Figure 30: The worst-case battery vent gas regions for 1/2-LFL and 1/4-LFL for the unit gas release scenarios. Note that the battery vent gas concentrations did not reach LFL anywhere outside of the enclosure due to dilution resulting from the NFPA 69 ventilation system.
Table 7: The worst-case modeled distances for flammable regions outside of the enclosure
Scenario LFL 1/2-LFL 1/4-LFL
Average Module Gas Release, Above exhaust only 0.3 m (1 ft) 0.8 m (2.6 ft) No Ventilation, Low Wind from exhaust from exhaust
Average Module Gas Release, NA NA NA
NFPA 69 Ventilation, Low Wind
Unit Gas Release, NFPA 69 NA 0.4 m (1.3 ft) 1.4 m (4.6 ft)t Ventilation, Low Wind from exhaust from exhaust
Unit Gas Release, NFPA 69 NA 0.3 m (1 ft) 1.1 m (3.6 ft) Ventilation, High Wind from exhaust from exhaust
7 Emergency Response Considerations
This section provides emergency response considerations based on the plume modeling results. These considerations are based on CO toxicity hazards. A more complete discussion of emergency response considerations is typically included in separate Emergency Response Plan August 14, 2025 29
M-30
or Guideline (ERP/ERG) documents. As discussed above, UL 9540A does not require measurement of hydrogen fluoride (HF) during testing, and HF data was not provided for the PowerTitan
2.0 system. As such, HF concentrations were not evaluated. Responders should be aware that smoke plumes may contain HF and other common toxic combustion products and, at a minimum, should follow procedures for protection against toxic combustion products in smoke. • For a single involved unit in worst-case modeled conditions, concentrations at 2 m (6.6 ft) above ground level are not expected to exceed AEGL-2 for CO (150 ppm) beyond 19 ft from the enclosure. Evacuation of personnel and people within the facility property lines is recommended. Personnel should be evacuated to locations upwind of the facility. Concentrations 2 m (6.6 ft) above ground level that exceed EPA NAAQ (1-hour) limits (35 ppm) are not expected to extend more than 50 ft from the enclosure. This concentration may extend into neighboring parking lots and public ways. During a failure event, evacuation of buildings immediately adjacent to the site and limiting use of public ways adjacent to the site should be considered.
• CO concentrations may exceed IDLH up to 13 ft from the involved container. All personnel engaged in fire suppression and rescue operations near the involved container should use appropriate PPE such as SCBA and bunker gear.
• CO concentrations may exceed 8-hr OSHA PEL limits up to 42 ft away from an involved unit. It is recommended that support personnel without breathing apparatus and the command post be located at least this distance from involved units. • Flammable gas clouds are not expected to be present outside of the container if the NFPA 69 ventilation fan is active.
• Although flammable gas hazards do not extend beyond the property line and toxicity hazards over a 30-minute exposure period are likely near the site boundary only during high wind conditions, monitoring of toxic and flammable gas species downwind from the property line may be considered. If toxic and flammable gas species are measured to exceed permissible levels, evacuation or shelter-in-place of downwind areas may be required.
Evacuation distances can be informed by Table 6.
• Although the scope of the plume modeling conducted in this study is to address airborne species, water run-off from fire fighting activities may also include metal contaminants and other toxic pollutants. Data on water pollutants was not provided for this specific system. If there is a concern about water pollution, water containment barriers or discontinuation of water use may be considered. • An offensive attack to extinguish a BESS creates unnecessary risk and is unlikely to be successful. Emergency responders to a BESS failure often deploy a defensive strategy, when possible. When using this strategy, firefighters take up a defensive position to protect neighboring infrastructure rather than attacking the BESS fire itself. The plume modeling conducted in this study considers this scenario as a worst-case bounding condition and models the plume as a steady-state release. If a long duration scenario is expected, common interventions include shelter-in-place and evacuation orders for the surrounding area. The exposure distances discussed above may be used to establish shelter-in-place or evacuation distances. If abnormally high wind conditions beyond the 99% wind speed (15 mph) occur or more than one enclosure fails, toxic gas concentrations may extend beyond the estimated distances. In this case, it may be appropriate to increase evacuation distances beyond the exposure distances discussed above. Air quality monitoring may be helpful in determining evacuation distances.
• The expected duration of a BESS failure event will depend on a range of factors. If a defensive firefighting strategy is used and the fire is limited to a single container, an active fire may last between 2-8 hours based on previous incidents and BESS unit fire testing.
If fire does propagate to adjacent containers, the duration of the event could last longer August 14, 2025 30
M-31
depending on the number of containers that catch fire as each may burn for 2 to 8 hours.
However, several mitigation strategies are commonly deployed to prevent fire propagation from container to container, including appropriate separation between BESS units, use of fire or thermal barriers between units, or hardening of BESS enclosures. Evaluation of fire spread is beyond the scope of this plume study and is more appropriately addressed by the Fire Modeling Analysis.
8 Conclusion
Of the measured toxic gas species for which test data is available, carbon monoxide is of primary concern due to its comparatively high concentrations and toxicity. Carbon monoxide has an IDLH level of 1200 ppm, an AEGL-3 (life-threatening health effects) level for a 30-minute exposure of 600 ppm, and an AEGL-2 (serious health effects) level for a 30-minute exposure of 150 ppm. No AEGL-1 level is provided for CO. Carbon monoxide may constitute up to 13.924% of the unburned battery vent gas based upon the provided UL 9540A cell-level report. Carbon monoxide concentrations 2 m (6.6 ft) from ground level were measured by FDS for the non-fire scenarios and calculated using modeled fire product concentrations and typical carbon monoxide levels present during lithium-ion battery fires for the fire scenarios. The modeled average carbon monoxide concentrations may be immediately dangerous to life and health up to 13 ft, cause life-threatening health effects (exceed the AEGL-3 level) up to 15 ft, and cause serious health effects (exceed the AEGL-2 level) up to approximately 19 ft from the unit in a large fire scenario with high winds. The modeled average carbon monoxide concentrations may exceed EPA NAAQ 1-hr levels and cause physical symptoms up to approximately 50 ft from the unit during a unit thermal runaway gas release scenario with high winds. The modeled high wind speed was
6.7 m/s (15 mph), which is the 99th percentile wind speed at the Marici site. No toxicity consequences were present for the modeled scenarios with low wind conditions. Hydrogen fluoride was not measured during the UL 9540A testing for this system. However, it is has been reported in some battery failure cases. Thus, hydrogen fluoride is a risk, but the exact magnitude of this risk is unknown. If quantification of HF levels are desired, it is recommended that additional fire testing beyond the scope of the UL 9540A testing be performed in order to quantify what levels of hydrogen fluoride may exist for the PowerTitan 2.0. Other measured toxic gases make up only trace amounts of the battery vent gas. Hydrocarbon release quantities are too small to exceed IDLH or AEGL levels at any distance from the unit.
Provided planning documents [1] and publicly available maps indicate that the Marici site is located in an area with residential neighborhoods and commercial buildings. Over 600 houses are located within a half-mile of the Marici site. The nearest residential property is 111 ft away from the BESS enclosure at the edge of the site (see Figure 2). Based on the model results and the prevailing wind direction at the site (from the south-southwest), it is unlikely that toxic levels of carbon monoxide that may result in irreversible or serious health effects would reach populated areas in the event of a single BESS unit experiencing a failure event. Based on worstcase modeled carbon monoxide concentrations that could reach AEGL-2 (irreversible or serious health effects), BESS enclosure setbacks from the property line should either exceed 19 ft or a sufficient and reliable means of notification should be provided for areas where the property line is less than 19 ft from the nearest BESS enclosure. Sufficient and reliable means of notification could include, but are not limited to, visual and audible alarms to alert people who may be in the vicinity of the site or providing procedures requiring site personnel to secure the area in the event of a BESS failure. A larger setback of 50 ft may be considered for sensitive receptors to reduce possible physical symptoms that could result from long-term exposure to low concentrations of carbon monoxide.
Given the uncertainties inherent in modeling and the diversity of possible outcomes, it is recommended that all non-essential personnel evacuate the immediate area and that emergency August 14, 2025 31
M-32
response personnel wear SCBA when operating in the vicinity of a unit that is in thermal runaway.
Given the potential risk of toxicity hazards during failure scenarios of the BESS, appropriate emergency response protocols should be considered and developed in collaboration with local emergency personnel. Due to the suburban location of the site, officials may want to consider protective action guidance, especially during high wind conditions. This may include shelter and evacuation actions. These protective actions could be informed by carbon monoxide measurements, HF measurements, or observation of irritating smoke particulates. Evacuation during an event can allow occupants to remove themselves from the incident but poses the risk of exposure during a brief period of evacuation. Evacuation is often a better option for a prolonged event. Based on the model results, evacuation for occupants during an evacuation in proximity to the involved battery system is not likely to cause exposure to IDLH, AEGL-3, or AEGL-2 levels of toxic gases which could cause permanent injury or impede evacuation. Shelter-in-place actions include staying inside and closing windows and doors such that toxic materials do not enter the building. Shelter-in-place may expose people to smaller concentrations of material for a longer period of time and can be a good option for short incidents but becomes unreasonable for long incidents. Figure 31 shows the areas that could have toxic gas concentrations exceeding IDLH (immediately dangerous to life or health), AEGL-3 (life-threatening health effects), and AEGL-2 (serious health effects) based on the worst-case modeled scenarios for high winds at the Marici project site. Areas that could have toxic gas concentrations that exceed OSHA PEL and EPA NAAQ (physical symptoms) are also shown. These distances were measured from the outermost BESS enclosures. Note that this figure does not consider possible hydrogen fluoride concentrations.
August 14, 2025 32
M-33
Figure 31: Satellite imagery of the immediate site surroundings with overlaid areas containing possible levels of toxic gases with steady 6.7 m/s (15 mph) wind, which is the 99th percentile wind speed at the Marici site. The buffer colors correspond with the toxicity levels shown in Figures 27 and 28. No toxicity consequences were present for the modeled scenarios with low wind conditions. Note that these buffers do not account for possible hydrogen fluoride concentrations. This image was produced using Open Street Map and Google Maps.
The buffers in Figure 31 show the maximum modeled distances for critical concentrations in all possible wind conditions. In reality, the wind will only come from one direction at a time, so a plume resulting from BESS failure will travel predominantly in one direction. Figure 32 shows a modeled plume for a high wind coming from the prevailing wind direction, which is south-southwest for the Marici site.
August 14, 2025 33
M-34
Figure 32: Satellite imagery of the immediate site surroundings with an overlaid plume that was modeled with 15 mph wind from the south-southwest. Note that this plume does not consider possible hydrogen fluoride levels. This image was produced using Open Street Map and Google Maps.
The analysis in this report assumes that only one battery unit fails or burns at a time and that gas release scenarios are consistent with UL 9540A testing. There are several conditions that may lead to worse consequences than those predicted by this model. These conditions include, but are not limited to, thermal runaway propagation exceeding the measured release rate and involvement of multiple units.
9 Limitations
• The study presented in this report is intended for use by client to assist with their decision making related to toxicity risks due to plume transport and evolution from Lithium-ion Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). This study specifically does not address other energy storage designs, feasibility of other toxic gas mitigation methods, or compliance to local codes and standards. The scope of the analysis was strictly limited to collection of data relevant to scope.
August 14, 2025 34
M-35
• The scope of services performed may not adequately address the needs of other users of this report, and any re-use of this report is at the sole risk of the user. This study is based on observations and information available at the time of the analysis. No guarantee or warranty as to future life or performance of any reviewed condition is expressed or implied.
• In the analysis, we have relied on documentation, including but not limited to facility design, BESS design, and other siting documents provided by the client. We cannot verify the correctness of this data and rely on the client for their accuracy. Although we have exercised usual and customary care in the conduct of this analysis, the responsibility for the design and manufacture of the product remains fully with the client. • The methodology forming the basis of the results presented in this report is based on mathematical modeling of physical systems and data from third parties. Given the nature of these evaluations, significant uncertainties are associated with the various computations. These uncertainties are inherent in the methodology and subsequently in the generated results. Furthermore, the assumptions adopted do not constitute the exclusive set of reasonable assumptions, and use of a different set of assumptions or methodology could produce materially different results.
August 14, 2025 35
M-36
References
[1] “Site plans marici project, llc,” TRC, Tech. Rep. 604109. [2] “Powertitan 2.0 liquid cooled energy storage system,” Sungrow, Tech. Rep. [3] J. Huang, “Cell test report,” CSA Group, Tech. Rep. 80184345. [4] M. H. Simon Wang, “Module test report,” TUVRheinland, Tech. Rep. CN23P68X 001. [5] ——, “Unit test report,” TUVRheinland, Tech. Rep. CN23JPBV 001. [6] JWW, “Sungrow powertitan 2.0 computational fluid dynamics heat flux modeling report,” Fire and Risk Alliance, Tech. Rep. REV 0.
[7] S. Wang, “Nfpa 69 test report,” TUVRheinland, Tech. Rep. CN24K3CC 001. [8] O. Willstrand, R. Bisschop, P. Blomqvist, A. Temple, and J. Anderson, “Toxic Gases from Fire in Electric Vehicles,” RISE, p. 240, 2020.
[9] 3M, “3M Novec-1230 Fire Protection Fluid Technical Data,” Feb. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/124688O/ 3m-novec-1230-fire-protection-fluid.pdf
[10] D. A. Purser, “Combustion Toxicity,” in SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, M. J.
Hurley, D. Gottuk, J. R. Hall, K. Harada, E. Kuligowski, M. Puchovsky, J. Torero, J. M. Watts, and C. Wieczorek, Eds. New York, NY: Springer, 2016, pp. 2207–2307. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2565-0_62
[11] “29 CFR 1910.120 – Hazardous waste operations and emergency response.” [Online]. Available: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XVII/part-1910/subpart-H/ section-1910.120
[12] “Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health | NIOSH | CDC,” Jul. 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/default.html
[13] O. US EPA, “Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Airborne Chemicals,” Jul. 2022. [Online].
Available: https://www.epa.gov/aegl
[14] “San gabriel valley airport windrose,” Iowas State University Iowa Environmental Mesonet, Tech. Rep. https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/sites/site.php?station=EMTnetwork=CA ASOS. [15] U.S. EPA, “Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis,” U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Tech. Rep. EPA 550-B-99-009, Mar. 2009, issue: EPA 550- B-99-009. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2013-11/documents/ oca-chps.pdf
August 14, 2025 36
M-37
A Appendix
B Revisions
Table 8: Document revision history.
Revision Date Description
0.1 March 14 2025 Initial draft version submitted to client for review.
1.0 April 29 2025 Final draft with updates based on client comments.
1.1 May 9 2025 Final version updated based on client comments.
1.2 May 16 2025 Final version updated based on client comments.
1.3 August 14 2025 Distances measured from BESS enclosures.
August 14, 2025 37
M-38
MARICI BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FACILITY INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF INDUSTRY
APPENDIX
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
MARICI BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FACILITY INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF INDUSTRY
APPENDIX
DECEMBER 2025
APPENDIX N
EMF STUDY
MARICI BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FACILITY INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF INDUSTRY
APPENDIX
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
LOCATIONS Raleigh (HQ) | Toronto | San Francisco Bay Area | Southern California | Chicago PHONE 919.334.3000
WEB Quanta-Technology.com
ADDRESS
4020 Westchase Boulevard, Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27607
REPORT
PREPARED FOR
Dashiell
DATE
August 14, 2025
(Version 1.1)
PREPARED BY
Grant Wollam, PE
[email protected]
229.869.7067
Farbod Jahan, PE
[email protected]
919.334.3035
Internal Project #US25TT129
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study
Report
N-1
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | i CONFIDENTIAL/PROPRIETARY: This document contains trade secrets and/or proprietary, commercial, or financial information not generally available to the public. It is considered privileged and proprietary to Quanta Technology, LLC, and is submitted with the understanding that its contents are specifically exempted from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act [5 USC Section 552 (b) (4)] and shall not be disclosed by the recipient (whether it be Government [local, state, federal, or foreign], private industry, or non-profit organization) except with the written permission of Quanta Technology and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed, in whole or in part, for any purpose except to the extent provided in the contract.
DISCLAIMER: This report is prepared by Quanta Technology, LLC. Quanta Technology was engaged by Dashiell. The report is to the parameters set by the Client/s and contained in the engagement documentation between Quanta Technology and the Client/s. The Client/s provided data for this report, and Quanta Technology bears no responsibility if the data was incorrect. This report is for the use of the Client/s and is not intended to and should not be used or relied upon by anyone else unless the other expected uses and users are listed in the original engagement documentation. If expected uses and users are listed in the engagement documentation, Quanta Technology shall be deemed to have taken those uses and users into consideration in the drafting of this report. Quanta Technology does not accept any duty of care to any other person or entity other than the Client/s. This report has been prepared for the purpose set out in the engagement documentation between Quanta Technology and the Client/s. Any recipients other than those approved by Quanta Technology should seek independent expert advice as this report was not prepared for them or any other purpose than that detailed in the engagement terms with the Client/s and cannot be relied upon other than for this. Information contained in this report is current as of the date of this report and may not reflect any event or circumstances that occurred after the date of this report. All queries related to this report’s content or use must be addressed to the Client/s.
REPORT CONTRIBUTORS
• Farbod Jahanbakhsh
• Grant Wollam
• Solmaz Nazaralizadeh
VERSION HISTORY
VERSION DATE DESCRIPTION
1.0 May 30, 2025 Initial Submission
1.1 August 14, 2025 Updated per customer comments
REVIEW HISTORY
VERSION WRITTEN BY DATE REVIEWED BY DATE
1.0 Grant Wollam 05/30/2025 Farbod Jahan 05/30/2025
1.1 Grant Wollam 08/14/2025 Farbod Jahan 08/14/2025
N-2
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | ii Executive Summary
Quanta Technology has performed the electromagnetic field, radio interference, audible noise, and corona loss study for the Marici 230 kV Gen-Tie Line using Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) modeling software.
The project involves a single-circuit 230 kV transmission line in Los Angeles, California, extending approximately 22 meters.
This report presents the findings of the study conducted for the 230 kV single-circuit transmission line operating at the maximum voltages (1.05 pu). The study evaluates the electric field, magnetic field, radio interference, audible noise, and corona loss of the transmission line.
N-3
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | iii Abbreviations and Acronyms
Table 1. Abbreviations and Acronyms
TERM DEFINITION
ACSR Aluminum conductor steel-reinforced cable
AN Audible noise
EF Electric field
EMF Electromagnetic field
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
INIRC-IRPA International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection MF Magnetic field
MPE Maximum permissible exposure
NJCEC New Jersey Clean Energy Corridor
NJDEP Department of Environmental Protection Compliance and Enforcement for the State of New Jersey OHGW Overhead ground wire
OPGW Optical ground wire
RI Radio interference
ROW Right of way
SLD Single-line diagram
TVI Television Interference
N-4
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................ II ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .......................................................................................... III 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 2 MODELING AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 2
2.1 Gen-Tie Line Modeling........................................................................................................................ 2
2.1.1 Assumptions................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Methodology....................................................................................................................................... 7 3 EMF STUDY RESULTS...................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Electric Field ........................................................................................................................................ 8
3.2 Magnetic Field..................................................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Audible Noise ...................................................................................................................................... 9
3.4 Radio Interference .............................................................................................................................. 9
3.5 Corona Loss.......................................................................................................................................10 4 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................... 11 5 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 12 APPENDIX A: GEN-TIE LINE INFORMATION ............................................................................ 13 APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL RESULTS ...................................................................................... 14 APPENDIX C: SITE PLAN........................................................................................................ 15
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Pole 1 Dimensions................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2.POCO Dimensions.................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3. Google Earth Image of the Marici Gen-Tie Line................................................................................... 4 Figure 4. 230 kV Marici Tower Dimensions......................................................................................................... 4 Figure 5. Electric Field Results............................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 6. Magnetic Field Results.......................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 7. Audible Noise Results........................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 8. Radio Interference Results................................................................................................................... 9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Abbreviations and Acronyms................................................................................................................ iii Table 2. Modeled Parameters for Point 1........................................................................................................... 5 Table 3. Modeled Parameters for Point 2........................................................................................................... 5 Table 4. Modeled Parameters for Point 3........................................................................................................... 6 Table 5. The Conductor Surface Gradient and Corona Loss.............................................................................10 N-5
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | 1 1 Introduction
Quanta Technology has performed the electromagnetic field (EMF), radio interference (RI), audible noise (AN), and corona loss study for the Marici 230 kV Gen-Tie Line using Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) modeling software.
The project involves a single-circuit 230 kV transmission line in Los Angeles, California, extending approximately 22 meters. The consists of double-bundle ACSR Mockingbird phase conductor (2034.5 kcmil) and is equipped with dual 48-fiber CentraCore OPGW shield wires and 7 No.7 Alumoweld overhead ground wire.
The modeled segment includes two dead-end steel monopole structures (POCO and POLE1) with an estimated span of 22 meters between poles and pole heights of 105 ft and 140 ft, respectively. Mid-span conductor sag was estimated using standard tension assumptions for ACSR Mockingbird.
The east property line shared with the Walnut Substation is 11 feet 2 inches from the nearest portion of the gen-tie line, and the southern public facing property line is 55 feet 11 inches from the nearest portion of the gen-tie line. The site plan is included in Appendix C.
The analysis was performed under conditions outlined in Section 2.1.1. This report presents the findings of the study conducted for the 230 kV single-circuit transmission line operating at the maximum voltages(1.05 pu). The study evaluates the electric field (EF), magnetic field (MF), radio interference (RI), audible noise (AN), and corona loss of the transmission line.
This report summarizes the results of the study conducted for the proposed 230 kV line operating at its maximum rated voltage. The assessment includes the evaluation of EF, MF, RI, and AN level at the edge of the ROW.
N-6
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | 2 2 Modeling and Methodology
2.1 Gen-Tie Line Modeling
This study models a 230 kV single-circuit transmission line located in Los Angeles, California, with a total line length of approximately 22 meters. These specifications reflect actual site parameters provided by the project engineer and ensure realistic modeling in the BPA software environment.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the tower geometry of the transmission line for “Pole 1” and “POCO” tower, respectively. Figure 3 shows the poles and gen-tie line via Google Earth. Figure 4 shows the Tower’s engineering drawings provide by Dashiell.
Figure 1. Pole 1 Dimensions
N-7
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | 3 Figure 2.POCO Dimensions
N-8
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | 4 Figure 3. Google Earth Image of the Marici Gen-Tie Line Figure 4. 230 kV Marici Tower Dimensions
N-9
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | 5 These structural and geometric parameters were extracted from Dashiell engineering documentation and validated via geospatial analysis using Google Earth, as illustrated in Figure 3Error! Reference source not found.. It is important to note that while the BPA Corona and Field Effects Program inherently assumes symmetric pole heights and therefore applies mid-span sag at the geometric center of the span, the actual installation features asymmetrical pole elevations. Based on the verified site-specific data, Figure 3 confirms that the vertical heights of the phases differ significantly across the two structures, thereby invalidating the assumption of symmetric mid-span clearance. Accordingly, to ensure conservative and realistic modeling, this study adopts the lowest vertical conductor clearance—68 feet (Phase A)—as the reference height for electromagnetic field, audible noise, and radio interference analyses. This approach aligns with industry best practices for worst-case exposure modeling under adverse weather conditions, as stated in Section 2.1.1, in full compliance with BPA simulation standards.
Three locations are modeled across the gen-tie line and are named Point 1, 2, and 3, which are displayed in Figure 3. However, only the worst-case results are displayed in Section 3. All the results are included in Appendix B.
