response 5.3 below. The application of a net-zero threshold is unprecedented for warehouse projects and would effectively result in a moratorium on such facilities within the City. While the application of a net-zero threshold may be appropriate and feasible for residential projects, such as the two mentioned by the commentator, it is not appropriate to apply such a threshold to warehouse projects where the vast majority of operational GHG emissions result from mobile-source emissions associated with trucks. Therefore, the Project not being constructed as net zero emissions does not conflict with the GHG significance threshold or any plan, policy, or goal related to GHG. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR or that would require the preparation of an EIR. No further response is warranted. Response to Comment 5.3: This comment states that the DEIR utilized two significance thresholds, the first being “would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, in a way that would have a significant impact on the environment.” The comment continues by explaining that the City concluded the Project would have a less than significant GHG impact under this threshold because the Project’s modeled GHG emissions were below the adopted threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e from the SCAQMD. The comment claims this impact determination is invalid because the threshold is not supported by substantial evidence due to the current regulatory setting. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-118 Final EIR October 2023 of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The DEIR for the proposed Project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 provides discretion to the lead agency to determine what methodology and threshold to use to determine if GHG emissions are potentially significant. SCAQMD used the Executive Order S-3-05-year 2050 goal as the basis for the 3,000 MT CO2e. Achieving the Executive Order’s objective would contribute to worldwide efforts to cap CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm, thus stabilizing global climate. In addition, a non-zero threshold approach based on Approach 2 of the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change handbook is the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold. Threshold 2.5 (Unit-Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture) of the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change handbook establishes a numerical threshold based on capture of approximately 90 percent of emissions from future development. The latest threshold developed by SCAQMD using this method is the 3,000 MTCO2e per year screening threshold. In setting the threshold at 3,000 MTCO2e per year, SCAQMD researched a database of projects kept by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). That database contained 798 projects, 87 of which were removed because they were very large projects and/or outliers that would skew emissions values too high, leaving 711 as the sample population to use in determining the 90th percentile capture rate. The SCAQMD analysis of the 711 projects within the sample population combined commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects. It should be noted that the sample of projects included warehouses and other light industrial land uses but did not include industrial processes (i.e., oil refineries, heavy manufacturing, electric generating stations, mining operations, etc.). Emissions from each of these projects were calculated by SCAQMD to provide a consistent method of emissions calculations across the sample population and from projects within the sample population. In calculating the emissions, the SCAQMD analysis determined that the 90th percentile ranged between 2,983 to 3,143 MTCO2e per year. The SCAQMD set their significance threshold at the low-end value of the range when rounded to the nearest hundred tons of emissions (i.e., 3,000 MTCO2e per year) to define small projects that are considered less than significant and do not need to provide further analysis. The City understands that the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold was proposed by SCAQMD over a decade ago and was adopted as an interim policy; however, no permanent, superseding policy or threshold has since been adopted. The 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold was developed and recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (2008) document and subsequent Working Group meetings (latest of which occurred in 2010). SCAQMD has not withdrawn its support of the interim threshold and all documentation supporting the interim threshold remains on the SCAQMD website on a page that provides guidance to CEQA practitioners for air quality analysis (and where all SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional and local criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants also are listed). Further, as stated by SCAQMD, this threshold “uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal [80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050] as the basis for deriving the screening level” and, thus, remains valid for use in 2023 (SCAQMD, 2008, pp. 3-4). Lastly, this threshold has been used for hundreds, if not thousands of GHG analyses performed for projects located within the SCAQMD jurisdiction. Overall, the City has the discretion to select an evidence-based threshold, which is not outdated and is consistent with both regional and local evaluations of GHG emissions impacts and provides a conservative analysis of GHG related environmental effects. Therefore, no further response is required or provided. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-119 Final EIR October 2023 Response to Comment 5.4: This comment states the Project analysis of threshold GHG-2 did not demonstrate consistency analysis with several relevant programs and regulations, including AB 1279 and EO B-55-18. This comment is introductory in nature and provides information for subsequent comments. As described in Responses 5.6 through 5.9 below, consistency with the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan would ensure consistency with State and local policies, plans, and regulation aimed at reducing GHG emissions that were not directly addressed in the GHG consistency analysis. It should be noted that the commenter does not reference any particular plans that the DEIR did not analyze. Consistency with additional plans, policies, and regulations such as AB 1279 and EO B-55-18 are further discussed in Response to Comment 5.6 through 5.9. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR or that would require the preparation of an EIR. No further response is warranted. Response to Comment 5.5: This comment states that a Lead Agency must support its chosen GHG threshold with substantial evidence, including accounting for scientific knowledge and current regulations. The comment goes on to state the threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e adopted by SCAQMD and utilized in the DEIR does not address SB 32 and therefore is outdated and not supported by substantial evidence. The comment continues by stating the DEIR does not consider SB 32 at all in its analysis of Impact GHG-1. The comment states that in order to assess statewide implementation of this goal, CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan created a per-capita target of 6 MTCO2e by 2030 (2017 Scoping Plan, p. 99.) The comment claims the Project’s emissions would exceed this service population threshold and therefore be inconsistent with the targets necessary to achieve SB 32’s goal as reflected in the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project would result in a significant environmental impact. Section 152049(c) of the CEQA Guidelines advises that comments should be accompanied by factual support, stating “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Where comments provide no facts or other substantial evidence to support an assertion, or where comments do not explain why the evidence supporting a conclusion in the Draft EIR is not substantial evidence, the Final EIR is not required to alter a significance determination of the Draft EIR. While CEQA permits disagreements of opinion with respect to environmental issues addressed in the EIR (see Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines [“disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate . . . the courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure”].) The Draft EIR for the proposed project provides an adequate, complete, and good faith effort at full disclosure of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project and the conclusions are based upon substantial evidence in light of the whole record. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 provides discretion to the lead agency to determine what methodology and threshold to use to determine if GHG emissions are potentially significant. See Response to Comment 5.3 for substantial evidence as to why the Lead Agency has chosen to utilize SCAQMD’s established thresholds of significance for GHG emissions of 3,000 MT CO2e. Thus, the Project is not required to rely on a service population threshold to determine the significance of GHG emissions. No further response is warranted. Response to Comment 5.6: This comment states that the DEIR concludes the that the Project would be consistent with the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan (2022 Scoping Plan), Fontana General Plan, Pavley Emissions Standard, Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicle Regulations, Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation, Title 24/CALGreen, Renewable Portfolio Standard, and Million Solar Roofs Program. The comment states that the consistency analysis included as part of the DEIR under threshold GHG-2 is inconsistent because the DEIR did not consider all applicable plans, misinterpreted lack of interference as consistency with applicable plans, and is inconsistent with goals set out in several applicable plans, including the 2017 Scoping Plan, SB 32, AB 1279, and EO B-55-18. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-120 Final EIR October 2023 As described in Responses 5.7 through 5.9 below, consistency with the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan would ensure consistency with State and local policies, plans, and regulation aimed at reducing GHG emissions that were not directly addressed in the GHG consistency analysis. The Project would include contemporary, energy- efficient/energy-conserving design features and operational procedures. The proposed Project would not interfere with the state’s implementation of AB 1279’s target of 85 percent below 1990 levels and carbon neutrality by 2045 because it does not interfere with implementation of the GHG reduction measures listed in CARB’s Updated Scoping Plan (2022). Further, the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan replaces the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan, and an analysis of potential conflict with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan is not needed. It should be noted that the commenter does not reference any particular plans that the DEIR did not analyze. Consistency with additional plans, policies, and regulations such as SB 32, AB 1279 and EO B-55-18 are further discussed in Response to Comment 5.7 through 5.9. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR or that would require the preparation of an EIR. No further response is warranted. Response to Comment 5.7: This comment states the Project analysis of threshold GHG-2 did not demonstrate consistency analysis with several relevant programs and regulations, including SB 375, EO B-30-15, and SB 32. The commentor is referred to Responses 5.8 and 5.9. The 2022 Scoping Plan was prepared consistent with current Statewide goals, including SB 375, EO B-30-15, and SB 32. Therefore, the Project would be implemented in compliance with applicable plans and statewide goals for the reduction of GHG emissions. The Project is consistent with statewide goals and applicable plans for the reduction of GHG emissions, thus no further response is warranted. Response to Comment 5.8: This comment states the Project is inconsistent with AB 1279 because the Project includes the use of natural gas and will have a lifetime that extends beyond 2045. The comment also states that the Project is inconsistent with EO B-55-18 which also requires carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045. The comment continues by stating the DEIR did not meaningfully consider the AB 1279 or EO B-55-18. As described above and as discussed throughout the DEIR, the proposed Project would be subject to CALGreen Code Title 24 building energy efficiency requirements. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with State building code requirements as Title 24 advances to implement the building decarbonization goals from the 2022 Scoping Plan, consistent with the requirements of EO B-55-18. Further, as described on page 5.7-22 of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project would be consistent with applicable State policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The commenter has not shown evidence of inconsistency with State GHG reduction goals, including EO B-55-18. Further, as discussed in Section 5.5, Energy, of the Draft EIR, based on the operational energy consumption estimates shown in Table 5.5-2, operation of the proposed Project would result in a net decrease of 12,518 therms per year. In addition, there are currently no State requirements that ban the use of natural gas. The comment does not contain any information requiring changes to the DEIR or that would require recirculation of the DEIR. No further response is warranted. Response to Comment 5.9: This comment stats that the DEIR did not consider the Project’s consistency with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan nor with policies included the Climate Crisis Act, EO B-55-18, EO B-30-15 and SB 32. The 2017 CARB Scoping Plan has been superseded by the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan. As such, the DEIR evaluates the Project for consistency with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan and Fontana General Plan Conservation Element Policies. Table 5.7-2 of the Draft EIR demonstrates the Project’s consistency with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan and Table 5.7-3 of the Draft EIR presents the Project’s consistency with applicable conservation policies included in the City’s General Plan. As demonstrated in Tables 5.7-2 and 5.7-3, the Project would be consistent with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan and the applicable General Plan policies. South Poplar Distribution Center 3. Response to Comments City of Fontana 3-121 Final EIR October 2023 CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan reflects the 2045 target of 85 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-55-18, and codified by AB 1279. In addition, because the 2022 Scoping Plan was prepared consistent with current Statewide goals, including AB 1279, EO B-55-18, EO B-30-15 and SB 32, the Project would be implemented in compliance with applicable plans for the reduction of GHG emissions. Executive Order B-55-18 sets forth a statewide goal for carbon neutrality by 2045. The Executive Order does not set forth requirements for individual developments to reach carbon neutrality by 2045. As of August 2022, the CARB has not set forth a framework for implementation or required measures to reach the goal set forth by Executive Order B-55-18. However, the proposed Project is required to be developed in compliance with the City of Fontana’s Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards which ensures the Project would be designed in a manner that would facilitate the reduction of GHG emissions from onsite sources, such as through the provision of solar onsite in a manner which would offset 100 percent of the building’s electricity needs and greatly reduce GHG emissions from energy sources. In addition, the proposed warehouse would be designed to meet the most current Title 24 Part 6 and Part 11 building energy efficiency requirements, which would minimize the energy utilized through installation of enhanced insulation and use of energy efficient lights and appliances. Therefore, no further response is warranted. Response to Comment 5.10: This comment concludes the comment letter and states that the DEIR is not in conformance with CEQA requirements. Specifically, the comment states that the City should have determined that the Project would have a significant impact related to GHG emissions even after application of adopted plans, programs, and policies. The comment also requests to be added to the notification list of interested parties for all further actions regarding the Project. The comment is conclusory in nature and does not raise a specific issue with the adequacy of the DEIR evaluation. The commenters’ concerns were addressed above in Responses 5.1 through 5.9. In reviewing the above listed comments and making the appropriate revisions, when necessary, no significant new information was incorporated, and further, the impacts disclosed in the DEIR accurately reflect the proposed Project and subsequent potential environmental impacts. Therefore, per CEQA Guidelines and CA Code of Regulations 15088.5, DEIR recirculation would not be warranted.