Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the PDEV22 017 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ontario council denies CEQA appeal of Prologis warehouse at 5355 East Airport Drive
Summary
After extended public comment on air quality, truck trips and labor impacts, the council voted 5‑0 to deny an appeal from Care California and uphold the planning commission’s approval of a 270,337‑square‑foot industrial building at 5355 East Airport Drive, concluding the final EIR and response record were adequate to proceed.
The Ontario City Council on a 5‑0 vote denied an appeal of the planning commission’s approval of a 270,337‑square‑foot industrial building at 5355 East Airport Drive, concluding the city’s final environmental impact report and responses were sufficient.
The appeal was filed by Care California, whose attorney Aden Marshall told the council the final EIR failed to analyze cumulative air quality and health risks for a region he described as “glutted with existing and proposed warehouses.” Marshall said the EIR underestimated truck trips if the building were used as a fulfillment or parcel hub and relied on an outdated greenhouse‑gas threshold, and he asked the council to continue the hearing and require a revised EIR.
Marshall said the EIR’s cumulative analysis asked whether the project’s individual emissions would exceed a project‑specific threshold rather than evaluating the combined effect of many warehouse projects. “Data shows that warehouse projects currently being reviewed by the city would generate a 9% increase in diesel particulate matter to this area,” he said, adding that the EIR did not properly analyze foreseeable truck trips to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
Prologis representative Tyson Chafe and the project’s CEQA consultant, Tracy of TMB Planning, told the council the site is a redevelopment surrounded by industrial uses and that the draft EIR, final EIR and multiple response memos (including memos dated 03/25/2024, 05/20/2024 and 08/08/2024) provided sufficient responses to comments. Tracy said staff and consultants had addressed the comments in the written record and stood by the analysis.
Several union representatives and trade organizations spoke on both sides: labor leaders including Bill Steiner of United Association Local 398 and Cynthia Chavez, a local plumber, urged the council to uphold the appeal and pressed for equitable hiring for skilled trades; representatives of regional construction trades including Jorge Sabala and Andrew Mayorga urged denial of the appeal and emphasized local jobs tied to the project.
Councilmember Alan Wapner said the question before the council was strictly whether the EIR met the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and that he trusted staff and the city attorney’s determination that the environmental review met legal requirements. Wapner moved to deny the appeal; the motion was seconded by Bowman and passed unanimously.
The council’s vote upholds the planning commission’s certification of the final EIR and approval of the development plan. The city record includes the planning commission’s August 27 approval and the draft EIR circulation from 08/22/2023 through 10/05/2023, plus subsequent comment‑response memos described in the public record.