Table 2. Modeled Parameters for Point 1
LINE
PHASE
LG
VOLTAGE
(KV)
HORIZONTAL
DISTANCE
FROM THE
CENTER (FT)
CONDUCTOR
HEIGHT (FT)
CONDUCTORS
PER PHASE
(BUNDLE)
BUNDLE
SPACING
(IN)
LINE
CURRENT
(AMPS)
CONDUCTOR
TYPE
Phase A 139.4 -10 68 2 18 1005 2034.5 kcmil
Mockingbird
ACSR
Phase B 139.4 10 80 2 18 1005
Phase C 139.4 -10 92 2 18 1005
Ground
wire NA 0 105 1 NA 0 No.7
Alumoweld
Table 3. Modeled Parameters for Point 2
LINE
PHASE
LG
VOLTAGE
(KV)
HORIZONTAL
DISTANCE
FROM THE
CENTER (FT)
CONDUCTOR
HEIGHT (FT)
CONDUCTORS
PER PHASE
(BUNDLE)
BUNDLE
SPACING
(IN)
LINE
CURRENT
(AMPS)
CONDUCTOR
TYPE
Phase A 139.4 -10 80 2 18 1005 2034.5 kcmil
Mockingbird
ACSR
Phase B 139.4 10 97 2 18 1005
Phase C 139.4 -10 109.50 2 18 1005
Ground
wire NA 0 122.50 1 NA 0 No.7
Alumoweld
N-10
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | 6 Table 4. Modeled Parameters for Point 3
LINE
PHASE
LG
VOLTAGE
(KV)
HORIZONTAL
DISTANCE
FROM THE
CENTER (FT)
CONDUCTOR
HEIGHT (FT)
CONDUCTORS
PER PHASE
(BUNDLE)
BUNDLE
SPACING
(IN)
LINE
CURRENT
(AMPS)
CONDUCTOR
TYPE
Phase A 139.4 -10 92 2 18 1005 2034.5 kcmil
Mockingbird
ACSR
Phase B 139.4 10 115 2 18 1005
Phase C 139.4 -10 127 2 18 1005
Ground
wire NA 0 140 1 NA 0 No.7 Alumoweld
2.1.1 Assumptions
The following assumptions are used for the study.
• Wind speed: 11.7 ft/s = 8 mph
• Ground conductivity: 1 mmhos/m
• Rain rate: 0.3 in/hour
• Altitude: 305 ft
• Electric field sensor height: 2 meters (6.56 ft)
• Right of Way (ROW): 180 ft
• Phase max current: 1,005 Amp
• Phase voltage: 1.05 PU (241.5kV L-L)
N-11
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | 7
2.2 Methodology
The information below summaries the theory and limits for each calculated value along with further assumptions for these calculations.
1. Electric Field: The intensity of the EF is measured 2 meters above the ground [1]. In the study, the conductor height is assumed to be the minimum clearance to the ground. According to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard C95.6, under normal load conditions, for the public, the maximum permissible exposure (MPE) to electric fields is 10 kV/m, and MPE outside the line right of way (ROW) is 5 kV/m [2].
2. Magnetic Field: The intensity of the MF is measured 2 meters above the ground [1]. In the study, the conductor height is assumed to be the minimum clearance to the ground. Based upon the technical research, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has made a series of recommendations for limiting EMF exposure to human beings: public exposure to magnetic fields should be limited to 2,000 mG (200 mT) (ICNIRP 2010). The International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (INIRC-IRPA) recommends a public exposure MF guideline of 1 gauss [3].
3. Audible Noise: The audible noise is measured 2 m above the ground. In the study, the conductor height is assumed to be the minimum clearance to the ground [1]. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Noise Guidebook Chapter 2 (24 CFR Section 51.101(a)(8)) recommends that exterior areas of frequent human use follow the EPA guideline of 55 dBA Ldn. However, the same Section 51.101(a)(8) indicates that a noise level of up to 65 dBA Ldn could be considered acceptable [4].
4. Radio Interference: The RI antenna is placed 2 m above the ground. In this study, the conductor height is assumed to be the minimum clearance to the ground. There is no specific RI environmental limit applicable to this study.1
N-12
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | 8 3 EMF Study Results
3.1 Electric Field
The electric field at the sensor height (2 meters) is displayed as a function of lateral distance from the center of the lines.
Figure 5. Electric Field Results
3.2 Magnetic Field
The magnetic field at the sensor height (2 meters) is displayed as a function of lateral distance from the center of the lines.
Figure 6. Magnetic Field Results
0.00 0.10
0.20 0.30
0.40 0.50
0.60 0.70
0.80 0.90
1.00 -200.00 -150.00 -100.00 -50.00 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 Electric Field (kV/meter)
Lateral Distance from Line Center (feet)
Electric Field (kV/Meter)
0 0.005
0.01 0.015
0.02 0.025
0.03 0.035
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
Magnetic Field (Gauss)
Lateral Distance from Line Center (feet)
Magnetic Field (Gauss)
N-13
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | 9
3.3 Audible Noise
The audible noise at the sensor height (2 meters) is displayed as a function of lateral distance from the center of the lines.
Figure 7. Audible Noise Results
3.4 Radio Interference
The Radio Interference at the sensor height (2 meters) is displayed as a function of lateral distance from the center of the lines.
Figure 8. Radio Interference Results
0 5
10 15
20 25
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
L50 (dBA)
Lateral Distance From Line Center (feet)
Audible Noise L50 (dBA)
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
Radio Interference L50 (dBuV/meter)
Lateral Distance from Line Center (Feet)
Radio Interfrence L50 (dBuV/m)
N-14
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | 10
3.5 Corona Loss
The conductor surface gradient and corona loss of the transmission line are calculated and summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. The Conductor Surface Gradient and Corona Loss LINE
PARAMETERS
VOLTAGE
(KV)
MAXIMUM
GRADIENT
(KV/CM)
CORONA LOSSES
(KW/MI)
Phase A 139.4 8.38 0.835
Phase B 139.4 8.36 0.824
Phase C 139.4 8.47 0.895
N-15
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | 11 4 Conclusion
The results displayed in Section 3 of the report provide the electric field, magnetic field, audible noise, radio interference, and corona loss values at distances respective of the center of the line and 2 meters above the ground level. These results show that the limits described in Section 2.2 are not exceeded for the Marici Gen-Tie Line.
N-16
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | 12 5 References
[1] "IEEE Standard Procedures for Measurement of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields From AC Power Lines," IEEE Std 644-1994, 1995.
[2] "IEEE Standard for Safety Levels With Respect to Human Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields, 0-3 kHz," IEEE Std C95.6-2002 , 2002.
[3] "International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz)," International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Health Phys., 1998. [4] U. S. D. o. H. a. U. D. E. P. Division., The noise guidebook: a reference document for implementing the Department of Housing and Urban Development's noise policy., Washington, D.C.: The Division., 1985. [5] "ICES-004 — Alternating Current High Voltage Power Systems," Industry Canada, 2013. [6] I. C. o. N.-I. R. Protection., "ICNIRP statement on the “Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz)," Health physics 97, vol. 3, pp. 257-258, 2009.
[7] EPRI, AC Transmission Line Reference Book—200 kV and Above, Third Edition, Institute, Electric Power Research , December, 2005.
[8] M. S. F. a. W. C. Farzaneh, Electrical design of overhead power transmission lines., McGraw-Hill Education, 2012.
N-17
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | 13 Appendix A: Gen-Tie Line Information
N14601T
ENGINEERING SCOP
N14601T - CEI -
Marici 230kV Gen-Tie
N-18
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | 14 Appendix B: Additional Results
(Open as text file – notepad, etc.)
Point 1
Point 2
Point 3
N-19
REPORT
Marici Gen-Tie Line EMF Study | Dashiell
Confidential/Proprietary Quanta-Technology.com PAGE | 15 Appendix C: Site Plan
Site Plan - Poco to
property line dim.pd
N-20
MARICI BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FACILITY INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF INDUSTRY
APPENDIX
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
MARICI BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FACILITY INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF INDUSTRY
APPENDIX
DECEMBER 2025
APPENDIX O
EMERGENCY AIR TOXICS ANALYSIS
MARICI BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FACILITY INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF INDUSTRY
APPENDIX
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DATE September 17, 2025
TO Kathy Tai
Development Services Manager
City of Industry
15625 East Stafford Street, Suite 100, Industry, CA 91744 FROM Steve Bush, P.E., Senior Engineer
SUBJECT Emergency Air Toxics Analysis for Thermal Runaway Reaction Marici Battery Energy Storage Facility
IND-22.17
1. Introduction
The proposed project involves the construction and operation of an approximately 400-megawatt (MW) battery energy storage system (BESS). The proposed project would provide service to the City of Industry and reliability to the regional electric grid by receiving energy (charging) from the Southern California Edison (SCE) Walnut Substation, storing energy on-site, and then delivering energy (discharging) back to the SCE Substation, which is located at 16398 Gale Avenue in the City of Industry (adjacent to the Project Site’s east property line) via an overhead tie-line.
In the past, BESS facilities primarily used lithium-ion battery packs, which were susceptible to thermal runaway reactions resulting in toxic air emissions, fires, and explosions. The proposed project would use lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery packs, which have better thermal stability, longer lifespan, and less air toxic emissions compared to lithium-ion battery packs (i.e., nickel-manganese-cobalt [NMC] lithium-ion batteries) used at older BESS facilities.
This evaluation is intended to supplement the environmental analysis being conducted for the proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It focuses on the potential air emissions that could result in the event of a thermal runaway reaction and the impacts on the surrounding environment. The following reports were reviewed and included as part of the analysis and discussion contained herein:
» Hazard Dynamics, Marici Plume Study, dated August 14, 2025. » Sungrow, User Manual, Battery Container, PowerTitan 2.0-STU5015UX-2H-US, Version 13, dated April 2025.
» Fisher Engineering, Fire Protection Engineering Analysis for Tesla Megapack 2 and Megapack 2 XL, dated January 23, 2023.
» Claasen, M., et. al., Characterization of Lithium-Ion Battery Fire Emissions, Part 2: Particle Size Distributions and Emission Factors. Batteries, 2024, 10 (10), 366. Published October 16, 2024.
O-1
September 2025 | Page 2
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The 9.2-acre site (Project Site) is in the western end of the City of Industry, which is within Los Angeles County, California. The Project Site is generally bound by Gale Avenue to the south; Ward Way and warehouses and commercial properties to the west; Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)/Metro rail lines and a rail yard to the north; and the Southern California Edison (SCE) Walnut Substation to the east. The Project Site has addresses of 16233, 16207, and 16253 Gale Avenue, and consists of five contiguous parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 8242-016-033, -034, -036, -044, and -061).
The Project Site is surrounded by a mix of land uses, including industrial and warehouse uses to the north and west, the SCE Walnut Substation to the east, and residential uses to the south beyond Gale Avenue in the unincorporated Los Angeles County community of Hacienda Heights. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project are single-family residences approximately 85 feet south of the Project Site and approximately 110 feet south from the closest proposed battery enclosure.
2. BESS Evaluation
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The selected battery cells and components for the proposed project are the Sungrow PowerTitan 2.0 (ST5015kWh-2H-US), which consist of containerized battery energy storage units. The BESS would be housed in 480 outdoor battery enclosures, each containing 48 battery modules consisting of 104 battery cells (i.e., 4,992 battery cells per enclosure). The battery enclosures are 8 ft long, 9.5 ft high, and 19.9 ft wide. The proposed container and battery cells are depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Sungrow PowerTitan 2.0 Components
Source: Hazard Dynamics 2025.
O-2
September 2025 | Page 3
The PowerTitan 2.0 battery type are LFP cells. No toxic air contaminants (TACs) are emitted during normal operation of a BESS. However, there is the potential for TAC emissions to be released during a thermal runaway event if a fire occurs within a container due to battery malfunction, elevated temperatures, and battery combustion. The Marici Plume Study conducted by Hazard Dynamics included an evaluation of potential air toxics that could be released from a PowerTitan 2.0 in the scenario of a thermal runaway reaction that consumed all battery cells in a single enclosure (Hazard Dynamics 2025). This is considered a worst-case scenario as battery combustion testing shows that it is not likely for the runaway reaction to propagate between modules (Hazard Dynamics 2025). The results of the Marici Plume Study concluded that the concentrations of battery vent gas (such as carbon monoxide) would not result in a significant risk to off-site receptors for any modeled scenario (Hazard Dynamics 2025). The Marici Plume Study also conducted flammable gas modeling and found that the flammable region, defined as the lower flammable limit (LFL) was only present above the exhaust vents and the flammable footprint for the ½ LFL and the ¼ LFL extended a distance of only 1.4 meters from the exhaust vent.
2.2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR BESS BESS facilities must meet the requirements of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), which issues standards for addressing energy storage systems (NFPA 2022). The proposed BESS battery enclosures would be equipped with fire monitoring systems, controls, and liquid cooling units to keep the batteries at optimal operating temperatures. The fire monitoring systems consist of smoke and heat sensors, gas detectors, alarms, remote monitoring, and an NFPA 69-compliant ventilation system to prevent an explosive atmosphere. The fire protection system would have an alarm that would trigger core power shutdown during a fire, smoke, overheating, overpressure, or other issues. Also, once the concentration of combustible gas reaches 10 percent LEL, the combustible gas detector will activate the exhaust system to turn on. The entire project power shutdown would occur automatically during electrical fault conditions (e.g., high-voltage, high-frequency, ground fault). In addition, the proposed BESS would be equipped with breakers that could be opened manually to power down different equipment at the proposed project.
LACoFD has experience in the permitting of BESS projects and will be responsible for plan checking and approvals. LACoFD has implemented additional permitting requirements to ensure fire safety related to the BESS, as follows:
» Fire Hydrants: Per LACoFD regulations, the project design must include internal hydrants at distances that will ensure a maximum hose pull of 150 feet. This is a shorter distance than is typical for a warehouse building and allows for faster response times for defensive firefighting. » Training: The BESS facility will include one or two days of fire department training with a qualified fire and battery safety engineer.
» Hazard Mitigation Plan / Emergency Response Plan: The BESS facility will include a formal hazard mitigation analysis and site-level emergency response plan generated by a qualified fire safety engineer for the specific design of the project. This will be reviewed and approved by LACoFD during the building permit process.
O-3
September 2025 | Page 4
» Fire Suppression Systems: Current standards require a dry standpipe connection to the BESS containers. A standpipe is a port in the BESS container that allows a fire hose to be connected to the container. With the provision of a dry standpipe, the local fire department can contain the fire by flooding the system with water, if determined to be the best firefighting option. » Installation: Each module is tested at the manufacturer's facility and inspected for damage at the Project Site. Once installed and in operational mode, the battery management system (BMS) is calibrated for specific use at the site. The BMS protects the battery cells, modules, and racks from current, voltage and temperature design limit deviations by performing an emergency shutdown, when needed.
2.3 SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION
This evaluation is intended to supplement the results of the Marici Plume Study prepared for the Sungrow PowerTitan 2.0 battery modules and units. The Marici Plume Study evaluated the distance at which hazardous conditions would occur for incidents involving toxic gas plumes, flammable vapor clouds, fires, and the release of carbon monoxide. The study used a computer program called Fire Dynamics Simulator, which is a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software developed for modeling fires and smoke plumes. The results determined that the potential toxic concentrations of carbon monoxide and flammable gas concentrations during a thermal runaway scenario would not extend beyond the boundaries of the Project Site and therefore would not impact off-site receptors (Hazard Dynamics 2025).
To supplement this information, PlaceWorks prepared additional air dispersion modeling and risk determinations for pollutants not evaluated in the Marici Plume Study. The smoke generated during a BESS fire may result in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions.
It has been previously reported that acidic gases, such as hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen cyanide, and hydrogen chloride, can be released during a thermal runaway event involving lithium-ion battery systems (Consolidated Edison 2017; Claasen 2024). However, the Sungrow PowerTitan 2.0 are LFP batteries, which are a newer battery technology than the nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) lithium-ion batteries that had been primarily used over the previous decade. The Sungrow PowerTitan 2.0 battery cells were laboratory-tested to determine the gas composition of the vent gases emitted during a combustion event (Hazard Dynamics 2025).
The only reported TAC emitted from the Sungrow PowerTitan 2.0 battery cells during thermal runaway testing was carbon monoxide (CO) (Hazard Dynamics 2025). Although other gases were released during the testing, such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen, methane, ethylene, ethane, and propane, these gases are not classified as TACs. They are primarily flammable gases and were evaluated further in the Hazard Dynamics report as part of the flammable plume modeling. Although the testing protocol did not specifically evaluate the presence of acidic gases, such as hydrofluoric acid (HF), hydrogen cyanide (HCN) or hydrogen chloride (HCl), studies conducted for similar LFP batteries did not detect these acidic gases during module level testing (Fisher 2023). The emission rate and chemical weight fraction in the cell vent gas for CO was determined from the Marici Plume Study (Hazard Dynamics 2025). The calculations are provided in Attachment A.
O-4
September 2025 | Page 5
There is also the potential for hazardous PM2.5 emissions (i.e., smoke) from an emergency fire scenario.
For due diligence, PM2.5 emissions were also evaluated from a potential thermal runaway reaction. The PM2.5 emission factor was determined from lithium-ion batteries tested for thermal runaway reactions (Claasen 2024). The calculations are provided in Attachment A.
2.4 METHODOLOGY
The modeling evaluated TAC and PM2.5 emissions from a thermal runaway event resulting from the failure and combustion of all 48 modules within a single battery enclosure and for a 4-hour release period. This is a more conservative assumption than was used in the Marici Plume Study, which assumed a fire duration of two hours. The Consolidated Edison study assumed a 30-minute release period to indicate how long a fire event would burn uncontrolled before first responders would arrive (Consolidated Edison 2017). As previously stated, the BESS would not emit TACs during normal operations and a full health risk assessment (HRA) is not required. However, as a precautionary measure, potential acute risks were determined for nearby sensitive receptors in the case of a battery cell malfunction and thermal runaway event.
The Consolidated Edison study also notes that the failure probability of multiple battery racks (or modules) from a thermal runaway event is low due to fire detection and venting systems and recommends limiting TAC emission estimates to the failure of 1.5 modules. Therefore, the use of a 4- hour release period and the involvement of all 48 modules is conservative. The emission rate calculations are provided in Attachment A.
Air dispersion modeling was performed using the AERMOD atmospheric dispersion model (Lakes AERMOD View, version 13.0). The model is a steady-state Gaussian plume model and is approved by South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) for estimating ground-level impacts from point and fugitive sources in simple and complex terrain. The model’s hour-of-day variable emissions option was invoked to predict ground-level concentrations for a 4-hour release. A unit emission rate of 1 gram per second (g/s) was used for modeling. The battery enclosures were modeled as point sources with the following parameters:
» Stack Release Height = Height of enclosure = 9.5 feet » Effective Stack Diameter = 14.23 ft (rectangular area of battery enclosure roof, converted to an effective diameter)
» Stack Temperature = 240 Celsius (Fisher Engineering 2023) » Flow Rate = 2.5 m/s (Tetra Tech 2023)
Two stacks were modeled, with one placed at the southwest corner of the Project Site and one placed at the southeast corner, nearest to the residential area to the south of the Project Site. A 25-meter by 25-meter receptor grid was used to determine potential impacts to residential receptors to the south.
The results confirmed that the maximum exposed individual resident (MEIR) was located at a residence approximately 120 feet south of the Project Site.
Short-term (1-hour and 24-hour) ground-level concentrations were determined using AERMOD. The maximum AERMOD concentrations from the output files were then multiplied by the calculated pollutant emission rates to obtain the maximum ground-level concentrations at the MEIR. The AERMOD O-5
September 2025 | Page 6
model output is presented in Attachment B. The maximum ground-level concentrations at the MEIR are provided in Attachment A.
To determine the significance of air emissions, the 1-hour and 24-hour pollutant concentrations were compared to the Acute Emergency Guideline Levels (AEGLs) for CO. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgates AEGLs to be used by emergency planners and responders as guidance for accidental releases of chemicals into the air (USEPA 2024a). AEGLs represent threshold values for the general public and are determined for short exposure periods (e.g., 10 min, 30 min, 1 hour, 4 hours, 8 hours) and are presented in parts per millions (ppm) for 3 levels based on severity of the chemical in air:
» AEGL Level 1. This concentration level shows notable discomfort and irritation but is not disabling. » AEGL Level 2. This concentration level shows irreversible or serious, long-lasting adverse health effects.
» AEGL Level 3. This concentration level shows life-threatening health effects or death.
Concentrations below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that could produce mild and non-disabling irritation, or asymptomatic, non-sensory effects.
Potential hazardous PM2.5 emissions would only occur for a limited period-of-time from an emergency event. Therefore, for PM2.5, the 24-hour PM2.5 ground-level concentrations were compared to the corresponding Air Quality Index (AQI) value.
O-6
September 2025 | Page 7
2.5 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The results of the emergency air toxics evaluation are provided in Table 1, Emergency Air Toxics Analysis Results – Maximum Exposed Individual Resident. Based on the AERMOD receptor grid, the MEIR was determined to be a single-family residence approximately 120 feet south of the Project Site. As demonstrated in Table 1, the maximum 1-hour ground-level concentration for CO did not exceed the AEGL levels for any of the averaging times (i.e., 10 minutes to 8 hours). The maximum 24-hour PM2.5 concentration was calculated to be 145 µg/m3 at the MEIR. The resulting AQI for a concentration of 145 µg/m3 would be 220, which is between 201 and 300, and the air would be categorized as very unhealthy (USEPA 2024b). For this AQI category, USEPA recommends that children, active adults, and people with respiratory diseases, such as asthma, should avoid outdoor exertion and all others should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.
The AQI is a measure of ambient outdoor air concentrations. Studies conducted during wildfire events in California with high PM2.5 concentrations showed that indoor air concentrations were 73 percent lower than outdoor air concentrations due to measures taken to reduce infiltration, such as closing doors and windows, reducing ventilation, and active air filtration (Liang et al 2021). In the unlikely event of a thermal runaway, precautions should be taken to limit outdoor activities and stay inside.
TABLE 1 EMERGENCY AIR TOXICS ANALYSIS RESULTS – MAXIMUM EXPOSED INDIVIDUAL RESIDENT Air Pollutant
Emission Rate
for Enclosure
(g/s)
1-Hour Ground-Level
Concentration (ppm)
Threshold:
1-hr AEGL (ppm) Exceeds Threshold?
Carbon Monoxide 269.0 7.2
AEGL-1: n/r
AEGL-2: 83
AEGL-3: 330
No, it does not exceed AEGL2 or 3 for any averaging time Notes: n/r = not recommended due to insufficient data (USEPA 2024a).
It should also be noted that this evaluation is a worst-case emergency scenario. There are no reported failures that would cause thermal runaway to occur in all 4,992 cells that make up a battery enclosure (Hazard Dynamics 2025). Also, there have been no reported incidents for fires associated with Sungrow PowerTitan 2.0 battery enclosures (North American Clean Energy 2025; EPRI 2025). The PowerTitan 2.0 also uses a closed-loop liquid cooling system to maintain optimal operating temperatures. Impacts associated with PM2.5 emissions resulting from smoke would be transient in nature and not likely to last more than 24 hours.
3. Conclusions
In summary, PlaceWorks conducted a supplementary evaluation of air toxics and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions from a worst-case thermal runway scenario associated with the proposed BESS facility. The results indicate that the BESS facility would not expose nearby sensitive receptors (i.e., residents) nor adjacent industrial land uses to TAC concentrations in the event of a thermal runaway event and impacts are considered less than significant.
However, there is potential for nearby sensitive receptors and adjacent industrial land uses to be exposed to hazardous PM2.5 emissions for this emergency scenario. Short-term smoke emissions in the O-7
September 2025 | Page 8
immediate vicinity of a potential fire are predicted to result in an AQI between 201 and 300. USEPA’s main recommendation for very unhealthy hazardous smoke events is to avoid or limit outdoor activities.
Additionally, the Project Site is within 0.15-mile of LACoFD Station No. 43, which would ensure a prompt response in the event of a fire at the Project Site.
In recent years, public concern for BESS facilities has increased due to catastrophic fires such as the Moss Landing, CA BESS fire in January 2025. However, it should be noted that the Moss Landing BESS differs from the proposed project in several ways. First, the Moss Landing BESS placed large numbers of battery racks in a single enclosed indoor space, which is conducive to the rapid spread of flames (Battery Technology 2025). Second, the Moss Landing BESS used the older NMC lithium-ion cells, which have a higher risk of overheating and combustion when compared to LFP cells. LACoFD’s recent expanded requirements for BESS facilities have reduced the likelihood of thermal runaway and fire scenarios. Finally, each Sungrow PowerTitan 2.0 battery enclosure includes a liquid coolant system which provides superior temperature control and extended battery life as compared to air cooled systems. Each enclosure also contains a ventilation system to exhaust vent gases in case of cell failure, heat and smoke detectors, and flammable gas detectors. The battery enclosures will be located outdoors and properly spaced to reduce the potential for thermal runaway scenarios by dissipating any generated heat. Therefore, the design of the proposed project would result in a reduction in the potential for fire propagation as compared to older BESS facilities.
