Upland residents and members of the City Council have clashed with the developer of a proposed e-commerce logistics warehouse/distribution center over the adequacy of the project’s environmental review.
About 25 residents testified Thursday, Jan. 9, against the project brought by Bridge Development Partners, telling city leaders the review — known as a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) — underestimates the amount of noise, air pollution, health effects and traffic they would experience. Three others spoke in favor of the project.
“The studies are so poorly done they need to be set aside as inadequate,” testified Eric Nilsson, of Claremont, chairman of the Department of Economics at Cal State San Bernardino. “They grossly underestimate greenhouse gas emissions and other noxious fumes.”
Councilman Ricky Felix got into a back-and-forth with Brendan Kotler, senior vice president of Bridge, saying the developer promised the city an Environment Impact Report (EIR), which is considered a much more substantial review of impacts to be expected than an MND.
But Kotler defended the MND report and said he didn’t remember making such a promise.
“We still believe the environmental study done for this project is comprehensive. There are no further environmental studies in an EIR that is not in this MND,” Kotler answered.
The review concluded that the 201,096-square-foot warehouse to be built on 50 acres on the north side of Foothill Boulevard near the terminus of Central Avenue “would not cause new substantial direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings.”
An EIR could take a year and set the project construction time frame back. The developer wants to start building in the summer. A rumored tenant is Amazon, the mega e-commerce company, but no tenant has yet been signed, Kotler said.
Originally, Bridge proposed three warehouse buildings of 275,000, 330,000 and 370,000 square feet, eliciting a hue and cry from many residents concerned about traffic, noise and pollution.
Bridge came back with a smaller project — a single warehouse building — that has been further scaled back for about an 80% reduction in size. The warehouse would operate 24/7 but trucks would be capped at 25 per day — five in the daytime and 20 at night, for a total of 50 truck trips per day.
The warehouse would have16 dock-high doors for trucks and 16 van-loading doors; 224 parking spaces; 12 stalls for truck trailer parking; 1,104 van parking stalls and 1,000 new trees planted around the perimeter and between the parking spaces.
Of the 20 effects measured, 13 were determined to have no significant impact on the residents of northwest Upland and nearby Claremont, while seven will be fixed using 28 “mitigation measures.” These areas include noise, air pollution and traffic, of primary concern to residents.
The fix-it measures include setting back the building 700 feet from Foothill Boulevard and surrounding the perimeter with mature trees to block noise, adding electric vehicle charging stations for 6% of the parking spaces, and limiting truck idling to five minutes, according to consultant Kimley-Horn, hired by Bridge to do the MND study.
“We’ve made a lot of commitments and a lot of concessions,” Kotler said.
Adding substantial delays in the process could bring the larger project back onto the table, increasing the environmental impact, he said.
“This project has specific time restraints based on this smaller design,” he added. A large delay means “we would more likely have to go back to a larger project.”
Though Bridge stuck to its guns about the adequacy of its environmental review, others at the joint City Council, Planning Commission and Airport Land Use Committee workshop criticized the document.
Councilman Bill Velto said the traffic studied at 17 intersections fell far short of what is needed. He also asked for consultants to use a higher standard for greenhouse gas emissions, which get trapped in the atmosphere and contribute to global climate change. The study uses a lower standard.
He asked the staff to ask the South Coast Air Quality Management District to examine the greenhouse gas emission estimates.
As far as cars and trucks running on gasoline and diesel fuel, the study concludes no air quality impact. But Nilsson said Bridge’s consultant based that conclusion on every van from a fulfillment center traveling 6.9 miles maximum, which he said was way too low.
“The reporting assumes far too few vehicles driving far too few miles, thereby underestimating the number of emissions,” Nilsson said in an interview on Friday, Jan. 10.
Upland resident Irmalinda Osuna announced a grassroots meeting on the project at 11 a.m. Saturday, Jan. 11, at the Landecena Community Building, 1325 San Bernardino Road, Upland.
Meanwhile, the project’s site design, development agreement and the environmental review will come before the Planning Commission on Feb. 12. The decision will take the form of a recommendation and then go to the City Council, said city staff.
“This is the biggest project I’ve ever had to make some decision on,” said Councilwoman Janice Elliott.
Anyone can submit comments to Mike Poland, contract planning manager, via his email: Mpoland@ci.upland.ca.us, or by mail to Poland at City of Upland, Development Services Department/Planning Division, 460 N. Euclid Ave., Upland, CA 91786. The deadline is Jan. 21.
"warehouse" - Google News
January 11, 2020 at 07:49AM
https://ift.tt/2sXSgax
Upland residents, City Council debate proposed logistics warehouse and its impact on the environment - Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
"warehouse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2LrWpcs
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
No comments:
Post a Comment