Respectfully submitted,
PlaceWorks
Steve Bush, PE
Senior Engineer
O-8
References:
Battery Technology. 2025, January 30. Moss Landing Battery Fire: Fallout & Repercussions. https://www.batterytechonline.com/stationary-batteries/moss-landing-battery-fire-fallout-repercussions.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2025, September 9 (accessed on). Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health.
Claasen (Claasen, M., et. al.). 2024, October 16. Characterization of Lithium-Ion Battery Fire Emissions, Part 2: Particle Size Distributions and Emission Factors. Batteries, 2024, 10 (10), 366.
Consolidated Edison (Consolidated Edison and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority). 2017, February 9. Considerations for ESS Fire Safety, prepared by DNV GL.
EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2025. EPRI Battery Energy Storage System Failure Incident Database.
Fisher Engineering. 2023, January 23. Fire Protection Engineering Analysis for Tesla Megapack 2 and Megapack 2 XL.
Hazard Dynamics. 2025, August 14. Marici Plume Study.
Liang, Yuton, Deep Sengupta, Mark Campmier, and Allen Goldstein. Wildfire smoke impacts on indoor air quality assessed using crowdsourced data in California. Publication National Academy of Sciences, 2021, Vol. 118, No. 36, pp. 1-6.
NFPA (National Fire Protection Association). 2022. Energy Storage Systems (ESS) and Solar Safety. https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Resources/Emergency-Responders/High-risk-hazards/EnergyStorage-Systems.
North American Clean Energy. 2025, May 15. Sungrow’s PowerTitan 2.0 Earns New York City Fire Safety Certification for Battery Energy Storage. https://www.nacleanenergy.com/energy-storage/sungrow-spowertitan-2-0-earns-new-york-city-fire-safety-certification-for-battery-energystorage#:~:text=The%20large%2Dscale%20fire%20test,system%20can%20be%20found%20here.
Sungrow. 2005, April. User Manual, Battery Container, PowerTitan 2.0-STU5015UX-2H-US, Version 13.
Tetra Tech. 2023, November. Environmental Statement Addendum: Air Quality Impact Assessment of Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) Fire, Revision A.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2024a. About Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs). https://www.epa.gov/aegl/about-acute-exposure-guideline-levels-aegls. _____. 2024b, May (last modified). Technical Assistance Document for the Reporting of Daily Air Quality – the Air Quality Index (AQI).
O-9
Attachment A – Emission Rate and Risk Calculations
O-10
Thermal Runaway Reaction
Receptor: MEIR 120 feet South of the facilityPollutant g/Wh g/cell g/enclosure g/s 24-hour (unit ER)
24-hr GLC
҄g/m3
AQI
AQI, USEPA Recommendation
PM2.5 0.14 140.65 7.02E+05 48.76 2.974 145.0 220 201-300, limit prolonged outdoor exertion Reference: FRA Modeling
MW (g/mol) Fraction g/s/cell g/s 1-hour
(unit ER)
1-hour
GLC
1-hour
GLC
Total Vent Gas 1.00 0.387 µg/m3 µg/m3 ppm Exceeds AEGLs?Carbon Monoxide 28 0.14 5.39E-02 269.0 30.47 8195 7.2 < below AEGL 2, 3 for ALL time averages (10 min to 8 hr)* Benzene 78.11 n/a #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! < below AEGL 1, 2, 3 for ALL time averages (10 min to 8 hr) Toluene 92.14 n/a #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! < below AEGL 1, 2, 3 for ALL time averages (10 min to 8 hr)Reference: NOTE: Assumes 4-hour fire duration * AEGL 1 for CO not made available from EPA 104 cells per module (Sungrow 2025) Total Power 5.015 MWh capacity for single enclosure (Sungrow 2025, User Manual PowerTitan 2.0) 1 module per tray (synonymous in this case) 1,005 Wh/cell 48 modules per container 14,400 seconds/4-hour fire
4992 cells per container
480 number of containers/enclosures
AERMOD
OUTPUT
Claasen et al, "Characterization of Lithium-Ion Battery Fire Emissions - Part 2: Particle Size Distribution and Emission Factors", Published Oct 16, 2024, in Batteries 2024.
AERMOD
OUTPUT
Hazard Dynamics, Marici Plume Study (August 14, 2025). Gas Composition based on UL 9450A Cell Level Testing, conducted by CSA Group - Kunshan Branch 11/17/2023 for LFP cells.
O-11
Attachment B – Air Dispersion Model Output
O-12
AERMOD Setup: Sensitive Receptor Evaluation
Point Sources
Stack 1: Southwest Container
Stack 2: Southeast Container
N
Ground-level receptors
25 x 25 m spacing
Southeast Container
Modeled as Stack
Southwest Container
Modeled as Stack
O-13
Control Pathway
AERMOD
Total Deposition (Dry & Wet)
Dry Deposition
Wet Deposition
Output Type
Concentration
Regulatory Default Non-Default Options
Dispersion Options
Marici BESS
Emergency Thermal Runaway Reaction Analysis
Titles
Dispersion Options
Population:
Name (Optional):
Roughness Length:
Plume Depletion
Dry Removal
Wet Removal
Output Warnings
No Output Warnings
Non-fatal Warnings for Non-sequential Met Data
Dispersion Coefficient
Urban
Pollutant / Averaging Time / Terrain Options
TG: Meters
RE: Meters
SO: Meters 1 2 3 4 6 8 12 24 Flat Elevated
Hours Terrain Height Options
Averaging Time Options
Option not available Half Life of 4 hrs will be used
Pollutant Type Exponential Decay
Month Period Annual
Flagpole Receptors
Yes No
Default Height = 0.00 m
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software CO - 1 9/12/2025 Project File: C:\!AERMOD\IND22\IND22_17_MEIR\IND22.isc
O-14
Control Pathway
AERMOD
Optional Files
Re-Start File Init File Multi-Year Analyses Event Input File Error Listing File Detailed Error Listing File
Filename: IND22.err
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software CO - 2 9/12/2025 Project File: C:\!AERMOD\IND22\IND22_17_MEIR\IND22.isc
O-15
Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Point Sources
Source
Type
Stack Inside
Diameter
[m]
Release
Height
[m]
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Base
Elevation
(Optional)
Y Coordinate
[m]
X Coordinate
[m]
Source
ID
Gas Exit
Temp.
[K]
Gas Exit
Velocity
[m/s]
POINT WEST 412008.45 3763457.23 107.10 2.90 513.15 2.50 4.34 southwest container
1.00000
POINT EAST 412068.22 3763434.16 108.05 2.90 513.15 2.50 4.34 southeast container
1.00000
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO1 - 1 9/12/2025 Project File: C:\!AERMOD\IND22\IND22_17_MEIR\IND22.isc
O-16
Source Pathway
AERMOD
Option not in use
Building Downwash Information
Emission Rate Units for Output
For Concentration
Concentration Unit Label:
Emission Unit Label:
Unit Factor: 1E6
GRAMS/SEC
MICROGRAMS/M**3
Source Group ID: WEST List of Sources in Group (Source Range or Single Sources) WEST
Source Group ID: EAST List of Sources in Group (Source Range or Single Sources) EAST
Source Groups
Variable Emissions
Hourly Emission Rate Variation
Scenario: 4Hour
Source ID: WEST
1 to 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 to 12 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
13 to 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
19 to 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Source ID: EAST
1 to 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 to 12 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
13 to 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
19 to 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO2 - 1 9/12/2025 Project File: C:\!AERMOD\IND22\IND22_17_MEIR\IND22.isc
O-17
Receptor Pathway
AERMOD
Receptor Networks
Note: Terrain Elavations and Flagpole Heights for Network Grids are in Page RE2 - 1 (If applicable) Generated Discrete Receptors for Multi-Tier (Risk) Grid and Receptor Locations for Fenceline Grid are in Page RE3 - 1 (If applicable) Discrete Receptors
Discrete Cartesian Receptors
X-Coordinate [m] Y-Coordinate [m] Terrain Elevations
Flagpole Heights [m]
(Optional)
Record
Number
Group Name
(Optional)
1 411796.07 3763159.23 UCART1 110.50
2 411821.07 3763159.23 UCART1 110.40
3 411846.07 3763159.23 UCART1 110.15
4 411871.07 3763159.23 UCART1 110.57
5 411896.07 3763159.23 UCART1 111.06
6 411921.07 3763159.23 UCART1 110.80
7 411946.07 3763159.23 UCART1 110.64
8 411971.07 3763159.23 UCART1 111.48
9 411996.07 3763159.23 UCART1 111.46
10 412021.07 3763159.23 UCART1 111.28
11 412046.07 3763159.23 UCART1 111.37
12 412071.07 3763159.23 UCART1 111.53
13 412096.07 3763159.23 UCART1 111.74
14 412121.07 3763159.23 UCART1 111.95
15 412146.07 3763159.23 UCART1 111.70
16 412171.07 3763159.23 UCART1 112.08
17 412196.07 3763159.23 UCART1 112.57
18 412221.07 3763159.23 UCART1 112.56
19 412246.07 3763159.23 UCART1 112.60
20 412271.07 3763159.23 UCART1 112.63
21 412296.07 3763159.23 UCART1 112.60
22 412321.07 3763159.23 UCART1 112.53
23 412346.07 3763159.23 UCART1 112.66
24 412371.07 3763159.23 UCART1 112.74
25 411796.07 3763184.23 UCART1 109.61
26 411821.07 3763184.23 UCART1 109.56
27 411846.07 3763184.23 UCART1 109.63
28 411871.07 3763184.23 UCART1 110.07
29 411896.07 3763184.23 UCART1 110.46
30 411921.07 3763184.23 UCART1 110.55
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software RE1 - 1 9/12/2025 Project File: C:\!AERMOD\IND22\IND22_17_MEIR\IND22.isc
O-18
Receptor Pathway
AERMOD
31 411946.07 3763184.23 UCART1 109.98
32 411971.07 3763184.23 UCART1 110.42
33 411996.07 3763184.23 UCART1 110.63
34 412021.07 3763184.23 UCART1 110.89
35 412046.07 3763184.23 UCART1 111.01
36 412071.07 3763184.23 UCART1 111.14
37 412096.07 3763184.23 UCART1 111.32
38 412121.07 3763184.23 UCART1 111.59
39 412146.07 3763184.23 UCART1 111.51
40 412171.07 3763184.23 UCART1 111.52
41 412196.07 3763184.23 UCART1 111.68
42 412221.07 3763184.23 UCART1 111.85
43 412246.07 3763184.23 UCART1 111.79
44 412271.07 3763184.23 UCART1 111.76
45 412296.07 3763184.23 UCART1 112.16
46 412321.07 3763184.23 UCART1 112.63
47 412346.07 3763184.23 UCART1 112.71
48 412371.07 3763184.23 UCART1 112.29
49 411796.07 3763209.23 UCART1 109.26
50 411821.07 3763209.23 UCART1 109.79
51 411846.07 3763209.23 UCART1 109.58
52 411871.07 3763209.23 UCART1 109.53
53 411896.07 3763209.23 UCART1 110.03
54 411921.07 3763209.23 UCART1 110.22
55 411946.07 3763209.23 UCART1 109.63
56 411971.07 3763209.23 UCART1 110.10
57 411996.07 3763209.23 UCART1 110.32
58 412021.07 3763209.23 UCART1 110.50
59 412046.07 3763209.23 UCART1 110.63
60 412071.07 3763209.23 UCART1 110.78
61 412096.07 3763209.23 UCART1 110.95
62 412121.07 3763209.23 UCART1 111.20
63 412146.07 3763209.23 UCART1 111.27
64 412171.07 3763209.23 UCART1 110.93
65 412196.07 3763209.23 UCART1 111.06
66 412221.07 3763209.23 UCART1 111.27
67 412246.07 3763209.23 UCART1 111.69
68 412271.07 3763209.23 UCART1 112.10
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software RE1 - 2 9/12/2025 Project File: C:\!AERMOD\IND22\IND22_17_MEIR\IND22.isc
O-19
Receptor Pathway
AERMOD
69 412296.07 3763209.23 UCART1 112.33
70 412321.07 3763209.23 UCART1 112.27
71 412346.07 3763209.23 UCART1 112.19
72 412371.07 3763209.23 UCART1 111.89
73 411796.07 3763234.23 UCART1 109.44
74 411821.07 3763234.23 UCART1 109.36
75 411846.07 3763234.23 UCART1 109.09
76 411871.07 3763234.23 UCART1 109.11
77 411896.07 3763234.23 UCART1 109.53
78 411921.07 3763234.23 UCART1 109.96
79 411946.07 3763234.23 UCART1 109.31
80 411971.07 3763234.23 UCART1 109.82
81 411996.07 3763234.23 UCART1 109.99
82 412021.07 3763234.23 UCART1 110.05
83 412046.07 3763234.23 UCART1 110.20
84 412071.07 3763234.23 UCART1 110.42
85 412096.07 3763234.23 UCART1 110.57
86 412121.07 3763234.23 UCART1 110.67
87 412146.07 3763234.23 UCART1 110.72
88 412171.07 3763234.23 UCART1 110.54
89 412196.07 3763234.23 UCART1 110.93
90 412221.07 3763234.23 UCART1 111.54
91 412246.07 3763234.23 UCART1 111.53
92 412271.07 3763234.23 UCART1 111.41
93 412296.07 3763234.23 UCART1 111.52
94 412321.07 3763234.23 UCART1 111.56
95 412346.07 3763234.23 UCART1 111.48
96 412371.07 3763234.23 UCART1 111.53
97 411796.07 3763259.23 UCART1 108.74
98 411821.07 3763259.23 UCART1 108.62
99 411846.07 3763259.23 UCART1 108.51
100 411871.07 3763259.23 UCART1 108.70
101 411896.07 3763259.23 UCART1 109.20
102 411921.07 3763259.23 UCART1 109.74
103 411946.07 3763259.23 UCART1 109.01
104 411971.07 3763259.23 UCART1 109.43
105 411996.07 3763259.23 UCART1 109.36
106 412021.07 3763259.23 UCART1 109.53
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software RE1 - 3 9/12/2025 Project File: C:\!AERMOD\IND22\IND22_17_MEIR\IND22.isc
O-20
Receptor Pathway
AERMOD
107 412046.07 3763259.23 UCART1 109.68
108 412071.07 3763259.23 UCART1 109.91
109 412096.07 3763259.23 UCART1 110.14
110 412121.07 3763259.23 UCART1 110.51
111 412146.07 3763259.23 UCART1 110.52
112 412171.07 3763259.23 UCART1 110.30
113 412196.07 3763259.23 UCART1 110.34
114 412221.07 3763259.23 UCART1 110.66
115 412246.07 3763259.23 UCART1 110.67
116 412271.07 3763259.23 UCART1 110.65
117 412296.07 3763259.23 UCART1 110.65
118 412321.07 3763259.23 UCART1 110.95
119 412346.07 3763259.23 UCART1 111.47
120 412371.07 3763259.23 UCART1 111.34
121 411796.07 3763284.23 UCART1 108.16
122 411821.07 3763284.23 UCART1 108.60
123 411846.07 3763284.23 UCART1 108.79
124 411871.07 3763284.23 UCART1 108.36
125 411896.07 3763284.23 UCART1 108.85
126 411921.07 3763284.23 UCART1 109.43
127 411946.07 3763284.23 UCART1 108.73
128 411971.07 3763284.23 UCART1 109.06
129 411996.07 3763284.23 UCART1 109.24
130 412021.07 3763284.23 UCART1 110.60
131 412046.07 3763284.23 UCART1 109.96
132 412071.07 3763284.23 UCART1 109.86
133 412096.07 3763284.23 UCART1 109.88
134 412121.07 3763284.23 UCART1 110.00
135 412146.07 3763284.23 UCART1 109.96
136 412171.07 3763284.23 UCART1 109.99
137 412196.07 3763284.23 UCART1 109.66
138 412221.07 3763284.23 UCART1 109.77
139 412246.07 3763284.23 UCART1 109.89
140 412271.07 3763284.23 UCART1 110.42
141 412296.07 3763284.23 UCART1 110.91
142 412321.07 3763284.23 UCART1 111.20
143 412346.07 3763284.23 UCART1 110.95
144 411796.07 3763309.23 UCART1 108.60
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software RE1 - 4 9/12/2025 Project File: C:\!AERMOD\IND22\IND22_17_MEIR\IND22.isc
O-21
Receptor Pathway
AERMOD
145 411821.07 3763309.23 UCART1 108.74
146 411846.07 3763309.23 UCART1 108.48
147 411871.07 3763309.23 UCART1 108.04
148 411896.07 3763309.23 UCART1 108.66
149 411921.07 3763309.23 UCART1 109.13
150 411946.07 3763309.23 UCART1 108.52
151 411971.07 3763309.23 UCART1 108.76
152 411996.07 3763309.23 UCART1 109.08
153 412021.07 3763309.23 UCART1 110.47
154 412046.07 3763309.23 UCART1 109.70
155 412071.07 3763309.23 UCART1 109.84
156 412096.07 3763309.23 UCART1 109.70
157 412121.07 3763309.23 UCART1 109.50
158 412146.07 3763309.23 UCART1 109.39
159 412171.07 3763309.23 UCART1 109.25
160 412196.07 3763309.23 UCART1 109.48
161 412221.07 3763309.23 UCART1 109.98
162 412246.07 3763309.23 UCART1 110.22
163 412271.07 3763309.23 UCART1 110.38
164 411796.07 3763334.23 UCART1 107.95
165 411821.07 3763334.23 UCART1 107.89
166 411846.07 3763334.23 UCART1 107.86
167 411871.07 3763334.23 UCART1 107.78
168 411896.07 3763334.23 UCART1 108.28
169 411921.07 3763334.23 UCART1 108.90
170 411946.07 3763334.23 UCART1 108.29
171 411971.07 3763334.23 UCART1 108.46
172 411996.07 3763334.23 UCART1 108.73
173 412021.07 3763334.23 UCART1 109.08
174 412046.07 3763334.23 UCART1 109.01
175 412071.07 3763334.23 UCART1 108.83
176 412096.07 3763334.23 UCART1 108.77
177 412121.07 3763340.59 UCART1 109.07
178 412146.07 3763334.23 UCART1 109.37
179 412171.07 3763334.23 UCART1 109.60
180 412196.07 3763334.23 UCART1 109.71
181 412221.07 3763334.23 UCART1 109.46
182 411796.07 3763359.23 UCART1 107.40
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software RE1 - 5 9/12/2025 Project File: C:\!AERMOD\IND22\IND22_17_MEIR\IND22.isc
O-22
Receptor Pathway
AERMOD
183 411821.07 3763359.23 UCART1 107.50
184 411846.07 3763359.23 UCART1 107.77
185 411871.07 3763359.23 UCART1 108.01
186 411896.07 3763359.23 UCART1 108.18
187 411921.07 3763359.23 UCART1 108.61
188 411946.07 3763359.23 UCART1 108.08
189 411971.07 3763359.23 UCART1 108.07
190 411996.07 3763359.23 UCART1 108.29
191 412021.07 3763359.23 UCART1 108.27
192 412048.67 3763349.69 UCART1 108.46
193 412071.07 3763359.23 UCART1 108.74
194 412096.07 3763359.23 UCART1 109.11
195 412121.07 3763359.23 UCART1 109.29
196 412146.07 3763359.23 UCART1 109.07
197 411796.07 3763384.23 UCART1 107.24
198 411821.07 3763384.23 UCART1 107.88
199 411846.07 3763384.23 UCART1 107.98
200 411871.07 3763384.23 UCART1 107.86
201 411896.07 3763384.23 UCART1 107.68
202 411921.07 3763384.23 UCART1 108.30
203 411946.07 3763384.23 UCART1 107.98
204 411971.07 3763384.23 UCART1 107.69
205 411996.07 3763384.23 UCART1 108.20
206 412021.07 3763384.23 UCART1 108.52
207 412046.07 3763384.23 UCART1 108.79
208 412071.07 3763384.23 UCART1 108.74
209 411796.07 3763409.23 UCART1 106.90
210 411821.07 3763409.23 UCART1 107.29
211 411846.07 3763409.23 UCART1 107.55
212 411871.07 3763409.23 UCART1 107.72
213 411896.07 3763409.23 UCART1 107.72
214 411921.07 3763409.23 UCART1 107.96
215 411946.07 3763409.23 UCART1 108.00
216 411978.87 3763404.32 UCART1 107.78
217 411996.07 3763409.23 UCART1 108.12
218 412021.07 3763409.23 UCART1 107.94
219 411796.07 3763434.23 UCART1 107.01
220 411821.07 3763434.23 UCART1 106.83
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software RE1 - 6 9/12/2025 Project File: C:\!AERMOD\IND22\IND22_17_MEIR\IND22.isc
O-23
Receptor Pathway
AERMOD
221 411846.07 3763434.23 UCART1 107.82
222 411871.07 3763434.23 UCART1 107.82
223 411896.07 3763434.23 UCART1 107.53
224 411921.07 3763434.23 UCART1 107.53
225 411946.07 3763434.23 UCART1 107.64
226 411796.07 3763459.23 UCART1 106.85
227 411821.07 3763459.23 UCART1 106.49
228 411846.07 3763459.23 UCART1 107.74
229 411871.07 3763459.23 UCART1 107.44
230 411796.07 3763484.23 UCART1 106.98
231 411821.07 3763484.23 UCART1 106.38
Plant Boundary Receptors
Receptor Groups
Group ID Group Description
Record
Number
1 UCART1 Receptors generated from Uniform Cartesian Grid AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software RE1 - 7 9/12/2025 Project File: C:\!AERMOD\IND22\IND22_17_MEIR\IND22.isc
O-24
Meteorology Pathway
AERMOD
Met Input Data
Surface Met Data
Profile Met Data
..\22.14_AERMOD\IND_BESS\AZUS_V11_trimmed.sfc
Default AERMET format
Filename:
Format Type:
Filename:
Format Type:
..\22.14_AERMOD\IND_BESS\AZUS_V11_trimmed.PFL
Potential Temperature Profile
Base Elevation above MSL (for Primary Met Tower): 187.00 [m] Wind Direction
Rotation Adjustment [deg]:
Meteorological Station Data
Upper Air
On-Site
Station No. Year Station Name
Surface
Stations X Coordinate [m] Y Coordinate [m]
2017
2017
2017
Default AERMET format
Wind Speed
Wind Speeds are Vector Mean (Not Scalar Means)
Data Period
Start Date: 1/1/2017 Start Hour: 1 End Date: 12/31/2021 End Hour: 24 Data Period to Process
10.8 8.23
5.14 3.09
1.54 No Upper Bound
Wind Speed [m/s] Stability Category Wind Speed [m/s]
F
E
D
C
B
A
Stability Category
Wind Speed Categories
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software ME - 1 9/12/2025 Project File: C:\!AERMOD\IND22\IND22_17_MEIR\IND22.isc
O-25
WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software
WIND ROSE PLOT:
Azusa Meteorological Station
2017-2021
COMMENTS:
All Hours
COMPANY NAME:
PlaceWorks
MODELER:
SB
DATE:
9/5/2025
PROJECT NO.:
IND-22.17
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST EAST
5.67%
11.3%
17%
22.7%
28.4%
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
>= 11.10
8.80 - 11.10
5.70 - 8.80
3.60 - 5.70
3.00 - 3.60
2.10 - 3.00
0.50 - 2.10
Calms: 1.46%
TOTAL COUNT:
43824 hrs.
CALM WINDS:
1.46%
DATA PERIOD:
Start Date: 1/1/2017 - 00:00
End Date: 12/31/2021 - 23:59
AVG. WIND SPEED:
1.61 m/s
DISPLAY:
Wind Speed
Flow Vector (blowing to)
O-26
Results Summary
Marici BESS
Emergency Thermal Runaway Reaction Analysis
Concentration - Source Group: EAST
Averaging
Period Rank Peak
X
(m)
Y
(m)
ZELEV
(m)
ZHILL
(m)
Peak Date,
Start Hour
ZFLAG
(m) Units
1-HR 1ST 30.46513 ug/m^3 412021.07 3763384.23 108.52 0.00 108.52 10/15/2018, 12 24-HR 1ST 2.83702 ug/m^3 412046.07 3763384.23 108.79 0.00 108.79 10/15/2018, 24 Concentration - Source Group: WEST
Averaging
Period Rank Peak
X
(m)
Y
(m)
ZELEV
(m)
ZHILL
(m)
Peak Date,
Start Hour
ZFLAG
(m) Units
1-HR 1ST 27.31357 ug/m^3 411978.87 3763404.32 107.78 0.00 107.78 10/15/2018, 10 24-HR 1ST 2.97444 ug/m^3 411978.87 3763404.32 107.78 0.00 107.78 10/15/2018, 24 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software 9/12/2025
Project File: C:\!AERMOD\IND22\IND22_17_MEIR\IND22.isc
RS - 1 of 1
O-27
MARICI BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FACILITY INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF INDUSTRY
APPENDIX
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
MARICI BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FACILITY INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF INDUSTRY
APPENDIX
DECEMBER 2025
APPENDIX P
HYDROLOGY STUDY AND STORMWATER
QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
MARICI BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FACILITY INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF INDUSTRY
APPENDIX
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
HYDROLOGY STUDY AND STORMWATER
QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Marici Project, LLC
15207, 16233 and 16285 Gale Avenue
City of Industry, CA 91745
Prepared For:
Marici Project, LLC
Prepared By:
6 Executive Circle, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92614
Under Supervision of:
Stephen V. Huvane, P.E.
February 2025
P-1
February 2025
Marici Project, LLC Hydrology Study and Stormwater Quality Management Plan 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................. 2
1.1 Proposed Stormwater Conditions....................................................................................... 2
2.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ....................................................................... 2
3.0 STORMWATER CALCULATIONS .................................................................. 3
3.1 Methodology....................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Soil Characteristics and Design Rainfall .............................................................................. 4
3.3 Runoff Coefficient and Time of Concentration ................................................................... 4
3.4 Results ................................................................................................................................. 4
3.4.1 Underground Stormwater System ......................................................................... 4
3.4.2 Inlet sizing .............................................................................................................. 5
3.5 3.5 Stormwater Quality....................................................................................................... 6
4.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................... 6
5.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 7
FIGURES
Figure 1: Public Works LA County Storm Drain System ................................................................................ 3 Figure 2: Concrete Rolled Curb and Gutter................................................................................................... 5 TABLES
Table 1: 50-Year Peak Flow Summary ........................................................................................................... 4 Table 2: 100-Year Peak Flow Summary ......................................................................................................... 5
APPENDICES
Appendix A FEMA Flood Map
Appendix B Existing Drainage Area Map
Appendix C Proposed Drainage Area Maps
Appendix D Rainfall and Runoff Data
Appendix E Time of Concentration and Runoff Coefficients Appendix F Inlet Sizing
Appendix G Storm Drain Calculations
Appendix H 85th Percentile, 24 hour Rainfall Isohyetal Map P-2
February 2025
Marici Project, LLC Hydrology Study and Stormwater Quality Management Plan 2 1.0 Project Description
Five (5) Parcels will be merged into one and contain a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) after redevelopment. These parcels (APNs 8242-016-061, 8242-016-033, 8242-016-034, 8242-016-036 and 8242-016-044) total approximately 9.21 acres. The merged lot will have batteries, control equipment, and ancillary facilities. Batteries will be contained in purpose-built free-standing enclosures. Ancillary facilities include access roads designed to fire department standards, fire water system, exterior lighting, inverters, transformers, an onsite electric substation, stormwater conveyance systems (discussed later in this report), a building with work stations, break area, sanitary facilities and a perimeter reinforced concrete wall around the entire facility designed for safety and aesthetics of the surrounding area. The onsite substation will be connected to the adjacent Southern California Edison walnut substation by an overhead 220 kv electric line.
The Site is located at 16207, 16233 and 16285 Gale Avenue, Industry, California, within the San Gabirel Watershed in Los Angelas (LA) County.
The purpose of this report is to provide a preliminary stormwater analysis of this redevelopment and to ensure it complies with stormwater requirements set forth by the City of Industry and LA county.
1.1 Proposed Stormwater Conditions
The proposed stormwater design consists of an underground storm drain system, curb and gutters and open vegetated ditches. The proposed storm drain will connect to an existing curb inlet that is to remain on the property. Calculations shown herein will prove there is no increase of stormwater runoff to this existing inlet and anywhere else on site after development.
2.0 Existing Site Conditions
The five existing parcels contain a few different commercial stores, services and storage buildings. The parcels are almost entirely covered by impervious cover (pavement, buildings and loading docks). Total existing impervious cover is approximately 8.43 acres, which makes up approximately 92% of the total merged lot (Site). FEMA flood zone mapping shows the Site lies in a minimal flood hazard area (Zone X) as shown in Appendix A.
Stormwater on these parcels make their way to an existing underground system by means of sheet flow, roof drains, gutters and into grate and curb inlets. A small area discharges to the underground system along Gale Ave, while most of the area is conveyed through an independent stormwater system. It is assumed for this report, the independent system connects to an adjacent storm drain. It is clear both systems eventually make their way to San Jose Creek, a concrete lined channel approximately 1300 ft northwest of the Sites northwest lot corner. Figure 1 below depicts the existing storm drain system along Gale Ave that leads into San Jose Creek. The Image was captured from the LA county public works website. This report analyzes four (4) discharge points; Discharge (DP) A, DP B, DP C and DP G. The discharge points, existing surface flow and drainage areas are depicted in the Existing Drainage Area Map found in Appendix B.
P-3
February 2025
Marici Project, LLC Hydrology Study and Stormwater Quality Management Plan 3 Figure 1 – Public Works LA County Storm Drain System
3.0 Stormwater Calculations
The project will develop a total of 3.89 acres (42%) of impervious surface on approximately 9.21 acre site. This 3.89 acres make up the asphalt access roads, concrete curb and gutters, substation area, buildings, storage units as well as concrete pads and foundations for equipment.
3.1 Methodology
The modified rational method (MODRAT) was used to calculate existing and proposed development runoff. Proposed equations for this method can be found in Chapter 6.3 and 7.3 of the Hydrology Manual.
Project Site
Adjacent storm drain (presence to
be confirmed for construction)
unknown
P-4
February 2025
Marici Project, LLC Hydrology Study and Stormwater Quality Management Plan 4 3.2 Soil Characteristics and Design Rainfall
The soil types in the proposed site are 017 and 003 based on USGS Quadrangle as shown in the index Isohyetal Map in Appendix D. From this map, 6.36 inches was used for the 50-year 24-hour storm analysis. For the 100-year 24-hour storm, 6.86 inches was used, and was taken from NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6 Version 2.
3.3 Runoff Coefficient and Time of Concentration
Although only 42% of the BESS site is impervious, 91% impervious was used to find the Developed Runoff Coefficient (CD) in equation 6.3.2 of the Hydrology Manual. This 91% is based on a mixed commercial and industrial land use type per the table in Appendix D in the Hydrology Manual. This is a conservative approach to the stormwater design and is appropriate for this design stage. The steps outlined in section
7.3 of the Hydrology Manual were followed to find the Time of Concentration for each drainage area.
Appendix E shows these results, along with the runoff coefficient curves for each soil type. Where times of concentration were below 5 minutes, 5 minutes was used per section 11.1 of the Hydrology Manual.
3.4 Results
Both existing and proposed development for the 50-year, 24-hour storm event is calculated to compare the discharge rates before and after. The results are summarized below in Table 1. The drainage areas that correspond to these flow rates are shown in Appendix B and C.
Table 1 – 50-year Peak Flow Summary
Discharge
Point
Existing Flow
(cfs)
Proposed Flow
(cfs)
Difference
(cfs)
A 21.15 21.11 -0.04
B 0.24 0.24 0.00
C1 5.43 0.00 -5.43
C2 13.32 11.59 -1.73
G 0.69 0.69 0.00
3.4.1 Underground Stormwater System
The rational method, along with Manning’s equation was used to calculate the flows, velocities, and other hydraulic information for the underground storm drain system. In order to size the inlets and underground storm drain, the 100-year, 24-hour storm was used. The results for the 100-year peak flow rates are summarized below in Table 2. Note the proposed flow rate for discharge point A comes from Appendix G, column 15, at the end of Storm line A1.
P-5
February 2025
Marici Project, LLC Hydrology Study and Stormwater Quality Management Plan 5 Table 2 –100-year Peak Flow Summary
Discharge
Point
Existing Flow
(cfs)
Proposed Flow
(cfs)
Difference
(cfs)
A 27.72 21.55 -6.17
B 0.26 0.26 0.00
C1 1.07 0.00 -1.07
C2 14.41 12.58 -1.83
G 0.75 0.75 0.00
3.4.2 Inlet sizing
Inlet sizing is based on multiple parameters, including gutter type, curb type, road slope and spread of water (T) in the road. FlowMaster version 10.03.00.03 was used to find the depth of water and spread within the road at each inlet location. This Site utilizes mountable curb and gutter. Figure 2 shows a detail of the curb type. Appendix F shows the flow to the inlets, size and type of inlet at each location as well as the worksheets printed from FlowMaster.
Figure 2 – Mountable Curb and Gutter
P-6
February 2025
Marici Project, LLC Hydrology Study and Stormwater Quality Management Plan 6 3.5 Stormwater Quality
Stormwater Quality will be met for drainage area A by installing a proprietary stormwater quality device.
This device shall be selected and sized prior to construction plans. The device will be located on the northwest corner of the Site along the storm drain line that discharges to the existing storm drain system. Once the device is selected and sized, per LID Manual is must be approved by LA County Department of Public Works. Drainage areas C, G and B that do not flow through this device will flow through vegetated swales and/or strips prior to discharging to the adjacent property or the Gale Avenue existing storm drain system. The stormwater quality design volume is based on the 85th percentile, 24- hour rainfall depth of 1.10 inches. See Appendix H for the Isohyetal Map and peak flow rates for the 85th percentile storm.
4.0 Conclusions
The Marici Project does not increase the stormwater runoff from its Site. Proposed flow rates are either at or below existing conditions. The impervious cover has decreased from 8.43 acres in its current existing conditions to 3.89 acres in the proposed condition. The increase in times of concentration as well as the cover type, allow the Site to have at or below existing peak flow rates.
P-7
February 2025
Marici Project, LLC Hydrology Study and Stormwater Quality Management Plan 7 5.0 References
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual. January 2006. – Hydrology Manual.
Los Angeles County Flood Control District Hydraulic Manual. March 1982. – Hydraulic Manual Los Angelas County Low Impact Development Manual. February 2014 – LID Manual P-8
Appendix A: FEMA Flood Map
P-9
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
Ü
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mileZone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood HazardZone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes.Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D
NO SCREENArea of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 5/30/2024 at 3:15 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
Legend
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERAL
STRUCTURES
OTHER
FEATURES
MAP PANELS
8 B
20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
117°57'26"W 34°0'44"N
117°56'48"W 34°0'15"N
Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023
P-10
Appendix B: Existing Drainage Area Map
P-11
OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE
UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE
UE UE UE UE UE UE UE UE COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM
COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM COMM
COMM COMM COMM UEUE UE UE UE
X
X X X X X X
X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X GAS
OE
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X OE
X OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE X
X
X
X X X X X X X
X
X OE OE X X
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS
COMM
COMM
COMM COMM
UE UE UE UE UE UE UE
SD >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>> Tc >>> >>> Tc Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc
>>> Tc >>>
Tc
CU SOIL TYPE NO. 003
CU SOIL TYPE NO. 017
>>>
Tc
>>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>> Tc >>> Tc HINNEN AVENUE WARD WAY
GALE AVENUE
0.21 AC
X-G
7.53 AC
X-A
0.07 AC
X-B
4.05 AC
X-C2
345
350 342 342
343
344
344
344
346
347
348
349
351
352
353
354
343
343
343 344 344
344
344
345
345
342
342
343
343
344
344
346
347
348
349
349
351
351
351
352
353 354
350
346
347
348
349
351
352
353
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-814
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-059
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-033
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-034 ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 8242-016-036
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-044
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-046
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-061
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-043
UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-029
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-062
0.30 AC
X-C1
EX CONCRETE GUTTER
6 Executive Circle
Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: 949.727.9336
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.:
TITLE:
NO. BY DATE REVISION APP'D.
PERMIT PLAN SET
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
MARICI PROJECT, LLC
16207, 16233, AND 16285 GALE AVENUE
CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91745-1719
604109
DG
SH
SEAL:
DATE:
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER:
2/6/2025
GENERAL NOTES
EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA MAP
D-001
GRAPHIC SCALE
NORTH
N
0 50'
1" = 50'
50'
EX CONCRETE GUTTER
EX GRATE INLET
TYP
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF
EX CURB INLET
EX CURB INLET
DISCHARGE POINT C2
DISCHARGE POINT B
DISCHARGE POINT A
EX GRATE INLET
DISCHARGE POINT G
DISCHARGE POINT C1
1. EXISTING CONTOURS OBTAINED FROM USGS, AND MAY NOT REFLECT ON-THE GROUND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.
2. SITE VISITS, AERIAL IMAGERY, SURVEY DATA ON APN 8242-016-061,
AND PUBLIC INFORMATION WAS USED TO IDENTIFY DISCHARGE POINTS FOR THE SITE.
3. STORMWATER ANALYSIS SHALL BE RE-EVALUATED UPON RECEIVING DETAILED TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
X-A
xx AC
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 500'
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
PROJECT BOUNDARY
SURFACE WATER FLOW
DRAINAGE AREA ID AND ACREAGE
FLOW PATH
LEGEND
GALE AVE
S STIMSON AVE
>>> Tc
340
340
340
340
P-12
Appendix C: Proposed Drainage Area Maps
P-13
OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE GAS
SD HINNEN AVENUE WARD WAY
GALE AVENUE
7.16AC
PR-A
4.71AC
PR-C2
345 350 342 342343 344 344 344346 347 348 349351 352 353 354 343 343
343
344 344
344
344
345
345
342342
343
343
344
344
346 347348
349349
351
351
351
352
353 354 350 346 347 348 349 351 352 353
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-814
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-059
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-046
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-043
UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-029
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-062
345
344
346
347
348
349
350
355
355
347
347
348
348
349 349349
351
352
353
354
342
343 343 344
344
CU SOIL TYPE NO. 003
CU SOIL TYPE NO. 017
>>> Tc >>>
Tc
>>> Tc >>>
Tc
>>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>>
Tc >>> Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>> Tc
0.21 AC
PR-G
0.07 AC
X-B
6 Executive Circle
Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: 949.727.9336
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.:
TITLE:
NO. BY DATE REVISION APP'D.
PERMIT PLAN SET
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
MARICI PROJECT, LLC
16207, 16233, AND 16285 GALE AVENUE
CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91745-1719
604109
DG
SH
SEAL:
DATE:
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER:
2/6/2025
PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA MAP
D-002
EX CONCRETE GUTTER
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF
EX CURB INLET
EX CURB INLET
DISCHARGE POINT B
DISCHARGE POINT A
DISCHARGE POINT G
LONGEST FLOW PATH
(TYP)
DISCHARGE POINT C2
EX GRATE INLET
EXISTING DISCHARGE POINT C1
(NO LONGER A POINT OF INTEREST IN PROPOSED CONDITIONS)
GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50'
1" = 50'
50'
GENERAL NOTES
GRAPHIC SCALE
NORTH N 0 50'
1" = 50'
50'
X-A
xx AC
1. EXISTING CONTOURS OBTAINED FROM USGS, AND MAY NOT REFLECT ON-THE GROUND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.
2. SITE VISITS, AERIAL IMAGERY, SURVEY DATA ON APN 8242-016-061,
AND PUBLIC INFORMATION WAS USED TO IDENTIFY DISCHARGE POINTS FOR THE SITE.
3. STORMWATER ANALYSIS SHALL BE RE-EVALUATED UPON RECEIVING DETAILED TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 500'
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
PROJECT BOUNDARY
SURFACE WATER FLOW
DRAINAGE AREA ID AND ACREAGE
FLOW PATH
LEGEND
GALE AVE
S STIMSON AVE
>>> Tc
340
340
340
340
P-14
OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE GAS
SD CU SOIL TYPE NO. 003
CU SOIL TYPE NO. 017 HINNEN AVENUE WARD WAY
GALE AVENUE
0.21 AC
PR-G
0.93 AC
A16
0.07 AC
PR-B
4.71AC
PR-C2
345 350 342 342343 344 344 344346 347 348 349351 352 353 354 343 343
343
344 344
344
344
345
345
342342
343
343
344
344
346 347348
349349
351
351
351
352
353 354 350 346 347 348 349 351 352 353
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-814
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-059
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-046
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-043
UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-029
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER
8242-016-062
345
344
346
347
348
349
350
355
355
346
347
348
349 349349
351
352
353
354
342
343 343 344
344 ST ST
ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST
ST ST ST ST ST ST ST
ST ST ST ST ST ST SD SD SD
0.40 AC
A15
0.43AC
A7 >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
Tc >>>
1.05AC
A6
>>> Tc
>>> Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
Tc
>>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>> Tc >>> Tc >>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc
>>>
Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc Tc >>>
>>>
Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc >>> Tc
-0.9%
0.31 AC A5
0.49 AC
A2
0.34 AC
A3
0.08 AC
A1
0.03 AC
A4
0.42AC
A9
0.82 AC A10
0.80 AC
A11
0.45 AC A14
0.42 AC
A13
0.11 AC
A12
0.08AC
A8
6 Executive Circle
Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: 949.727.9336
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
APPROVED BY:
PROJECT:
PROJ. NO.:
TITLE:
NO. BY DATE REVISION APP'D.
PERMIT PLAN SET
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
MARICI PROJECT, LLC
16207, 16233, AND 16285 GALE AVENUE
CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91745-1719
604109
DG
SH
SEAL:
DATE:
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER:
2/6/2025
PROPOSED INLET DRAINAGE AREA MAP
D-003
GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50'
1" = 50'
50'
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF
EX CURB INLET
EX CURB INLET
DISCHARGE POINT B
DISCHARGE POINT A
DISCHARGE POINT G
CURB INLET A1
CURB
INLET A2
CURB
INLET A6
CURB INLET A4
CURB
INLET A3
GRATE INLET A5
CURB
INLET A7
CURB
INLET A8
CURB
INLET A9
CURB
INLET A10
GRATE INLET A11
CURB
INLET A14
CURB
INLET A13
CURB
INLET A12
CURB
INLET A15
DISCHARGE POINT C2
EX GRATE INLET
EXISTING DISCHARGE POINT C1
(NO LONGER A POINT OF INTEREST IN PROPOSED CONDITIONS)
GENERAL NOTES
GRAPHIC SCALE
NORTH N 0 50'
1" = 50'
50'
X-A
xx AC
1. EXISTING CONTOURS OBTAINED FROM USGS, AND MAY NOT REFLECT ON-THE GROUND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.
2. SITE VISITS, AERIAL IMAGERY, SURVEY DATA ON APN 8242-016-061,
AND PUBLIC INFORMATION WAS USED TO IDENTIFY DISCHARGE POINTS FOR THE SITE.
3. STORMWATER ANALYSIS SHALL BE RE-EVALUATED UPON RECEIVING DETAILED TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PLANS.
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 500'
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
PROJECT BOUNDARY
SURFACE WATER FLOW
DRAINAGE AREA ID AND ACREAGE
FLOW PATH
LEGEND
EXISTING FEATURES GALE AVE
S STIMSON AVE
>>> Tc
340
340
340
340
P-15
Appendix D: Rainfall and Runoff Data
P-16
P-17
P-18
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2
Location name: Hacienda Heights, California,
USA*
Latitude: 34.0097°, Longitude: -117.9525°
Elevation: 343 ft**
* source: ESRI Maps
** source: USGS
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Sanja Perica, Sarah Dietz, Sarah Heim, Lillian Hiner, Kazungu Maitaria, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Fenglin Yan, Michael Yekta, Tan Zhao, Geoffrey Bonnin, Daniel Brewer, Li-Chuan Chen, Tye Parzybok, John Yarchoan NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches) 1 Duration
Average recurrence interval (years)
1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
5-min 0.143
(0.119‑0.172)
0.182
(0.152‑0.220)
0.234
(0.195‑0.283)
0.277
(0.228‑0.339)
0.336
(0.268‑0.426)
0.383
(0.298‑0.496)
0.431
(0.327‑0.573)
0.481
(0.355‑0.659)
0.550
(0.388‑0.788)
0.605
(0.412‑0.898)
10-min 0.204
(0.171‑0.247)
0.260
(0.217‑0.315)
0.335
(0.279‑0.406)
0.397
(0.327‑0.485)
0.482
(0.384‑0.611)
0.549
(0.427‑0.711)
0.617
(0.469‑0.821)
0.689
(0.508‑0.944)
0.789
(0.557‑1.13)
0.867
(0.590‑1.29)
15-min 0.247
(0.207‑0.299)
0.315
(0.263‑0.381)
0.405
(0.337‑0.491)
0.480
(0.396‑0.587)
0.583
(0.464‑0.739)
0.663
(0.517‑0.860)
0.747
(0.567‑0.993)
0.834
(0.615‑1.14)
0.954
(0.673‑1.36)
1.05 (0.714‑1.56)
30-min 0.338
(0.283‑0.409)
0.431
(0.360‑0.521)
0.554
(0.461‑0.672)
0.656
(0.542‑0.803)
0.797
(0.635‑1.01)
0.908
(0.707‑1.18)
1.02 (0.776‑1.36)
1.14 (0.841‑1.56)
1.30 (0.921‑1.87)
1.44 (0.977‑2.13)
60-min 0.481
(0.402‑0.581)
0.613
(0.512‑0.741)
0.788
(0.656‑0.956)
0.933
(0.771‑1.14)
1.13 (0.904‑1.44)
1.29 (1.01‑1.67)
1.45 (1.10‑1.93)
1.62 (1.20‑2.22)
1.86 (1.31‑2.66)
2.04 (1.39‑3.03)
2-hr 0.699
(0.584‑0.844)
0.888
(0.742‑1.07)
1.14 (0.949‑1.38)
1.35 (1.11‑1.65)
1.63 (1.30‑2.07)
1.85 (1.44‑2.40)
2.08 (1.58‑2.76)
2.31 (1.70‑3.17)
2.64 (1.86‑3.77)
2.89 (1.97‑4.29)
3-hr 0.874
(0.731‑1.06)
1.11 (0.928‑1.34)
1.42 (1.18‑1.73)
1.68 (1.39‑2.05)
2.03 (1.62‑2.57)
2.30 (1.79‑2.98)
2.58 (1.96‑3.43)
2.87 (2.11‑3.93)
3.26 (2.30‑4.67)
3.57 (2.43‑5.30)
6-hr 1.24
(1.04‑1.50)
1.58 (1.32‑1.91)
2.02 (1.68‑2.45)
2.38 (1.97‑2.91)
2.87 (2.29‑3.64)
3.25 (2.54‑4.22)
3.64 (2.76‑4.84)
4.04 (2.98‑5.54)
4.58 (3.24‑6.56)
5.01 (3.41‑7.44)
12-hr 1.64
(1.37‑1.98)
2.10 (1.75‑2.54)
2.70 (2.25‑3.27)
3.19 (2.63‑3.90)
3.85 (3.07‑4.88)
4.36 (3.40‑5.66)
4.88 (3.71‑6.49)
5.41 (3.99‑7.42)
6.14 (4.33‑8.78)
6.70 (4.56‑9.94)
24-hr 2.22
(1.97‑2.56)
2.88 (2.55‑3.33)
3.74 (3.30‑4.33)
4.44 (3.88‑5.18)
5.39 (4.56‑6.50)
6.12 (5.07‑7.53)
6.86 (5.55‑8.65)
7.62 (6.00‑9.88)
8.66 (6.55‑11.7)
9.46 (6.92‑13.2)
2-day 2.71
(2.40‑3.13)
3.57 (3.15‑4.12)
4.69 (4.14‑5.43)
5.62 (4.91‑6.55)
6.88 (5.82‑8.29)
7.85 (6.51‑9.66)
8.85 (7.16‑11.2)
9.88 (7.78‑12.8)
11.3 (8.53‑15.2)
12.4 (9.05‑17.3)
3-day 3.02
(2.67‑3.48)
4.03 (3.56‑4.65)
5.36 (4.73‑6.21)
6.46 (5.65‑7.54)
7.97 (6.74‑9.61)
9.14 (7.58‑11.2)
10.3 (8.37‑13.0)
11.6 (9.12‑15.0)
13.3 (10.0‑17.9)
14.6 (10.7‑20.4)
4-day 3.25
(2.88‑3.75)
4.37 (3.86‑5.05)
5.87 (5.17‑6.79)
7.10 (6.20‑8.28)
8.79 (7.44‑10.6)
10.1 (8.38‑12.4)
11.5 (9.29‑14.5)
12.9 (10.2‑16.7)
14.8 (11.2‑20.0)
16.4 (12.0‑22.8)
7-day 3.71
(3.28‑4.28)
5.01 (4.42‑5.78)
6.75 (5.95‑7.82)
8.21 (7.18‑9.58)
10.3 (8.68‑12.4)
11.9 (9.84‑14.6)
13.6 (11.0‑17.1)
15.3 (12.1‑19.9)
17.8 (13.5‑24.0)
19.8 (14.5‑27.6)
10-day 4.00
(3.54‑4.62)
5.41 (4.78‑6.25)
7.33 (6.46‑8.48)
8.94 (7.82‑10.4)
11.2 (9.50‑13.5)
13.0 (10.8‑16.1)
15.0 (12.1‑18.9)
17.0 (13.4‑22.0)
19.9 (15.0‑26.8)
22.2 (16.2‑30.9)
20-day 4.69
(4.15‑5.41)
6.37 (5.63‑7.36)
8.70 (7.66‑10.1)
10.7 (9.34‑12.5)
13.5 (11.4‑16.3)
15.8 (13.1‑19.5)
18.3 (14.8‑23.0)
20.9 (16.5‑27.1)
24.7 (18.7‑33.3)
27.8 (20.3‑38.7)
30-day 5.52
(4.88‑6.36)
7.51 (6.63‑8.67)
10.3 (9.05‑11.9)
12.6 (11.0‑14.7)
16.0 (13.6‑19.4)
18.8 (15.6‑23.2)
21.8 (17.6‑27.5)
25.0 (19.7‑32.4)
29.6 (22.4‑40.0)
33.4 (24.4‑46.6)
45-day 6.49
(5.74‑7.49)
8.82 (7.79‑10.2)
12.0 (10.6‑13.9)
14.8 (13.0‑17.3)
18.8 (15.9‑22.7)
22.1 (18.3‑27.2)
25.6 (20.7‑32.2)
29.4 (23.1‑38.0)
34.8 (26.3‑47.0)
39.3 (28.7‑54.8)
60-day 7.48
(6.62‑8.62)
10.1 (8.93‑11.7)
13.8 (12.1‑15.9)
16.9 (14.8‑19.7)
21.4 (18.1‑25.8)
25.1 (20.8‑30.8)
29.0 (23.4‑36.5)
33.2 (26.1‑43.0)
39.2 (29.7‑52.9)
44.2 (32.3‑61.7)
1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).
Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.
Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.
Back to Top
PF graphical
P-19
Back to Top
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
P-20
Large scale terrain
Large scale map
Large scale aerial
+
–
3km
2mi
+
–
100km
60mi
+
–
100km
60mi
P-21
Back to Top
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
National Water Center
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Questions?: [email protected]
Disclaimer
+
–
100km
60mi
P-22
Appendix E: Time of Concentration and Runoff Coefficients P-23
Soil Group
Undev
Coeff Dev Coeff
Time of
concentration
Cu Cd Ix = Cd*I Tc = to+tc
ac ft ft % ft % min in/hr min cfs sf ft/s min min
X-A 7.53 1147 0 0.00% 1147 1.13% 91.00% 5 3.79 017 0.92 0.90 3.42 0.00 12.88 0.26 49.55 0.39 0.39 X-B 0.07 124 124 3.81% 0 0.00% 91.00% 5 3.79 017 0.92 0.90 3.42 2.13 0.12 0.26 0.46 0.00 2.13 X-C1 0.30 129 129 1.61% 0 0.00% 91.00% 5 3.79 003 0.53 0.87 3.29 0.00 0.49 0.26 1.90 0.00 0.00 X-C2 4.05 522 91 2.10% 431 0.96% 91.00% 5 3.79 003 0.53 0.87 3.29 1.00 6.66 0.5 13.32 0.54 1.54 X-G 0.21 94 94 1.15% 0 0.00% 91.00% 5 3.79 003 0.53 0.87 3.29 2.63 0.35 0.26 1.33 0.00 2.63 Undev
Coeff Dev Coeff
Time of
concentration
Cu Cd Ix = Cd*I Tc = to+tc
ac ft ft % ft % min in/hr min cfs sf ft/s min min
PR-A 7.16 1090 351 1.32% 739 1.13% 91.00% 6.9 3.26 017 0.90 0.90 2.94 5.81 10.51 0.5 21.02 0.59 6.40 PR-B 0.07 128 128 3.59% 0 0.00% 91.00% 5 3.79 017 0.92 0.90 3.42 2.21 0.12 0.5 0.24 0.00 2.21 PR-C2 4.71 630 630 1.27% 0 0.00% 91.00% 9 2.88 003 0.46 0.86 2.48 8.94 5.83 0.5 11.67 0.00 8.94 PR-G 0.21 28 28 1.82% 0 0 91.00% 5 3.79 003 0.53 0.87 3.29 1.11 0.35 0.5 0.69 0.00 1.11 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (PROPOSED CONDITIONS) 50-YEAR
Name Area
Overall Flow
Length
Overland
Length Overland Slope Gutter Length Gutter Slope
Percent
Impervious (IMP) Estimated Tc Intensity
Overland
Flow Time
(to)
Qavg in
gutter
Cross
sectional
area of
gutter (a)
Velocity
for avg
gutter
flow
v=Qavg/a
Gutter
Flow
Time tc
Area
Qavg in
gutter
TIME OF CONCENTRATION (EXISTING CONDITIONS) 50-YEAR
Gutter
Flow
Time tc
Overland
Length
Overall Flow
Name Length
Overland
Flow Time
(to)
Cross
sectional
area of
gutter (a)
Velocity
for avg
gutter
flow
Estimated Tc Intensity v=Qavg/a
Percent
Overland Slope Gutter Length Gutter Slope Impervious (IMP) P-24
Undev
Coeff Dev Coeff
Time of
concentration
Soils Type Cu Cd Ix = Cd*I Tc = to+tc
ac ft % ft % min in/hr min cfs sf ft/s min min
A1 0.08 0 0.00% 255 1.05% 91.00% 5 4.09 003 0.54 0.87 3.55 0.00 0.14 0.5 0.28 14.96 14.96 A2 0.49 235 1.76% 73 3.99% 91.00% 5 4.09 003 0.54 0.87 3.55 3.89 0.87 0.5 1.74 0.70 4.59 A3 0.34 293 1.43% 25 0.64% 91.00% 5 4.09 003 0.54 0.87 3.55 4.72 0.60 0.5 1.21 0.35 5.07 A4 0.03 0 0.00% 61 0.75% 91.00% 5 4.09 003 0.54 0.87 3.55 0.00 0.05 0.5 0.11 9.54 9.54 A5 0.31 373 1.56% 0 0.00% 91.00% 5 4.09 003 0.54 0.87 3.55 5.32 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.00 5.32 A6 1.05 342 1.37% 105 0.46% 91.00% 6 3.76 003 0.53 0.87 3.26 5.44 1.71 0.5 3.42 0.51 5.95 A7 0.43 327 1.33% 27 0.63% 91.00% 6 3.76 003 0.53 0.87 3.26 5.33 0.70 0.5 1.40 0.32 5.65 A8 0.08 0 0.00% 269 0.72% 91.00% 5 4.09 003 0.54 0.87 3.55 0.00 0.14 0.5 0.28 15.78 15.78 A9 0.42 271 1.52% 0 0.00% 91.00% 5 4.09 003 0.54 0.87 3.55 4.42 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.00 4.42 A10 0.80 331 1.53% 103 1.85% 91.00% 6 3.76 017 0.92 0.90 3.39 5.07 1.36 0.5 2.71 0.63 5.70 A11 0.81 510 1.50% 0 0.00% 91.00% 7 3.49 017 0.91 0.90 3.15 6.82 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.00 6.82 A12 0.12 0 0.00% 371 1.06% 91.00% 5 4.09 017 0.93 0.90 3.69 0.00 0.22 0.5 0.44 13.95 13.95 A13 0.42 400 1.07% 21 1.29% 91.00% 7 3.49 017 0.91 0.90 3.15 6.51 0.66 0.5 1.32 0.26 6.78 A14 0.45 181 1.85% 65 0.97% 91.00% 5 4.09 017 0.93 0.90 3.69 3.22 0.83 0.5 1.66 0.65 3.87 A15 0.40 0 0.00% 545 0.94% 91.00% 7 3.49 017 0.91 0.90 3.15 0.00 0.63 0.5 1.26 7.21 7.21 A16 0.93 285 1.24% 0 0.00% 91.00% 5 4.09 017 0.93 0.90 3.69 4.78 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.00 4.78 PR-B 0.07 128 3.59% 0 0.00% 91.00% 5 4.09 017 0.93 0.90 3.69 2.15 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.00 2.15 PR-C2 4.71 630 1.27% 0 0.00% 91.00% 9 3.10 003 0.46 0.86 2.67 8.67 6.29 0.5 12.58 0.00 8.67 PR-G 0.21 28 1.82% 0 0 91.00% 5 4.09 003 0.54 0.87 3.55 1.07 0.00 0.5 0.00 0.00 1.07 Gutter
Flow
Time tc
TIME OF CONCENTRATION (PROPOSED CONDITIONS) 100-YEAR
Name Area Overland Length Overland Slope Gutter Length Gutter Slope Percent
Impervious (IMP) Estimated Tc Intensity
Overland
Flow Time
(to)
Qavg in
gutter
Cross
sectional
area of
gutter (a)
Velocity
for avg
gutter
flow
v=Qavg/a
P-25
P-26
P-27
Appendix F: Inlet Sizing
P-28
Name Area Tc Intensity C Q 100yr Inlet Q100yr Inlet Type Inlet Length or Size Spread (T) Depth Inlet Capacity Bypass Flow Carry Over Total
ac min in/hr cfs cfs cfs ft ft in cfs
A1 0.08 5.00 4.09 0.87 0.28 0.00 0.28 Curb on Grade 6 1.70 1.7 1.39 0.00 A2 0.49 5.00 4.09 0.87 1.74 0.00 1.74 Curb on Grade 8 6.70 3.1 2.20 0.00 A3 0.34 5.00 4.09 0.87 1.21 0.00 1.21 Curb on Grade 6 6.30 3.0 1.69 0.00 A4 0.03 5.00 4.09 0.87 0.11 0.00 0.11 Curb on Grade 6 1.30 1.3 1.69 0.00 A5 0.31 5.00 4.09 0.87 1.10 0.77 1.87 Grate inlet in sag 3'x3' 3.60 0.3 1.87 0.00 A6 1.05 6.00 3.76 0.87 3.42 0.00 3.42 Curb on Grade 8 10.70 4.1 2.65 0.77 A7 0.43 6.00 3.76 0.87 1.40 0.00 1.40 Curb on Grade 6 6.90 3.2 1.69 0.00 A8 0.08 5.00 4.09 0.87 0.28 0.00 0.28 Curb on Grade 6 2.00 2.0 1.69 0.00 A9 0.42 5.00 4.09 0.87 1.49 0.00 1.49 Curb on Grade 8 5.50 2.8 1.90 0.00 A10 0.8 6.00 3.76 0.90 2.71 0.00 2.71 Curb on Grade 10 7.60 3.3 2.80 0.00 A11 0.81 7.00 3.49 0.90 2.55 0.27 2.82 Grate inlet in sag 4'x4' 7.00 0.5 2.82 0.00 A12 0.12 5.00 4.09 0.90 0.44 0.00 0.44 Curb on Grade 6 2.00 2.0 1.39 0.00 A13 0.42 7.00 3.49 0.90 1.32 0.00 1.32 Curb on Grade 6 5.70 2.9 1.39 0.00 A14 0.45 5.00 4.09 0.90 1.66 0.00 1.66 Curb on Grade 6 6.50 3.1 1.39 0.27 A15 0.4 7.00 3.49 0.90 1.26 0.00 1.26 Curb on Grade 6 5.50 2.8 1.39 0.00 INLET SIZING (100-YR)
P-29
Curb Inlet On Grade - 6ft on 1.1%_Capacity
Project Description
Curb Opening
Length Solve For
Input Data
Discharge cfs1.39
Slope ft/ft0.011
Gutter Width ft2.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.083
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.020
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Efficiency %100.00
Local Depression in4.0
Local Depression Width in6.0
Results
Curb Opening Length ft6.0
Intercepted Flow cfs1.39
Bypass Flow cfs0.00
Spread ft5.8
Depth in2.9
Flow Area ft²0.5
Gutter Depression in1.5
Total Depression in5.5
Velocity ft/s2.98
Equivalent Cross Slope ft/ft0.211
Length Factor 1.000
Total Interception Length ft6.0
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/24/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-30
Curb Inlet On Grade - 8ft on 0.6%_Capacity
Project Description
Solve For Efficiency
Input Data
Discharge cfs3.42
Slope ft/ft0.006
Gutter Width ft2.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.083
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.020
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Curb Opening Length ft8.0
Local Depression in4.0
Local Depression Width in6.0
Results
Efficiency %96.84
Intercepted Flow cfs3.31
Bypass Flow cfs0.11
Spread ft10.7
Depth in4.1
Flow Area ft²1.3
Gutter Depression in1.5
Total Depression in5.5
Velocity ft/s2.71
Equivalent Cross Slope ft/ft0.145
Length Factor 0.853
Total Interception Length ft9.3
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/24/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-31
Curb Inlet On Grade - 8ft on 1.1%_Capacity
Project Description
Curb Opening
Length Solve For
Input Data
Discharge cfs2.20
Slope ft/ft0.011
Gutter Width ft2.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.083
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.020
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Efficiency %100.00
Local Depression in4.0
Local Depression Width in6.0
Results
Curb Opening Length ft8.0
Intercepted Flow cfs2.20
Bypass Flow cfs0.00
Spread ft7.6
Depth in3.3
Flow Area ft²0.7
Gutter Depression in1.5
Total Depression in5.5
Velocity ft/s3.16
Equivalent Cross Slope ft/ft0.184
Length Factor 1.000
Total Interception Length ft8.0
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/24/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-32
Curb Inlet On Grade - 10ft @ 1.6% Capacity
Project Description
Curb Opening
Length Solve For
Input Data
Discharge cfs2.80
Slope ft/ft0.016
Gutter Width ft2.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.083
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.020
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Efficiency %100.00
Local Depression in4.0
Local Depression Width in6.0
Results
Curb Opening Length ft10.0
Intercepted Flow cfs2.80
Bypass Flow cfs0.00
Spread ft7.7
Depth in3.4
Flow Area ft²0.7
Gutter Depression in1.5
Total Depression in5.5
Velocity ft/s3.92
Equivalent Cross Slope ft/ft0.183
Length Factor 1.000
Total Interception Length ft10.0
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/23/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-33
Curb Inlet On Grade - 10ft on 1.6%_Capacity
Project Description
Curb Opening
Length Solve For
Input Data
Discharge cfs2.80
Slope ft/ft0.016
Gutter Width ft2.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.083
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.020
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Efficiency %100.00
Local Depression in4.0
Local Depression Width in6.0
Results
Curb Opening Length ft10.0
Intercepted Flow cfs2.80
Bypass Flow cfs0.00
Spread ft7.7
Depth in3.4
Flow Area ft²0.7
Gutter Depression in1.5
Total Depression in5.5
Velocity ft/s3.92
Equivalent Cross Slope ft/ft0.183
Length Factor 1.000
Total Interception Length ft10.0
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/24/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-34
Curb Inlet On Grade - A1
Project Description
Solve For Efficiency
Input Data
Discharge cfs0.28
Slope ft/ft0.011
Gutter Width ft2.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.083
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.020
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Curb Opening Length ft6.0
Local Depression in4.0
Local Depression Width in6.0
Results
Efficiency %100.00
Intercepted Flow cfs0.28
Bypass Flow cfs0.00
Spread ft1.7
Depth in1.7
Flow Area ft²0.1
Gutter Depression in1.5
Total Depression in5.5
Velocity ft/s2.41
Equivalent Cross Slope ft/ft0.250
Length Factor 2.134
Total Interception Length ft2.8
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/23/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-35
Curb Inlet On Grade - A2
Project Description
Solve For Efficiency
Input Data
Discharge cfs1.74
Slope ft/ft0.011
Gutter Width ft2.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.083
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.020
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Curb Opening Length ft8.0
Local Depression in4.0
Local Depression Width in6.0
Results
Efficiency %100.00
Intercepted Flow cfs1.74
Bypass Flow cfs0.00
Spread ft6.7
Depth in3.1
Flow Area ft²0.6
Gutter Depression in1.5
Total Depression in5.5
Velocity ft/s3.06
Equivalent Cross Slope ft/ft0.198
Length Factor 1.159
Total Interception Length ft6.9
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/23/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-36
Curb Inlet On Grade - A3
Project Description
Solve For Efficiency
Input Data
Discharge cfs1.21
Slope ft/ft0.006
Gutter Width ft2.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.083
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.020
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Curb Opening Length ft6.0
Local Depression in4.0
Local Depression Width in6.0
Results
Efficiency %100.00
Intercepted Flow cfs1.21
Bypass Flow cfs0.00
Spread ft6.3
Depth in3.0
Flow Area ft²0.5
Gutter Depression in1.5
Total Depression in5.5
Velocity ft/s2.29
Equivalent Cross Slope ft/ft0.203
Length Factor 1.222
Total Interception Length ft4.9
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/23/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-37
Curb Inlet On Grade - A4
Project Description
Solve For Efficiency
Input Data
Discharge cfs0.10
Slope ft/ft0.006
Gutter Width ft2.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.083
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.020
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Curb Opening Length ft6.0
Local Depression in4.0
Local Depression Width in6.0
Results
Efficiency %100.00
Intercepted Flow cfs0.10
Bypass Flow cfs0.00
Spread ft1.3
Depth in1.3
Flow Area ft²0.1
Gutter Depression in1.5
Total Depression in5.5
Velocity ft/s1.48
Equivalent Cross Slope ft/ft0.250
Length Factor 3.944
Total Interception Length ft1.5
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/23/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-38
Grate Inlet In Sag - A5
Project Description
Solve For Spread
Input Data
Discharge cfs1.87
Gutter Width ft0.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.006
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.006
Grate Width ft3.00
Grate Length ft3.0
Local Depression in5.0
Local Depression Width in5.0
P-50 mm (P-1
-7/8") Grate Type
Clogging %0.0
Results
Spread ft3.6
Depth in0.3
Gutter Depression in0.0
Total Depression in5.0
Open Grate Area ft²8.1
Active Grate Weir Length ft9.0
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/23/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-39
Curb Inlet On Grade - A6
Project Description
Solve For Efficiency
Input Data
Discharge cfs3.42
Slope ft/ft0.006
Gutter Width ft2.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.083
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.020
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Curb Opening Length ft8.0
Local Depression in4.0
Local Depression Width in6.0
Results
Efficiency %96.84
Intercepted Flow cfs3.31
Bypass Flow cfs0.11
Spread ft10.7
Depth in4.1
Flow Area ft²1.3
Gutter Depression in1.5
Total Depression in5.5
Velocity ft/s2.71
Equivalent Cross Slope ft/ft0.145
Length Factor 0.853
Total Interception Length ft9.3
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/23/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-40
Curb Inlet On Grade - A7
Project Description
Solve For Efficiency
Input Data
Discharge cfs1.40
Slope ft/ft0.006
Gutter Width ft2.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.083
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.020
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Curb Opening Length ft6.0
Local Depression in4.0
Local Depression Width in6.0
Results
Efficiency %100.00
Intercepted Flow cfs1.40
Bypass Flow cfs0.00
Spread ft6.9
Depth in3.2
Flow Area ft²0.6
Gutter Depression in1.5
Total Depression in5.5
Velocity ft/s2.33
Equivalent Cross Slope ft/ft0.194
Length Factor 1.114
Total Interception Length ft5.4
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/23/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-41
Curb Inlet On Grade - A8
Project Description
Solve For Efficiency
Input Data
Discharge cfs0.32
Slope ft/ft0.006
Gutter Width ft2.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.083
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.020
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Curb Opening Length ft6.0
Local Depression in4.0
Local Depression Width in6.0
Results
Efficiency %100.00
Intercepted Flow cfs0.32
Bypass Flow cfs0.00
Spread ft2.0
Depth in2.0
Flow Area ft²0.2
Gutter Depression in1.5
Total Depression in5.5
Velocity ft/s1.98
Equivalent Cross Slope ft/ft0.250
Length Factor 2.405
Total Interception Length ft2.5
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/23/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-42
Curb Inlet On Grade - A9
Project Description
Solve For Efficiency
Input Data
Discharge cfs1.56
Slope ft/ft0.016
Gutter Width ft2.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.083
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.020
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Curb Opening Length ft8.0
Local Depression in4.0
Local Depression Width in6.0
Results
Efficiency %100.00
Intercepted Flow cfs1.56
Bypass Flow cfs0.00
Spread ft5.5
Depth in2.8
Flow Area ft²0.4
Gutter Depression in1.5
Total Depression in5.5
Velocity ft/s3.64
Equivalent Cross Slope ft/ft0.216
Length Factor 1.128
Total Interception Length ft7.1
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/23/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-43
Curb Inlet On Grade - A10
Project Description
Solve For Efficiency
Input Data
Discharge cfs2.78
Slope ft/ft0.016
Gutter Width ft2.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.083
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.020
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Curb Opening Length ft10.0
Local Depression in4.0
Local Depression Width in6.0
Results
Efficiency %100.00
Intercepted Flow cfs2.78
Bypass Flow cfs0.00
Spread ft7.6
Depth in3.3
Flow Area ft²0.7
Gutter Depression in1.5
Total Depression in5.5
Velocity ft/s3.92
Equivalent Cross Slope ft/ft0.183
Length Factor 1.000
Total Interception Length ft10.0
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/23/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-44
Grate Inlet In Sag - A11
Project Description
Solve For Spread
Input Data
Discharge cfs2.82
Gutter Width ft0.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.006
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.006
Grate Width ft4.00
Grate Length ft4.0
Local Depression in5.0
Local Depression Width in5.0
P-50 mm (P-1
-7/8") Grate Type
Clogging %0.0
Results
Spread ft7.0
Depth in0.5
Gutter Depression in0.0
Total Depression in5.0
Open Grate Area ft²14.4
Active Grate Weir Length ft12.0
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/23/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-45
Curb Inlet On Grade - A12
Project Description
Curb Opening
Length Solve For
Input Data
Discharge cfs0.44
Slope ft/ft0.011
Gutter Width ft2.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.083
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.020
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Efficiency %100.00
Local Depression in4.0
Local Depression Width in6.0
Results
Curb Opening Length ft3.4
Intercepted Flow cfs0.44
Bypass Flow cfs0.00
Spread ft2.0
Depth in2.0
Flow Area ft²0.2
Gutter Depression in1.5
Total Depression in5.5
Velocity ft/s2.65
Equivalent Cross Slope ft/ft0.250
Length Factor 1.000
Total Interception Length ft3.4
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/24/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-46
Curb Inlet On Grade - A13
Project Description
Curb Opening
Length Solve For
Input Data
Discharge cfs1.32
Slope ft/ft0.011
Gutter Width ft2.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.083
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.020
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Efficiency %100.00
Local Depression in4.0
Local Depression Width in6.0
Results
Curb Opening Length ft5.9
Intercepted Flow cfs1.32
Bypass Flow cfs0.00
Spread ft5.7
Depth in2.9
Flow Area ft²0.4
Gutter Depression in1.5
Total Depression in5.5
Velocity ft/s2.96
Equivalent Cross Slope ft/ft0.214
Length Factor 1.000
Total Interception Length ft5.9
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/24/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-47
Curb Inlet On Grade - A14
Project Description
Curb Opening
Length Solve For
Input Data
Discharge cfs1.66
Slope ft/ft0.011
Gutter Width ft2.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.083
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.020
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Efficiency %100.00
Local Depression in4.0
Local Depression Width in6.0
Results
Curb Opening Length ft6.7
Intercepted Flow cfs1.66
Bypass Flow cfs0.00
Spread ft6.5
Depth in3.1
Flow Area ft²0.5
Gutter Depression in1.5
Total Depression in5.5
Velocity ft/s3.04
Equivalent Cross Slope ft/ft0.201
Length Factor 1.000
Total Interception Length ft6.7
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/24/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-48
Curb Inlet On Grade - A15
Project Description
Solve For Efficiency
Input Data
Discharge cfs1.26
Slope ft/ft0.011
Gutter Width ft2.00
Gutter Cross Slope ft/ft0.083
Road Cross Slope ft/ft0.020
Roughness Coefficient 0.013
Curb Opening Length ft5.7
Local Depression in4.0
Local Depression Width in6.0
Results
Efficiency %100.00
Intercepted Flow cfs1.26
Bypass Flow cfs0.00
Spread ft5.5
Depth in2.8
Flow Area ft²0.4
Gutter Depression in1.5
Total Depression in5.5
Velocity ft/s2.95
Equivalent Cross Slope ft/ft0.217
Length Factor 1.000
Total Interception Length ft5.7
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
10/24/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
Inlet Size Calcs.fm8 Center
P-49
Appendix G: Storm Drain Calculations
P-50
Distance Incremental Accum- Storm Inlet Inlet Slope of Design Top of Partial Number of Width of Manning's Slope of Incoming Outgoing Velocity Velocity Drainage Between "CA" ulated Intensity Water Carryover Carryover Pipe Discharge Pipe Flow Boxes or Box (ft.) Roughness Hydraulic Velocity Velocity Head at Head at Structure Collection "CA" Inlet Time Flow Time Total "I" Runoff To From (Capacity) Downstream Pipes or Coefficient Gradient "Vin" "Vout" Upstream Downstream DOWNSTREAM UPSTREAM Points Area Drainage Total Runoff in Sewer "Q100" Inlet Inlet "Qpipe" Pipe "n" "Sf" Upstream Downstream Station Station STATION STATION No. Area Areas Coeff. Diameter Vin
2 /2g Vout
2 /2g
"A" (Acres) (Acres) "C" (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) (in./hr.) (c.f.s.) (c.f.s.) (c.f.s.) (ft./ft.) (c.f.s.) (Elev) (Full/Partial) (inches) (ft./ft.) (ft) (ft) (f.p.s.) (f.p.s.) (ft) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22a 22b 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 STORM LINE A1
6+52.81 6+77.73 INLET 24.92 A2 0.49 0.49 0.90 0.44 0.44 5.00 0.72 5.72 4.09 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.71% 20.65 344.43 PARTIAL 1 24 0.012 0.00005 342.81 342.81 0.57 0.57 0.01 0.01 6+06.12 6+52.81 INLET 46.69 A3 0.34 0.34 0.90 0.31 0.75 5.72 0.85 6.57 3.84 2.87 0.00 0.00 0.71% 20.65 344.10 PARTIAL 1 24 0.012 0.00014 342.80 342.79 0.91 0.91 0.01 0.01 5+33.68 6+06.12 GRATE INLET 72.44 A5, STRM LINE A2, A3 2.36 2.36 0.90 2.12 2.87 6.57 0.37 6.94 3.60 10.33 0.00 0.00 0.71% 20.65 343.58 PARTIAL 1 24 0.012 0.00178 342.64 342.51 3.29 3.29 0.17 0.17 3+30.00 5+33.68 INLET 203.68 A8 0.08 0.08 0.90 0.07 2.94 6.94 1.03 7.98 3.51 10.32 0.00 0.00 0.71% 20.65 342.13 FULL 1 24 0.012 0.00177 342.51 342.15 3.29 3.29 0.17 0.17 1+89.21 3+30.00 INLET 140.79 A9 0.42 0.50 0.90 0.38 3.32 7.98 0.68 8.65 3.29 10.91 0.00 0.00 0.71% 20.65 341.14 FULL 1 24 0.012 0.00198 342.13 341.85 3.29 3.47 0.17 0.19 1+58.31 1+89.21 INLET 30.90 A10 0.80 1.30 0.90 0.72 4.04 8.65 0.13 8.78 3.16 12.78 0.00 0.00 0.60% 18.98 340.95 FULL 1 24 0.012 0.00272 341.78 341.70 3.47 4.07 0.19 0.26 0+00.00 1+58.31 GRATE INLET 158.31 A11, STM LINE A4, A16 3.13 4.43 0.90 2.82 6.86 8.78 0.38 9.16 3.14 21.55 0.00 0.00 0.60% 18.98 340.00 FULL 1 24 0.012 0.00773 341.22 340.00 4.07 6.86 0.26 0.73 .
STORM LINE A2
0+32.53 0+60.97 INLET 28.44 A1 0.08 0.08 0.90 0.07 0.07 5.00 2.84 7.84 4.09 0.29 0.00 0.00 4.75% 24.80 345.44 PARTIAL 1 18 0.012 0.00001 344.11 344.11 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.00 0+00.00 0+32.53 INLET 32.53 A2 0.49 0.57 0.90 0.44 0.51 7.84 0.56 8.41 3.31 1.70 0.00 0.00 4.75% 24.80 344.09 FULL 1 18 0.012 0.00022 344.10 344.09 0.17 0.96 0.00 0.01 STORM LINE A3
0+37.69 1+98.41 INLET 160.72 A7 0.43 0.43 0.90 0.39 0.39 6.00 3.26 9.26 3.76 1.45 0.00 0.00 1.73% 14.97 346.87 PARTIAL 1 18 0.012 0.00016 344.24 344.21 0.82 0.82 0.01 0.01 0+00.00 0+37.69 INLET 37.69 A6 1.05 1.48 0.90 0.95 1.33 9.26 0.27 9.53 3.06 4.08 0.00 0.00 1.73% 14.97 344.09 FULL 1 18 0.012 0.00129 344.14 344.09 0.82 2.31 0.01 0.08 STORM LINE A4
2+23.67 3+58.41 INLET 134.74 A12 0.12 0.12 0.90 0.11 0.11 5.00 8.98 13.98 4.09 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.50% 8.05 342.51 PARTIAL 1 18 0.012 0.00002 341.36 341.35 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 2+11.07 2+23.67 INLET 12.60 A13 0.42 0.54 0.90 0.38 0.49 13.98 0.30 14.28 2.52 1.23 0.00 0.00 0.50% 8.05 341.83 PARTIAL 1 18 0.012 0.00012 341.35 341.35 0.69 0.69 0.01 0.01 0+44.82 2+11.07 INLET 166.25 A15 0.40 0.94 0.90 0.36 0.85 14.28 2.32 16.60 2.50 2.11 0.00 0.00 0.50% 8.05 341.77 PARTIAL 1 18 0.012 0.00035 341.33 341.27 1.20 1.20 0.02 0.02 0+00.00 0+44.82 INLET 44.82 A14 0.45 1.39 0.90 0.41 1.25 16.60 0.45 17.05 2.33 2.91 0.00 0.00 0.50% 8.05 340.94 FULL 1 18 0.012 0.00066 341.25 341.22 1.65 1.65 0.04 0.04 (Inlet or Manhole) AREA
STORM DRAIN CALCULATIONS (100-YEAR)
RUNOFF INCREMENTAL TIME OF CONCENTRATION HGL
COLLECTION POINT DRAINAGE
P-51
Appendix H: 85th Percentile, 24 hour Rainfall Isohyetal Map P-52
Name Area Tc Intensity C Q 50yr Comments
ac min in/hr. cfs
PR-A 7.16 21.00 0.33 0.83 1.98 Flow to be treated with stormwater device PR-B 0.07 5.00 0.66 0.87 0.04 Flow to be treated with vegetation PR-C2 4.71 22.00 0.33 0.83 1.28 Flow to be treated with vegetation PR-G 0.21 5.00 0.66 0.83 0.11 Flow to be treated with vegetation SWQ (85th PERCENTILE) PEAK FLOW RATE
P-53
Ditch 1
Project Description
Manning
Formula Friction Method
Solve For Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.035
Channel Slope ft/ft0.006
Left Side Slope H:V3.000
Right Side Slope H:V3.000
Discharge cfs3.44
Results
Normal Depth in9.7
Flow Area ft²2.0
Wetted Perimeter ft5.1
Hydraulic Radius in4.6
Top Width ft4.87
Critical Depth in7.3
Critical Slope ft/ft0.029
Velocity ft/s1.74
Velocity Head ft0.05
Specific Energy ft0.86
Froude Number 0.482
Flow Type Subcritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth in0.0
Length ft0.0
Number Of Steps 0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth in0.0
Profile Description N/A
Profile Headloss ft0.00
Downstream Velocity ft/s0.00
Upstream Velocity ft/s0.00
Normal Depth in9.7
Critical Depth in7.3
Channel Slope ft/ft0.006
Critical Slope ft/ft0.029
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
11/20/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
swale designs.fm8 Center
P-54
Ditch 2
Project Description
Manning
Formula Friction Method
Solve For Normal Depth
Input Data
Roughness Coefficient 0.035
Channel Slope ft/ft0.010
Left Side Slope H:V3.000
Right Side Slope H:V3.000
Discharge cfs1.26
Results
Normal Depth in6.1
Flow Area ft²0.8
Wetted Perimeter ft3.2
Hydraulic Radius in2.9
Top Width ft3.04
Critical Depth in4.9
Critical Slope ft/ft0.033
Velocity ft/s1.64
Velocity Head ft0.04
Specific Energy ft0.55
Froude Number 0.574
Flow Type Subcritical
GVF Input Data
Downstream Depth in0.0
Length ft0.0
Number Of Steps 0
GVF Output Data
Upstream Depth in0.0
Profile Description N/A
Profile Headloss ft0.00
Downstream Velocity ft/s0.00
Upstream Velocity ft/s0.00
Normal Depth in6.1
Critical Depth in4.9
Channel Slope ft/ft0.010
Critical Slope ft/ft0.033
27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Page 1 of 1
Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666
11/20/2024
FlowMaster
[10.03.00.03]
Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution
swale designs.fm8 Center
P-55
!
"
#
project site.
P-56
MARICI BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FACILITY INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF INDUSTRY
APPENDIX
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
MARICI BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FACILITY INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF INDUSTRY
APPENDIX
DECEMBER 2025
APPENDIX Q
SOUND IMPACT ASSESSMENT
MARICI BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FACILITY INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF INDUSTRY
APPENDIX
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
i
Marici Project, LLC
Sound Impact Assessment
Updated September 2025
Prepared For:
Geoff Forner
Senior Manager of Development, CAISO
Marici Project, LLC
Prepared By:
TRC
6 Executive Circle, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
Q-1
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1
2.0 CONCEPTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SOUND.................................................................1
3.0 APPLICABLE NOISE STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS...........................................2
4.0 NOISE SENSITIVE AREAS............................................................................................3
5.0 LONG-TERM AMBIENT SOUND SURVEY ....................................................................4
6.0 CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODELING ...........................................................................4
7.0 PREDICTIVE MODELING OF SOUND IMPACTS DURING OPERATION .....................7
7.1 Noise Model ........................................................................................................................7
7.1.1 Modeling Inputs...................................................................................................... 8
7.1.2 Sound Model Results............................................................................................. 9
8.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................9
9.0 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................11 TABLES
Table 2.1 Examples of Common Sound Pressure Levels...............................................................................1 Table 4.1 Closest Noise Sensitive Residences...............................................................................................3 Table 5.1 Ambient Sound Survey Summary..................................................................................................4 Table 6.1 Construction Equipment and Phases............................................................................................5 Table 6.2 Sound Level Increases During Construction..................................................................................6 Table 6.3 Construction Sound Levels............................................................................................................6 Table 7.1 Noise Source Inputs to the Cadna-A Model..................................................................................8 Table 7.2 Modeled Sound Level Results.......................................................................................................9
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Layout.....................................................................................................................................12 Figure 2 Noise Modeling Results.................................................................................................................13 Q-2
1 1.0 Introduction
TRC Solutions, Inc. (TRC) is pleased to provide this noise report to support Marici Project, LLC in obtaining needed discretionary permits for the Marici Project in the City of Industry, California.
The project is a proposed battery energy storage system (BESS) to be developed on 5 parcels comprising approximately 9.2 acres (the Site). The Site is currently developed with commercial buildings, parking, and associated landscaping. The proposed facility also includes a 220 kV tieline across the eastern boundary of the Site into the adjacent Walnut Substation.
2.0 Concepts of Environmental Sound
Sounds are generated by a variety of sources (e.g., a musical instrument, a voice speaking, or an airplane that passes overhead). Energy is required to produce sound and this sound energy is transmitted through the air in the form of sound waves – tiny, quick oscillations of pressure just above and just below atmospheric pressure. These oscillations, or sound pressures, impinge on the ear, creating the sound we hear. The range of sound pressures that can be detected by a person with normal hearing is very wide, ranging from about 20 micro-pascals (µPa) for very faint sounds at the threshold of hearing to nearly 10 million µPa for extremely loud sounds, such as a jet during take-off at a distance of 300 feet. Because the range of human hearing is so wide, sound levels are reported using “sound pressure levels”, which are expressed in terms of decibels. The sound pressure level in decibels is the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure of the source to the reference sound pressure of 20 µPa, multiplied by 20.
Table 2.1 provides some examples of common sources of sound and their sound pressure levels.
All sound levels in this assessment are provided in A-weighted decibels, abbreviated “dB(A)” or “dBA.” The A-weighted sound level reflects how the human ear responds to sound, by deemphasizing sounds that occur in frequencies at which the human ear is least sensitive to sound (at frequencies below about 100 hertz and above 10,000 hertz) and emphasizing sounds that occur in frequencies at which the human ear is most sensitive to sound (in the mid-frequency range from about 200 to 8,000 hertz). In the context of environmental sound, noise is defined as “unwanted sound.”
Table 2.1 Examples of Common Sound Pressure Levels
Sound Level dB(A) Common Indoor Sounds Common Outdoor Sounds 110 Rock Band Jet Takeoff at 1000 feet
100 Inside NYC Subway Train Chain Saw at 3 feet
90 Food Blender at 3 feet Impact Hammer (Hoe Ram) at 50 feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Diesel Truck at 50 feet
70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Lawn Mower at 100 feet
60 Normal Speech at 3 feet Auto (40 mph) at 100 feet
50 Dishwasher in Next Room Busy Suburban Area at night
40 Empty Conference Room Quiet Suburban Area at night
25 Empty Concert Hall Rural Area at night
Sound pressure levels are typically presented in community noise assessments utilizing the noise metrics described below and expressed in terms of A-weighted decibels.
Q-3
2 • “L10” is the sound level that is exceeded for 10 percent of the time. This metric is a measure of the intrusiveness of relatively short-duration noise events that occurred during the measurement period.
• “L50” is the sound level that is exceeded for 50 percent of the measurement period. • “L90” is the sound level that is exceeded for 90 percent of the time and is a measure of the background or residual sound levels in the absence of recurring noise events. • “Leq” is the constant sound level which would contain the same acoustic energy as the varying sound levels during the time period and is representative of the average noise exposure level for that time period.
• “LMAX” is the instantaneous maximum sound level for the time period.
It is often necessary to combine the sound pressure levels from one or more sources. Because decibels are logarithmic quantities, it is not possible to simply add the values of the sound pressure levels together. For example, if two sound sources each produce 70 dB and they are operated together, their combined impact is 73 dB – not 140 dB as might be expected. Four equal 70 dB sources operating simultaneously result in a total sound pressure level of 76 dB. In fact, for every doubling of the number of equal sources, the sound pressure level goes up another three decibels. A tenfold increase in the number of sources makes the sound pressure level increase by 10 dB, while a hundredfold increase makes the level increase by 20 dB. The logarithmic combination of n different sound levels is calculated by the following equation:
Ltotal=10*log10 (10
L1
10 + 10
L2
10 +…+10
Ln
10)
Perceived changes in sound level can be slightly more subjective; the average person will not notice a change of 1-2 dB, a 3 dB increase is just barely perceptible, while a 5 dB change is clearly noticeable.
3.0 Applicable Noise Standards and Regulations
There are no regulations for the City of Industry or the state of California that set quantitative standards for noise levels that would be applicable to the Project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Appendix G, requires environmental impact assessments to determine whether projects would result in:
• Increase in ambient noise levels in excess of local applicable standards; • Excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels; or • Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (for a project within 2 miles of an airport).
The City of Industry falls within Los Angeles County, which has an ordinance regarding noise levels at new developments. Ordinance 12.08, Noise Control, includes designated noise zones based on sensitivity of the receiving property. The most sensitive applicable noise zone that could be affected by the Project is Noise Zone II, residential properties, which has an exterior noise level limit of 45 dB at night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) and 50 dB during the day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.). If the Q-4
3 measured ambient L50 sound level exceeds this level, then the measured ambient L50 sound level becomes the noise level standard. More lenient (higher) noise level standards are provided in 12.08.390 Section B for shorter cumulative durations within a given hour. Since sound levels from the Project are assumed to be continuous, these would not apply to the Project.
Ordinance 12.08.440, Construction Noise, sets limitations for mobile construction equipment at single-family residential structures of 75 dBA between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m., and 60 dBA between 8 p.m. and 7 a.m. The daytime and nighttime limits at semi-residential/commercial receiving properties are 85 dBA and 70 dBA, respectively.
Based on desktop review of the proposed BESS site and surrounding area, the nearest areas that could be considered areas of sensitive land use are the residential areas immediately south of the Site along Gale Avenue and Folger Street (see Section 4.0, Noise Sensitive Areas). The land uses to the north, east, and west are predominantly industrial and commercial and are not considered areas of sensitive land use.
Ordinance 12.08.560, Vibration, prohibits operating or permitting the operation of any device that creates vibration above the vibration perception threshold (0.01 in/sec) beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property, or at 150 feet (46 meters) from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way.
4.0 Noise Sensitive Areas
The facility is being proposed on an industrial property with the only noise sensitive areas (NSAs) being the single-family residential properties on the south side of Gale Avenue to the south of the Site in Hacienda Heights. Table 4.1 lists the closest NSAs and their approximate distance and direction from the proposed facility.
Table 4.1 Closest Noise Sensitive Residences
NSA Description
Approximate Distance
from the Facility to
NSA, feet
Direction to NSA
1 Residence 600 W
2 Residence 340 W
3 Residence 180 SW
4 Residence 200 SW
5 Residence 260 SW
6 Residence 150 SW
7 Residence 130 S
8 Residence 140 S
9 Residence 130 S
10 Residence 140 S
11 Residence 140 S
12 Residence 150 SE
Q-5
4 13 Residence 190 SE
14 Residence 240 SE
15 Residence 290 SE
5.0 Long-Term Ambient Sound Survey
A long-term pre-construction ambient sound survey was conducted at the Project site from August 20th to August 25th, 2025, to characterize the existing sound environment (i.e., background) in the Project area. The methodology and results of the survey are further described below.
Continuous sound level measurements were taken near the property line within the proposed site at location LT-1 (see Figure 1). The measurements were taken using a Larson Davis SoundExpert® LxT sound level meter that meets the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards for Type I instruments. The sound level meter was calibrated before and after each monitoring period using a CAL200 acoustic calibrator. The microphone was positioned according to the ANSI Standard on a tripod 1.5 meters above ground,
7.5 meters from large reflecting surfaces, and at least 1.5 meters from tall trees.
The results of the baseline measurements collected at the Project site are summarized in Table
5.1 below. The overall background level, typically represented by the L90 metric, was 48.6 dBA.
Table 5.1 Ambient Sound Survey Summary
Sound Metric Sound Level (dBA)
LAeq 68.0
LCeq 74.1
LASMAX 103.8
LASMIN 39.0
LA5 73.2
LA10 72.0
LA50 64.9
LA90 48.6
6.0 Construction Noise Modeling
Short-term, localized increases in sound levels are likely to occur during construction. Standard construction equipment will be used in the construction of the facility. To be conservative in the construction noise calculations, all Project construction equipment was included in the noise model as operating at the same time. The highest sound levels during construction are expected during the early earthmoving phase. Based on the Project equipment usage predictions, a sound level calculation was performed using the Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model version 1.1 (FHWA, 2006).
Table 6.1 lists the equipment that will be used during each phase of construction based on preliminary design and schedules.
Q-6
5 Table 6.1 Construction Equipment and Phases
Construction Phase Schedule Equipment Horsepower Number Hours/Day Demolition Phase 1 Month 1
Aerial Lift 25 2 6
Generator Set 60 1 6
Water Truck 180 1 2
Skid Steer Loader 70 1 4
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 100 1 6
Demolition Phase 2 Month 2
Crawler Tractor 150 1 6
Excavator 150 1 6
Generator Set 60 1 6
Water Truck 180 1 2
Skid Steer Loader 70 1 4
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 100 1 6
Demolition Phase 3 Month 3
Crawler Tractor 150 1 6
Excavator 150 1 6
Generator Set 60 1 6
Water Truck 180 1 2
Skid Steer Loader 70 1 4
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 100 1 6
Site Prep Month 4
Crawler Tractor 150 1 6
Water Truck 180 1 3
Rubber Tire Loader 150 1 6
Skid Steer Loader 70 1 4
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 100 1 6
Grading Month 5
Crawler Tractor 150 1 6
Grader 140 1 6
Water Truck 180 1 4
Skid Steer Loader 70 1 4
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 100 1 4
Drilling Month 6.5 Bore/Drill Rig 160 1 6
Foundations Month 6-9
Forklift 60 1 4
Generator Set 60 1 6
Water Truck 180 1 4
Skid Steer Loader 70 1 4
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 100 1 6
Collector Substation
Prep Month 7-12
Aerial Lift 25 2 6
Forklift 60 1 4
Generator Set 60 1 6
Crane Work Month 8 Crane 150 1 4
Equipment Installation Month 8-11
Crane 150 1 6
Forklift 60 1 4
Generator Set 60 1 6
Water Truck 180 1 2
Skid Steer Loader 70 1 4
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 100 1 2
Pile Drivers 75 2 4
Trenching Month 9-10
Plate Compactor 5 2 6
Rubber Tire Loader 150 1 4
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 100 1 6
Tie Line Install Month 12 Aerial Lift 25 2 4
Pave/Surface/Landscape Month 12
Paving Equipment 150 1 6
Roller 50 1 6
Skid Steer Loader 70 1 6
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 100 1 6
Q-7
6 Table 6.2 summarizes the results of the construction noise modeling for all the nearby NSAs using the loudest construction phase. For construction noise modeling purposes, all equipment listed for each phase is assumed to be operating simultaneously at the nearest possible site location to each receptor group.
Table 6.2 Sound Level Increases During Construction
NSA Group NSA
Measured
Ambient Sound
Level (L90)
Max. Predicted
Sound Level, Single
Daytime Shift (dBA)
Combined Sound
Level (dBA)
Group 1 1 48.6 79.4 79.4
Group 2 2 48.6 84.1 84.1
Group 3 3, 4, 13 48.6 86.9 86.9
Group 4 5, 14, 15 48.6 89.2 89.2
Group 5 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 48.6 91.7 91.7
*NSAs are grouped based on the similarity of their distances to the Project Site.
Table 6.3 lists the predicted construction sound levels for each phase at each NSA group. The highest modeled impacts occur during the equipment installation phase. The maximum impact is below the 75 dBA daytime residential threshold established by Los Angeles County Code during the majority of construction.
Table 6.3 Construction Sound Levels
Construction Phase Schedule
Sound Level (LEQ) at NSA Group
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5
Demolition Phase 1 Month 1 60.6 65.3 68.2 70.4 72.9
Demolition Phase 2 Month 2 61.7 66.5 69.3 71.6 74.1
Demolition Phase 3 Month 3 61.7 66.5 69.3 71.6 74.1
Site Prep Month 4 60.7 65.5 68.3 70.6 73.1
Grading Month 5 60.9 65.6 68.4 70.7 73.2
Drilling Month 6.5 50.3 55.0 57.8 60.1 62.6
Foundations Month 6-9 59.5 64.2 67.0 69.3 71.8
Collector Substation Prep Month 7-12 57.0 61.7 64.5 66.8 69.3 Crane Work Month 8 50.7 55.4 58.3 60.6 63.0
Equipment Installation Month 8-11 79.4 84.1 86.9 89.2 91.7 Trenching Month 9-10 58.0 62.7 65.6 67.8 70.3
Tie Line Install Month 12 45.8 50.6 53.4 55.7 58.2
Pave/Surface/Landscape Month 12 57.3 62.0 64.8 67.1 69.6 As shown above, the RCNM model predicts that there will be moderate temporary increases in sound levels at the closest nearby NSAs during Project construction activities, the most significant being at NSAs 6-12, which are directly south of the site. To ensure compliance with county ordinance thresholds, temporary mitigation measures such as noise fencing, enclosures, or barriers around specific equipment or along the property boundary may be used.
Q-8
7 The vibration impacts during construction are assumed to be minor based on the preliminary list of construction equipment. No rock blasting is anticipated, and all equipment that will have the potential to generate groundborne vibration, such as trucks and tracked construction vehicles, will be mobile/transient and used over short durations. Equipment will likely be used within the interior of the site rather than along the property line on a frequent basis. Traffic along Gale Avenue and railroad activity in the vicinity may have more significant vibration impact than construction equipment. Therefore, vibration impacts during construction are expected to be minimal.
The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual provides methodology and vibration reference levels for certain equipment. At the 150-foot distance specified by the Los Angeles county ordinance, the highest estimated vibration levels during construction is 0.006 in/sec, based on a large bulldozer with a reference PPV of 0.089 in/sec at 25 feet (FTA 2018).
This level is below the 0.01 in/sec threshold established by the ordinance.
7.0 Predictive Modeling of Sound Impacts During Operation This section describes the methods, assumptions, and results of the Cadna-A® noise modeling used to predict future sound levels resulting from the operation of the proposed BESS containers and associated equipment at the property line.
7.1 Noise Model
The Cadna-A® computer noise model was used to predict future sound pressure levels from the operation of the proposed BESS at the property line and at the nearest noise-sensitive areas. An industry standard, Cadna-A® was developed by DataKustik GmbH to provide an estimate of sound levels at distances from specific noise sources. This model takes into account:
• Sound power levels from stationary and mobile sources; • The effects of terrain features including relative elevations of noise sources; • Intervening objects including buildings and sound barrier walls; and • Ground effects due to areas of pavement and unpaved ground.
Cadna-A® accounts for shielding and reflections due to intervening buildings or other structures in the propagation path, as well as diffracted paths around and over structures, which tend to reduce computed noise levels. The shielding effects due to intervening terrain are included in the model. The shielding effects due to existing off-site buildings and ground vegetation were excluded from the model to provide a level of conservatism to the analysis.
For ground effects, the reflectivity of the surface is described by a “ground factor” variable (G), which ranges from 0 for ‘hard’ ground (paved surfaces, concrete, etc.) and 1 for “porous” ground (grassland and other vegetated areas). The model used a “hard” ground absorption factor (G) of 0 to represent the proposed paved conditions.
The International Standards Organization current standard for outdoor sound propagation (ISO 9613 Part 2 – “Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors”) was used within Cadna-A®.
This standard provides a method for calculating environmental noise in communities from a Q-9
8 variety of sources with known emission levels. The method contained within the standard calculates the attenuation over the entire sound path under weather conditions that are favorable for sound propagation, such as for downwind propagation or “under a well-developed moderate ground-based temperature inversion.” Application of conditions that are favorable for sound propagation yields conservative estimates of operational noise levels in the surrounding area.
7.1.1 Modeling Inputs
The primary noise-producing sources on the site during Project operation will be the BESS containers and medium-voltage transformers, as well as two substation step-up transformers. A total of 480 BESS containers and 120 transformers are proposed throughout the site. Two additional 34.5/220 kV station service transformers will be located within the substation in the southeast portion of the site. The location of these sources is shown on Figure 1.
The source model inputs and locations were based on proposed electrical equipment specifications in design drawings by TRC dated February 5, 2025. The sound power level for the proposed battery containers, the Sungrow PowerTitan 2.0, is 75 dBA according to manufacturer specifications. The sound level for the transformer units, the Sungrow MVS5000-LV-US, is not listed in manufacturer specifications, so the modeled sound levels are based on a generic 5,140 kVA, 2-winding, KNAN transformer.
Sound impacts associated with the Project interconnection at the adjacent Walnut Substation were also considered. None of the Project interconnection infrastructure to be installed within the Walnut Substation will be a material source of noise. Sound levels associated with transmission electrostatic effects (also known as “corona” effects) occur during precipitation events or very high humidity and generally are only discernable during very high humidity because the corona effect noise can be masked by the rainfall itself. Since corona effect noise is substantially quieter than the onsite Project noise sources and is dependent on humid conditions that are not typical of the area, corona noise from the short electric tie-line is not expected to be routinely discernable.
Since the sound-producing equipment were assumed to be continuously operating, the L90 (background level) and LEQ (equivalent constant level) of the proposed equipment are the same for the purposes of this assessment.
Table 7.1 Noise Source Inputs to the Cadna-A Model
Name Source
Height*
Octave Band Sound Power Levels (dB) Total
31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 (dBA)
Transformers (120) 1.2m 69 71 72 72 75 68 71 70 66 77
Substation Transformer (2) 1.2m 64 56 66 68 59 52 39 30 25 62 Battery Containers (480) 1.4m 72 67 67 75 74 69 67 63 64 75 * Heights based on component dimensions and mounting orientation, assumed pad-mounted equipment. Source levels are extrapolated from manufacturer-provided or generic sound pressure level specifications.
The conceptual site layout and existing topography was used to create a terrain model that represents the topography during operation of the proposed facility. Figure 1 shows the proposed topography within the site and adjacent Walnut Substation based on TRC’s proposed drainage and grading plan. The inputs to the model are 1-meter contours, based on USGS 3DEP topographic data. A 10-foot-high concrete masonry unit perimeter wall was also included in the Q-10
9 model as shown in Figure 1. The model assumed continuous and simultaneous operation of all sound-producing equipment. This was a conservative assumption, since not all equipment will be operating continuously at full load. A search radius of 1 kilometer from each receptor was used in the model to ensure that all noise sources contributing to the predicted facility noise level were modeled at every noise-sensitive receptor.
7.1.2 Sound Model Results
Cadna-A
® allows the user to place receptors at selected locations and predicts sound levels at those specific receptor locations. For this analysis, specific receptors were placed at the closest exterior walls of the nearest residential receptors, listed in Table 4.1 above. The model also calculated sound levels for the surrounding area, using a 10-foot receptor grid, with a receptor height of 5.1 feet (representative of average ear height). This data is displayed in the isopleths on Figure 2, which show lines of equal sound level at the site and the surrounding area.
Table 7.2 below lists the steady-state, A-weighted sound level results at each modeled receptor, along with the calculated increase over the ambient sound level (assumed to be the measured LA90 value).
Table 7.2 Modeled Sound Level Results
Site ID Description
Sound Level (dBA)
Modeled Ambient Combined Increase
NSA 01 Residence 36.6 48.6 48.9 0.3
NSA 02 Residence 39.1 48.6 49.1 0.5
NSA 03 Residence 41.1 48.6 49.3 0.7
NSA 04 Residence 40.9 48.6 49.3 0.7
NSA 05 Residence 40.1 48.6 49.2 0.6
NSA 06 Residence 43.0 48.6 49.7 1.1
NSA 07 Residence 44.1 48.6 49.9 1.3
NSA 08 Residence 43.0 48.6 49.7 1.1
NSA 09 Residence 42.1 48.6 49.5 0.9
NSA 10 Residence 41.1 48.6 49.3 0.7
NSA 11 Residence 40.5 48.6 49.2 0.6
NSA 12 Residence 39.9 48.6 49.1 0.5
NSA 13 Residence 38.9 48.6 49.0 0.4
NSA 14 Residence 38.3 48.6 49.0 0.4
NSA 15 Residence 37.9 48.6 49.0 0.4
8.0 Conclusion
Construction will generally occur during weekdays and daytime hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., as stated in the Los Angeles County Code 12.08.440 Construction Noise, which will significantly Q-11
10 mitigate construction noise impacts to abutters. Contractors will be required to utilize sound control devices no less effective than those provided by the manufacturer and maintain equipment in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations. No equipment will have unmuffled exhausts and equipment idling will be kept to a minimum. Modeled sound and vibration levels during construction are below the thresholds established by Los Angeles County noise ordinance and are not expected to require additional mitigation.
During Project operation, the maximum predicted sound level from the proposed facility at nearby potential noise-sensitive locations is 44.1 dBA at location NSA 07. The model assumes all sound sources are in continuous operation, so the LEQ over any duration would be the same. Based on the measured baseline (L90) sound level of 48.6 dBA, this represents just a 1.3 dBA increase, which is not likely to be perceptible to the human ear. Increases in sound levels caused by the adjacent Walnut Substation would be limited to corona effects during high humidity or precipitation events and would be negligible in terms of overall sound impact.
Based on this assessment, the Project will not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of applicable noise ordinances. Nearest residences are approximately 100 feet from the closest grading and heavy construction and ground vibration will attenuate to a low level within that distance. The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport, so the Project will not expose people to excessive airport-related noise.
Q-12
11 9.0 References
Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. For USEPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=9101NN3I.txt Accessed May 2025
FAA, 2022. Fundamentals of Noise and Sound. Available online at: https:// www.faa.gov/regulations_ policies/policy_guidance/noise/basics. Accessed September 2025.
FHWA, 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) Version 1.0. Available online at:
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm2/. Accessed September 2025.
FTA, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Available online at https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/transit-noise-and-vibration-impactassessment-manual-report-0123. Accessed September 2025.
Los Angeles County. (n.d.). 12.08 Construction Noise. In Code of Ordinances. Accessed September 2025.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1978. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.
Q-13
12 Figure 1 Site Layout
Q-14
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY: PROJ. NO.:
FILE:
TITLE:
PROJECT:
604109 AypaMarici BESS Noise.aprx
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet; Map Rotation: 0 -- Saved By: MERNSTING on 9/10/2025, 13:02:09 PM; File Path: K:\604109 Aypa Marici BESS Noise\04 GRAPHICS\APRX\604109 AypaMarici BESS Noise.aprx; Layout Name: 1. Site Layout F
1:1,800
1" = 150'
0 100 200
FEET
/NOTES:
1. BASE MAP IMAGERY, ESRI, 1/29/2024.
2. DRAFT LAYOUT, TRC, 2/5/2025
3. ELEVATION DATA, USGS 3DEP, 2024
SEPTEMBER 2025
J. STENGER
M. FEINBLATT
M. ERNSTING
FIGURE 1
604109.0000.0000
SITE LAYOUT
BESS SOUND STUDY
MARICI PROJECT, LLC
INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA
LEGEND
EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS
"/ BATTERY CONTAINER
"/ TRANSFORMER
(! MEASUREMENT LOCATION
POTENTIAL NSA
PROPERTY LINE
1-METER CONTOUR LINE
10-FT CMU WALL
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
(!
S S timson
Gale Ave
Barford Ave
Union Pacific RR
Gale Ave
Gale Ave
Ward Way
Folger S t
H
innen
Ave
rd Av
e
Folger S t
Union Pacific RR
Union Pacific RR
Gale Ave
Gale Ave
Union Pacific RR
109
08 1
107
01 6
05 1
104
1 05
100
01 5
104
100
99 103
102
101
104
103
104
NSA07
NSA08
NSA09 NSA10 NSA11
NSA12
NSA13
NSA14
NSA06
NSA03
NSA04
NSA05
NSA02
NSA01
NSA15
LT-1
Q-15
13 Figure 2 Noise Modeling Results
Q-16
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY: PROJ. NO.:
FILE:
TITLE:
PROJECT:
604109 AypaMarici BESS Noise.aprx
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet; Map Rotation: 0 -- Saved By: MERNSTING on 9/10/2025, 13:02:09 PM; File Path: K:\604109 Aypa Marici BESS Noise\04 GRAPHICS\APRX\604109 AypaMarici BESS Noise.aprx; Layout Name: 2. Modeling Results F
1:2,400
1" = 200'
0 100 200
FEET
/NOTES:
1. BASE MAP IMAGERY, ESRI, 1/29/2024.
2. DRAFT LAYOUT, TRC, 2/5/2025
3. CADNAA MODELING DATA, TRC, 2025
SEPTEMBER 2025
J. STENGER
M. FEINBLATT
M. ERNSTING
FIGURE 2
604109.0000.0000
MODELING RESULTS
BESS SOUND STUDY
MARICI PROJECT, LLC
INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA
LEGEND
EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS
"/ BATTERY CONTAINER
"/ TRANSFORMER
(! MEASUREMENT LOCATION
POTENTIAL NSAS
PROPERTY LINE
10-FT CMU WALL
SOUND LEVEL (DBA)
25 - 30
35 - 40
45 - 50
55 - 60
> 60
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/ "/ "/ "/
"/ "/ "/ "/
"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/"/ "/"/ "/"/ "/"/
"/"/ "/"/ "/"/ "/"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/ " "/
/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/ " "/
/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
" "/
/
"/
"/
"/ " "/
/
"/
"/
"/ " "/
/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"
"/
"/
/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"
"/
"/
/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"
"/
"/
/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
" "/
/ "/
"/
"/
"/
Gale Ave
S S timson Ave
Robin Way
Phoenix Dr
Shadybend Dr
Union Pacific RR
Union Pacific RR
Union Pacific RR
Gale Ave
Ward Way
Fo
Hi
lger S t
n
nen
Ave
Gale Ave
n Ave
Barford Ave
Folger S t
Glenelder
Elementary
School
Gale Ave
(!
45 40
35 60
55 35
30 35
30 65
60 50
60 60
65 65
65 40
40 65
65 65
65 65
65 65
65 65
65 45
45 40
40 30
NSA01
NSA02
NSA03
NSA04
NSA05 NSA06
NSA07
NSA08
NSA09
NSA10
NSA11
NSA12
NSA13
NSA14
NSA15
LT-1
Q-17
MARICI BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FACILITY INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF INDUSTRY
APPENDIX
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
MARICI BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FACILITY INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF INDUSTRY
APPENDIX
DECEMBER 2025
APPENDIX R
TRANSPORTATION STUDY
MARICI BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FACILITY INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF INDUSTRY
APPENDIX
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Choose an item.
Memorandum
Date: May 16, 2025
To: Joseph L. Stenger, P.G.
From: Jolene Hayes
Logan Aspeitia
Jerry Hsu
Subject: City of Industry Battery Storage Facility Transportation Study LA24-3574
Fehr & Peers has completed a Transportation Study for the Battery Storage Facility (Project) in the City of Industry, California. The study consists of Level-of-Service (LOS) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening assessments, which conclude the Project does not exceed the City’s thresholds and thereby, the Project does not require further transportation impact analysis and would result in a less-than-significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for transportation. Additionally, the study analyzed how construction traffic associated with the Project would affect the surrounding transportation network and found that the Project would generate less daily trips than the existing uses. The methodologies and procedures used in this study are consistent with the City of Industry Transportation Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment (2020).
Project Description
The Project site is bounded by Ward Way to the west, the Southern California Edison (SCE) Walnut Substation to the east, Gale Avenue to the south, and Ardmore Home Design/a rail-line to the north. It is currently developed with 162,000 square feet of industrial land uses, which the Project plans to demolish and replace with a battery storage facility. The Project is anticipated to have up to two employees on-site daily. The Project includes an overhead electric tie-line that will cross the east property boundary directly into the adjacent Walnut Substation where it will interconnect with the grid.
R-1
Joseph L. Stenger, P.G.
May 16, 2025
Need for LOS Assessment
As previously stated, the Project is anticipated to have up to two employees on-site daily.
Therefore, it is anticipated to generate negligible daily trips.
Per the City’s guidelines, the Project is not required to complete a LOS analysis as it does not meet any of the following criteria:
• When either the AM or PM peak hour trip generation is expected to exceed 200 vehicle trips from the proposed development.
• Projects that will add 100 or more trips during either the AM or PM peak hours to any intersection.
VMT Screening
Due to the implementation of California Senate Bill (SB) 743, VMT is utilized as the metric to determine transportation-related impacts. The City’s guidelines identify the following three types of screening that may be used to screen projects from project-level VMT assessment:
• Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Low VMT Area Screening
• Project Type Screening
The Project Type Screening criteria allows projects that generate less than 110 daily vehicle trips to be screened from further VMT assessment. The Project would have up to two employees on site and thus generate less than 110 daily trips, therefore, the Project screens out from further VMT analysis pursuant to the Project Type Screening criteria and is assumed to have a less-than significant impact under CEQA.
Construction Traffic Assessment
Although the Project would not generate a noticeable amount of trips to/from the site once in operation, the City requires an assessment of construction trips to ensure traffic operations and safety would not be degraded by construction activities. The Project requires demolition of the existing industrial buildings. The demolition phase of construction is expected to be the worst case with as many workers as any other construction phase, including needed SCE improvements, and the highest daily trip traffic due to off-hauling of demolition debris. To determine if the demolition trips will adversely affect the surrounding transportation network, the daily and peak hour trips generated by the existing industrial land uses were compared to the Project’s demolition phase.
R-2
Joseph L. Stenger, P.G.
May 16, 2025
Existing Industrial Land Use Traffic Volumes
Figure 1 shows the three driveways that serve the existing industrial land use. Twenty-four-hour vehicle classification traffic counts were collected at the three driveways on Wednesday, September 25th, 2024. The traffic counts are provided in Attachment A, and Table 1 summarizes the daily AM and PM peak hour vehicle classification trips.
Table 1: Existing Industrial Land Use Traffic Volumes
Location Daily
Total
AM
In
AM
Out
AM
Total
PM
In
PM
Out
PM
Total
Driveway One
Total Trips 28 1 1 2 - 4 4
Autos and Light Truck Trips 24 1 1 2 - 4 4
Heavy and Medium Truck Trips 4 - - - - - -
Driveway 2
Total Trips 38 1 2 3 1 - 1
Autos and Light Truck Trips 35 1 2 3 1 - 1
Heavy and Medium Truck Trips 3 - - - - - -
Driveway 3
Total Trips 315 36 6 42 9 36 45
Autos and Light Truck Trips 304 35 6 41 9 36 45
Heavy and Medium Truck Trips 11 1 - 1 - - -
Total Driveway Trips
Total Trips 381 38 9 47 10 40 50
Autos and Light Truck Trips 363 37 9 46 10 40 50
Heavy and Medium Truck Trips 18 1 - 1 - - -
Note: The trips shown represent the site’s AM and PM peak hours of operation, 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM, respectively.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Demolition Trip Generation
To estimate the traffic associated with the demolition of the existing industrial buildings, Fehr & Peers referenced prior traffic studies to develop an estimate of trips associated with demolishing existing structures. A very similar demolition project, Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (November, 2023) for the Amar Industry Hills Development in the City of Industry, provides the basis for estimating demolition/construction trips associated with the Project. The Amar Industry Hills Development has the following key attributes:
• The Amar Hills Development analyzed the demolition of 164,259 square feet of industrial warehouse uses
• The Amar Hills Development study is located in the City of Industry • The Amar Hills Development study was completed in 2023 and provides recent data R-3
Joseph L. Stenger, P.G.
May 16, 2025
The Amar Industry Hills Development Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is provided as Attachment B and includes information about construction trips associated with the demolition of 164,259 square feet of industrial buildings.
Table 2 documents the daily trips and trip rates associated with the demolition of the Amar Industry Hills Development industrial land use. The daily trip rates documented in Table 2 were applied to the existing industrial land use on the Project site to estimate the daily trips for the Project demolition phase, which are documented in Table 3.
The Amar Industry Hills Development study did not provide any information regarding the peak hour demolition trips. Construction activities typically begin and end earlier than the typical workday, in part, to avoid peak hour traffic. For the purposes of this analysis, a conservative estimate of 10 percent of the daily trips was used to estimate trips generated by the Project demolition phase. This assumption is based on our knowledge of the area and professional judgment. The Project demolition phase peak hour trip estimates are shown in Table 4.
Table 2: Amar Industry Hills Development Demolition Phase Daily Trips and Rates Land
Use
Size
(KSF)
Trip
Type
One-Way Trips
per Day
Round Trips
per Day1 Vehicle Mix Daily Trip Rate per KSF
164.259
Worker 15 30 Autos and Light Trucks 0.183
Vendor 4 8 Heavy and Medium Trucks 0.049
Hauling 63 126 Heavy Trucks 0.767
Note(s): Round trips per day were estimated by doubling the one-way trips per day.
Source: The Amar Industry Hills Development Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (2023).
Table 3: Project Demolition Phase Daily Trip Estimates
Land Use
Size (KSF) Trip Type Daily Trip Rate per KSF Vehicle Mix Daily Trips 166.000
Worker 0.183 Autos and Light Trucks 30
Vendor 0.049 Heavy and Medium Trucks 8
Hauling 0.767 Heavy Trucks 125
Total Trips 163
Autos and Light Truck Trips 30
Heavy and Medium Truck Trips 133
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
R-4
Joseph L. Stenger, P.G.
May 16, 2025
Table 4: Project Demolition Phase Peak Hour Trips
Trip Type Daily Trips
Peak Hour
Factor Peak Hour Trips
Total Trips 163 0.1 17
Autos and Light Truck Trips 30 0.1 3
Heavy and Medium Truck Trips 133 0.1 14
Note: Peak hour trips were rounded up to the nearest whole number.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Comparison
Tables 5 and 6 show a comparison of the existing industrial land use and the Project demolition phase PM peak hour trips. The PM peak hour was chosen for the comparison as the existing industrial land use generates the most trips during this period. As shown in Tables 5 and 6, during the Project demolition Phase there will be 224 fewer daily trips and 34 fewer PM peak hour trips.
Since the Project demolition phase will generate fewer daily and peak hour trips than the trips generated by the existing industrial land use, it is anticipated that the demolition will not have an adverse effect on the surrounding transportation network.
Table 5: Existing Industrial Land Use and Demolition Phase Daily Trip Comparison Trip Type Existing Trips Demolition Trips Difference
Total Trips 381 163 (218)
Autos and Light Truck Trips 363 30 (333)
Heavy and Medium Truck Trips 18 133 115
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
Table 6: Existing Industrial Land Use and Demolition Phase Peak Hour Trip Comparison
Trip Type Existing Trips Demolition Trips Difference
Total Trips 50 17 (33)
Autos and Light Truck Trips 46 3 (43)
Heavy and Medium Truck Trips 4 14 10
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024.
R-5
Joseph L. Stenger, P.G.
May 16, 2025
Conclusion
The Project plans to demolish 162,000 square feet of existing industrial land use and replace it with a Battery Storage Facility. The facility will have up to two employees and is expected to generate negligible daily trips. Therefore, the Project screens out from VMT assessment and is not required to complete a LOS assessment as it does not meet the daily and peak hour trip thresholds documented in the City’s guidelines. Additionally, traffic associated with the Project construction phase is not expected to have an adverse effect on the surrounding transportation network, as the existing industrial land use generates 218 more daily trips and 33 more peak hour trips than the daily and peak hour estimated trips associated with the Project’s construction phase.
R-6
MARICI BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FACILITY INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF INDUSTRY
APPENDIX
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
ORDINANCE NO. 841
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 17.16.010 (PERMITTED USES) OF CHAPTER 17.16 (INDUSTRIAL ZONE), AND ADDING CHAPTER 17.20 (BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM FACILITIES) TO TITLE 17 (ZONING), OF THE CITY OF
INDUSTRY MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION REGARDING SAME, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on September 29, 2010, the Governor of California signed into law Assembly Bill 2514 (AB 2514), which amended California Public Utilities Code Section 2835 and recognized the importance of energy storage technologies and required publicly owned utilities to invest in energy storage; and
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2018, the Governor of California signed into law Senate Bill 100 (SB 100), and mandates a target of 100 percent clean, zero-carbon electricity by 2045, and declared that increased use of battery energy storage is essential to achieving statewide greenhouse gas reduction and renewable energy goals; and WHEREAS, allowing permitted and safely installed battery energy storage systems is consistent with California’s broader climate, resilience, and clean-energy mandates and provides local benefits by enhancing grid stability, enabling greater use of local renewable energy, and supporting emergency backup power during extreme weather or wildfire-related outages; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the police powers delegated to it by the California Constitution, the City has the authority to enact laws that promote the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, including location and regulations for battery energy storage system facilities; and
WHEREAS, an application for the development and operation of a battery energy storage system (“BESS”) facility located at 16233, 16207, AND 16253 Gale Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 8242-016-033, -034, 036, -044, AND -061) was received; and WHEREAS, this zoning amendment proposes a text amendment to add BESS facilities as a conditionally permitted use in the Industrial Zone and create regulations for the installation and use of such facilities; and
WHEREAS, based on Staff’s review and assessment as lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”, Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.), Initial Studies/Mitigated Negative Declarations (“IS/MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring Program (“MMRP”) were prepared for the proposed battery storage project.
The IS/MND includes a MMRP. The City, as lead agency, prepared and made available a Draft IS/MND (State Clearinghouse #2025120872) for public review and comment
2 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070. The public review period was from December 16, 2025, through January 5, 2026. Subsequently, the City prepared a Final IS/MND incorporating text changes to the Draft MND pursuant to comments received on the Draft IS/MND during the public comment period. The City also provided written responses to all such comments, in memo form in the Final IS/MND.
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2026, notice of the Planning Commission’s January 27, 2026, public hearing on the proposed Zoning Code amendment was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, and was posted at City Hall, the City’s Council Chambers, Fire Station 118, and on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Industry conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Zoning Code Amendment No. 24-07, and considered all testimony written and oral, and adopted Resolution No. PC 2026-02, recommending that the City Council adopt the Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2026, notice of the City Council’s February 12, 2026 public hearing on Ordinance No. 841 was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and Government Code Section 65090; and WHEREAS, on February 2, 2026, notice of the City Council’s February 12, 2026 public hearing on Ordinance 841 was posted at City Hall, the City’s Council Chambers, Fire Station 118, and on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2026, the City Council of the City of Industry conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Ordinance No. 841, and considered all testimony written and oral; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings.
The City Council finds that based on substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the February 12, 2026 public hearing, including public testimony and oral staff reports, that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. CEQA Findings.
Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the February 12, 2026 public hearing, including public testimony and written and oral staff reports, and which includes without limitation, CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and any documents provided by the public to the City Council at the February 12, 2025 public hearing, the City Council finds as follows:
The proposed Municipal Code amendment has been reviewed with respect to the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”). The City Council has determined that the text amendment required an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) and Mitigation
3 Monitoring Program (“MMRP”) for the project. The IS/MND includes a MMRP. The City, as lead agency, prepared and made available a Draft IS/MND (State Clearinghouse #2025120872) for public review and comment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070. The public review period was from December 16, 2025, through January 5, 2026.
Subsequently, the City prepared a Final IS/MND incorporating text changes to the Draft IS/MND pursuant to comments received on the Draft IS/MND during the public comment period. The City also provided written responses to all such comments, in memo form, in the Final IS/MND. The IS/MND, with the MMRP adequately address environmental impacts of the project. Based on the foregoing, on February 2, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. CC 2026- 01 adopting the IS/MND and MMRP for the Project.
SECTION 3. Zoning Code Text Amendment Findings
A. This Ordinance is consistent with the goals, and policies of the City’s General Plan.
Expanding allowable uses within the Industrial zones allows the City to maintain a vibrant employment environment, by accommodating business as a primary land use and supporting basic industrial activities (Goal LU1, Policies LU1-1 and LU1- 2). The inclusion of BESS facilities as a conditionally permitted use updates the Code to better reflect contemporary uses that provide a competitive business climate to serve the long-term economic future of the City. As proposed, BESS facilities are required to have a minimum size of 2.5 acres which can result from the consolidation of lots for single tenant uses (Goal LU2, Policy LU2-3) and BESS facilities will help maximize the competitive advantage of locating a business in the City through constructing and maintaining adequate infrastructure and services, by serving state goals related to the development and sustainability of renewable energy sources (Goal LU2, Policy LU2-5).
B. This Ordinance is consistent with the City’s Zoning Code in that the Ordinance implements the stated objective measures of the Land Use Element, which will ensure the cohesive and orderly development of land within the City, consistent with the City’s long-term goals. Further, the criteria contained within the Ordinance help address impacts to surrounding properties, through the application and use of the Building and Safety and Fire Codes. Accordingly, this Ordinance will not adversely affect surrounding properties and is compatible with existing zoning and use regulations, development standards, and furthers the intent and purpose of the adopted zoning code.
C. The Ordinance is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare and serves the goals and purposes of the Industry Municipal Code. Expanding allowable uses as contemplated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan will foster a mix of uses and employment that algins with the City’s founding purpose of being a business and industrial hub, and maintaining an ideal setting for manufacturing, distribution, and industrial facilities. The Proposed Ordinance provides regulations limiting BESS facilities to the Industrial Zone, and provides safeguards including, without limitation, proximity to high fire hazard severity zones, and distancing from existing residential uses. Further requirements of the Ordinance also maintain public health safety and general welfare by requiring BESS facilities to comply with applicable Fire Codes, without limitation, the approval of a Hazard Mitigation Analysis, Emergency Response Plan, and a
4 Decommissioning Plan, which collectively ensure the safe operation of the facility and the protection of surrounding areas throughout and beyond the life of the BESS facility.
SECTION 4. Municipal Code Amendment.
Section 17.16.010.A (Permitted Uses) of Chapter 17.16 (Industrial Zone) is hereby amended in alphabetical order to add: Battery Energy Storage System Facilities, pursuant to Chapter 17.50.
SECTION 5. Municipal Code Amendment.
Section 17.50 (Battery Energy Storage System Facilities) is hereby added to Title 17 (Zoning) to read in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 17.50.010 – Battery Energy Storage System Facilities This section shall be referred to as the "City of Industry Battery Energy Storage System Facilities Ordinance."
Should there be a conflict between the provisions of this section and other sections of the City of Industry Zoning Code, this section shall control.
Sec. 17.50.020 - Intent and purpose.
Battery Energy Storage System Facility regulations are adopted with the intent of advancing and protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the City of Industry by establishing regulations for the installation and use of energy storage systems. The regulations herein are intended to protect the health, welfare, safety, and quality of life for the general public.
Sec. 17.50.030 - Classification of Battery Energy Storage System Facilities. (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
Battery Energy Storage System (Utility Scale). A system consisting of electrochemical, kinetic, thermal, or other form of energy-storage technology storage batteries, battery chargers, controls, power conditioning systems and associated electrical equipment, assembled together, capable of storing energy in order to supply electrical energy at a future time and will connect to a public utility grid not to include a stand- alone 12-volt car battery or an electric motor vehicle. A Battery Energy Storage System is a type of Energy Storage System.
Decommissioning Plan. A plan to retire the physical facilities of the battery energy storage system, including decontamination, dismantlement, rehabilitation, landscaping, and monitoring. The plan contains detailed information on the proposed decommissioning and covers the schedule, type, and sequence of decommissioning activities; waste management, storage, and disposal of the waste from decommissioning; the time limit for decommissioning and site rehabilitation.
5 Energy Storage System. A system which stores energy and releases it in the same form as was input, to a public utility grid.
Sec. 17.50.040 - Applicability.
(a) The requirements of this ordinance shall apply to utility-scale battery energy storage system facilities permitted, installed, or modified after the effective date of this ordinance, excluding general maintenance and repair and facilities subject to subsection (c).
(b) Utility-scale battery energy storage system facilities constructed or installed prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall not be required to meet the requirements of this section. Modifications to, retrofits or replacements of an existing battery energy storage system facility that increases the total energy storage system designed discharge duration or power rating shall be subject to this section. (c) To the extent permitted by state law, the provisions of this ordinance may not apply to Battery Energy Storage System facilities that are subject to Chapter 6.2 (commencing with Section 25545) of Division 15 of the Public Resources Code, as amended.
Sec. 17.50.050 - Approvals Required
(a) Battery energy storage system facilities are permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Chapter 17.48, Design Review pursuant to Chapter 17.36 of this chapter, and approval of a Development Agreement, and/or Community Benefit Agreement as determined by the City Manager.
Sec. 17.50.060 – Siting Limitation
(a) A battery energy storage system facility is only permitted in the Industrial Zone (M), but shall not be located on a parcel in a very high fire hazard severity zone, based on City adopted maps.
(b) Battery energy storage system facilities shall not be constructed further than 1/2 mile from the connecting utility, as measured from the nearest point of each parcel boundary.
Sec. 17.50.070 - Development Standards.
(a) Battery energy storage system facilities must meet all applicable standards of the adopted Building and Safety Codes and of the adopted Fire Codes in effect on the date an application is submitted to the respective reviewing authority, and any other applicable laws, rules, or regulations.
(b) Battery energy storage system facilities shall be a minimum of 2.5 acres in size. (c) Battery energy storage system facilities shall comply with the site design requirements set forth below in addition to all other applicable sections of the City of
6 Industry Zoning Code:
(1) Site Layout of BESS Units. In accordance with the Fire Code, separation distances between BESS units, enclosures, and groups of BESS units/enclosures, and setback distances from sensitive exposures, shall be validated by large-scale fire testing or modeling, as specified and approved by the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
(2) Battery energy storage system facilities shall not be located within 100 feet of any residential uses as measured from the nearest point between the energy storage system enclosures to property line of the residential use. (3) Where visible from a public right of way, the site shall be fully enclosed by a minimum six-foot, solid wall. Where not visible from a public right of way, the site shall be enclosed by a minimum ten-foot, solid wall fencing. Said wall or fencing shall be located on the perimeter of the site, notwithstanding placement of wall or fencing to address safety hazards. Where visible from the public right of way, walls shall consist of either decorative concrete masonry block or decorative concrete tilt-up walls.
(4) No landscaping is required on the interior side of the screen walls. (5) The minimum required landscape area shall be limited to the perimeter landscaping surrounding the perimeter screening wall or fencing adjacent to public right of ways and private streets. Landscaping shall not conflict requirements set by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. (6) Solid walls surrounding facilities which are below grade of an adjacent street or property shall incorporate a berm/slope along the entire length of the wall to ensure facilities are not visible from public view.
(7) No equipment or appurtenances shall exceed the screen wall height described in subparagraph (3), above, unless it can be demonstrated through a line-ofsight analysis to the satisfaction of the director that the wall height will sufficiently screen said equipment and/or appurtenances. Enclosures for batteries and other systems shall not exceed fifteen feet in height. (8) Accessory structures such as utility poles or utility connection equipment, substation switchyard, and similar equipment, necessary for the operation of the facility may exceed the height standards of the applicable zoning district subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit specifically addressing height standards.
(9) On-site parking shall be provided as specified below:
i. For sites that include building(s), the number of parking spaces shall comply with requirements for public facilities and services set forth in Section
17.36.060.K.1.a of the Industry Municipal Code.
7 ii. For sites that do not include buildings, two on-site parking spaces shall be provided.
i. All parking, fire access roadway, and drive aisles shall be paved with asphalt or concrete.
(10) All facilities shall have an approved signage plan including safety signage to be posted at the site.
(11) All improvements and site specifications shall be subject to approval of a Hazard Mitigation Analysis by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. (12) Emergency Response Plan (ERP).
i. An Emergency Response Plan (ERP) shall be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Site personnel must maintain and train on the ERP for the life of the installation, as directed by the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
ii. An after-incident mitigation company shall be on retainer at all times, maintained in the list of contacts in the ERP, and disclosed to the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
iii. The owner or operator of a battery energy storage system facility shall submit an ERP pursuant in accordance with all applicable laws, with the Conditional Use Permit application for a battery energy storage system facility. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. (13) Any permit application that includes a request for deviation from development standards set forth in this section shall be reviewed through a Conditional Use Permit process, and does not require a Variance application. The approving authority shall make the following finding prior to approval of a request to deviate from development standards set forth by this ordinance:
“The alternative development standard(s) will result in an equivalent or better project in terms of adverse impacts and public benefits to the immediate and surrounding community.”
Sec. 17.50.080 - Decommissioning.
(a) Decommissioning Plan. The applicant shall submit a Decommissioning Plan which shall be reviewed and approved by the City and the Los Angeles County Fire Department, and other agencies as may be required. The Decommissioning Plan shall include all of the following:
i. A narrative description of the activities to be accomplished, including who will perform that activity and at what point in time following the closure of the facility, for complete physical removal of all battery energy storage system components, structures, equipment, security barriers, and transmission lines from the site;
8 ii. Disposing of all solid and hazardous waste in accordance with local, state, and federal waste disposal regulations;
iii. The anticipated life of the battery energy storage system; iv. The manner in which the battery energy storage system will be decommissioned, and the site restored to a condition reasonably similar to its original state, including a description of how any changes to the surrounding areas and other systems adjacent to the battery energy storage system, such as, but not limited to, structural elements, building penetrations, means of egress, and required fire detection suppression systems, will be protected during decommissioning and confirmed as being acceptable after the system is removed; and
v. A listing of any contingencies for removing an intact operational battery energy storage system from service, and for removing a battery energy storage system from service that has been damaged by a fire or other event. (b) Ownership/Operator Changes. A new owner or operator shall notify the Director of such change in ownership or operator and assumes in writing all the obligations of the project within 90 days of the ownership change. Failure to provide timely notice and assumption of obligations shall constitute a violation of the Conditional Use Permit and shall be grounds for revocation of the permit. Reinstatement of a project or approvals will be subject to the same review and approval processes for new applications under this chapter.
Sec. 17.50.090 - Performance Measures and Standard Conditions of Approval.
The following measures shall be included as performance measures and standard conditions of approval for all battery energy storage system facilities to which this chapter applies.
(a) Facilities shall not store any products, goods, materials, or containers outside of any on-site building or battery enclosures.
(b) Anti-graffiti coating to prevent graffiti shall be provided for all solid screen walls. (c) Facilities shall comply with the noise regulations set forth in Health & Safety Code § 46000 et seq. and Gov’t Code § 65302(f).
(d) Operators shall address any nuisance, safety issues, or violations of conditions of approval within forty-eight hours of being notified by the City of Industry that an issue exists.
(e) The owner and/or operator is responsible for submitting an updated Decommissioning Plan to the Los Angeles County Fire Department for approval whenever modifications are made to an approved Decommissioning Plan.
9 (f) A written security program for the premises shall be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
(g) The applicant is required to update the Hazard Mitigation Analysis (HMA) to account for changes to the proposed BESS facilities project during the building permit review process. Prior to issuance of a building permit, an updated HMA, if required, shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
SECTION 6. Clerical Errors.
The City Council directs the City Clerk to correct any clerical errors found in this Chapter, including, but not limited to, typographical errors, irregular numbering, and incorrect section references.
SECTION 7. Severability.
Should any section, subsection, clause, or provisions of this Ordinance for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity of unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; it being hereby expressly declared that this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, approved, and ratified irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional.
SECTION 8. Effective Date.
In accordance with California Government Code § 36937, this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from passage and adoption.
SECTION 9. Publication.
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause this ordinance to be published and posted as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Industry, California, at a regular meeting held on February 12, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS
__________________________
Cory C. Moss, Mayor
10 ATTEST:
______________________________________
Julie Gutierrez-Robles, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. CC 2026-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLAN
NO. 24-09, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BATTERY ENERGY
STORAGE SYSTEM FACILITY LOCATED AT 16233, 16207, AND
16253 GALE AVENUE, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL
NUMBERS 8242-016-033, -034, -044, AND -061), AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Marici Project LLC (“Applicant”), filed a complete Application requesting approval of the following entitlements for the properties located at 16207, 16233, and 16253 Gale Avenue, City of Industry, California further described as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (8242-016-033, -034, -044, and -061) (“Property”):
• Zoning Code Amendment (ZCA No. 24-07) to allow a Battery Energy Storage System (“BESS”) use with a Conditional Use Permit; • Development Plan (DP No. 24-09) to approve the development plan for the BESS;
• Conditional Use Permit (CUP No. 24-03) to allow the proposed BESS use; and
• Community Benefit Agreement (CBA No. 25-01) to grant specified community benefits to the City.
WHEREAS, the Project is located on a 9.2-acre site, and is currently developed with warehouse, manufacturing, and industrial uses totaling 161,781 square feet of building space, and approximately 205,000 square feet of asphalt and concrete surfacing; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to demolish the existing development, and develop the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Property has a General Plan Land Use designation of Employment and zoning designation of Industrial (APN: 8242-016-033, -034, -044, and - 061); and
WHEREAS, the proposed use and development is a 400-megawatt BESS Facility consisting of lithium-ion batteries installed in racks, inverters, medium-voltage transformers, switchgear, a collector substation, and other associated equipment to interconnect into the Southern California Edison (SCE) Walnut Substation. The enclosures will have battery storage racks, with relay and communications systems for
Resolution No. CC 2026-03
DP No. 24-09
automated monitoring and management of the batteries to ensure design performance.
A battery management system will be provided to control the charging/discharging of the batteries, along with temperature monitoring and control of the individual battery cell temperature with an integrated cooling system. Power inverters to convert between AC and DC, along with transformers to step up the voltage, will also be included; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 17.36.020 of the City’s Municipal Code (“Code”), a Development Plan Application is required for the construction of the Project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), (Cal. Pub. Resources Code §§21000 et seq.), an initial study was performed, the result of which was the preparation and circulation of a mitigated negative declaration (“IS/MND”) analyzing the proposed Project and concluding that the approval of the Project does not have a significant effect on the environment because the impacts of the Project could all be mitigated to levels below established CEQA thresholds of significance with the adoption of mitigation measures and enforcement of such measures through a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”); and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent to Adopt the IS/MND was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspaper on December 16, 2025, and the IS/MND was circulated for public and agency review and comment on December 16, 2025, through and including, January 5, 2025. Copies of the IS/MND were made available to the public at the City of Industry City Hall on December 16, 2025, and the IS/MND was distributed to interested parties and agencies; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, and reviewed and carefully considered the information in the IS/MND and MMRP, and all testimony written and oral, and adopted Resolution No. PC 2026-01 recommending that the City Council approve the IS/MND and notice of determination regarding same, adopted Resolution No. PC 2026-02 recommending that the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. 24-07, adopted Resolution No.
PC 2026-03 recommending that the City Council approve Development Plan Application No. 24-09 for the development of the proposed BESS facility, adopted Resolution No. PC 2026-04 recommending that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit No. 24-03 to allow the proposed BESS facility and recommended that the City Council approve Community Benefit Agreement No. 25-01; and
WHEREAS, notice of the City Council’s public hearing on the Application was published in The San Gabriel Valley Tribune on February 2, 2026, was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Property, and was posted at the Property and at City Hall Council Chambers, Fire Station 118, and the City’s website on February 2, 2026; and
Resolution No. CC 2026-03
DP No. 24-09
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2026, the City Council of the City of Industry conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project, including the IS/MND and MMRP, and considered all testimony written and oral; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Industry hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2: All necessary public hearings and opportunities for public testimony and comment have been conducted in compliance with State law and the City’s Code.
SECTION 3: Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the February 12, 2026, public hearing, including public testimony and written and oral staff reports, and which includes without limitation, CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, the IS/MND, MMRP and the City’s Code, and any documents provided by the public to the City Council at the February 12, 2026, public hearing, the City Council finds as follows:
(a) The site is suitable for development in accordance with the development plan.
The site is suitable for development in accordance with the development plan in that the Project is in conformance with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Code and all applicable development standards outlined in Section 17.36.060 of the Zoning Code and any future adopted Code requirement as outlined in Zoning Code Amendment No. 24-07. Further, pursuant to the provisions of the General Plan, industrial uses are permitted in the Employment land use designation, and the Project does not conflict with the established goals and objectives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. In accordance with the provisions of ZCA No. 24-07, a BESS Facility is permitted in the Industrial Zone, subject to the approval of a CUP. (b) The total development is arranged so as to avoid traffic congestion, ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, or prevent adverse effects upon neighboring properties.
The total development is arranged to avoid traffic congestion, ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, or prevent adverse effects upon neighboring properties, because it has been designed to minimize any potential impacts by complying with the City’s Code. Furthermore, the City’s Engineering Department has
Resolution No. CC 2026-03
DP No. 24-09
found the Project’s circulation pattern to be in conformance with local, state, and federal regulations regarding circulation and traffic pattern design. Additionally, there is adequate circulation around the Project site and the parking lot, thereby avoiding any potential traffic impacts such as congestion and/or stacking.
In addition, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) has developed an online VMT evaluation tool to assess whether a project is screened out from further VMT analysis. The analysis concluded that the Project would screen out using both the TPA screening criteria and Low VMT Area screening criteria as the project will generate less than the City of Industry average VMT using the Total VMT per Home-based Work metric. Therefore, the Project would not have significant conflict with a program, plan, or ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
Furthermore, the City’s building permit process and LA County Fire permit process ensures that the proposed Project is built in accordance with all City, County, and State standards, thus protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. The potential for catastrophic events (such as a fire, structural failure, or natural hazards) is specifically addressed through the City’s building permit process and the LA County Fire permit process. These reviews require compliance with applicable Building Code and Fire Code provisions, which are expressly designed to mitigate risks associated with worst-case and emergency scenarios, including impacts to surrounding uses including the residential uses.
Building and fire safety standards incorporate requirements related to structural integrity, fire resistance, emergency access, and life safety systems. Compliance with these standards reduces the likelihood and severity of catastrophic events and limits the potential for off-site impacts, including effects on adjacent residential properties. Therefore, it has been determined that the Project is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, and will not have adverse effects upon neighboring properties.
(c) The development is in general accord with all elements of this title.
The Project site is designated Industrial (M), and the proposed ZCA No. 24-07 allows BESS Facilities in the Industrial Zone, subject to the approval of a CUP.
Additionally, the conditions of approval for the Project set operational and management standards to ensure that the BESS facility will operate in a manner consistent with the General Plan’s policies related to noise, safety, property maintenance, and maintaining a professional appearance. Therefore, it has been determined that the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s Zoning Code. (d) The development is consistent with the provisions of the general plan or any applicable redevelopment plan.
Resolution No. CC 2026-03
DP No. 24-09
The proposed development plan is consistent with the General Plan, including the Employment Land Use Designation applicable to the Property. As stated in the General Plan, the Employment land use designation is intended to provide for a full range of industrial uses that are acceptable within the community, but whose operations are more intensive and may have nuisance or hazardous characteristics, which for reasons of health, safety, environmental effects, or general welfare, are best segregated from other uses, and uses handling hazardous materials would be permitted only with proper safeguards and a conditional use permit.
The proposed use and development are consistent with the General Plan Land Use Goal LU2, and Resource Management Goal RM2.
The Project addresses Land Use Goal LU2, which encourages a competitive business climate and blend of businesses that best serve the long-term economic future of the City. Additionally, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU2-6, which states the City should “[s]upport the use of energy-saving designs and equipment in all new development and rehabilitation or reconstruction projects.” The BESS Facility is expected to facilitate the integration of clean, renewable energy sources into the grid. Excess energy generated during off-peak hours can be stored and dispatched during peak demand, reducing the need to generate additional power from fossil fuels.
The Project addresses Resource Management Goal RM2 which recognizes the City’s responsibility to participate in a regional effort to improve the air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Project is consistent with General Plan Policy RM2-2, which states the City should “[s]upport efforts to reduce pollutants to meet State and Federal Clean Air Standards.” The Project is consistent with this policy via its role in transitioning to renewable energy to reduce emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gasses. This transition will help support the SCE grid and the San Gabriel Valley region as a whole which includes the City of Industry and several of its businesses.
SECTION 4: Based on the foregoing, the City Council approves DP No. 24- 09 subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto as Attachment 1, and incorporated herein by reference, subject to the approval and effective date of Ordinance No. 841 .
SECTION 5: The provisions of this Resolution are severable and if any provision, clause, sentence, word, or part thereof is held illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, or inapplicable to any person or circumstances, such illegality, invalidity, unconstitutionality, or inapplicability shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, clauses, sentences, sections, words, or parts thereof of the Resolution or their applicability to other persons or circumstances.
Resolution No. CC 2026-03
DP No. 24-09
SECTION 6: The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and the same shall be in full force and effect upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 841.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Industry at a special meeting held on February 12, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Cory Moss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Julie Gutierrez-Robles, City Clerk
Resolution No. CC 2026-03
DP No. 24-09
Attachment 1
Conditions of Approval – DP 24-09
[Attached]
Conditions of Approval
DP No. 24-09
CITY OF INDUSTRY
Standard Requirements and Conditions of Approval
Application: Development Plan No. 24-09
Applicant: Marici Project LLC
Location: 16233,16207, and 16253 Gale Avenue, (APN 8242-016-033, -034, - 044, and -061) City of Industry
Conditions of Approval
Conditions of approval are unique provisions, beyond the requirements of law, the municipal code, or standard practices that are applied to a Project by the City Council per Section 17.36.080 of the Zoning Code. Please note that if the design of your Project or site conditions changes, the conditions of approval may also change. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the City of Industry.
For purposes of these conditions, the term “Property Owner” shall include any party or parties other than the Successor Agency to the Industry Urban-Development Agency, and/or the City of Industry.
PLANNING DIVISION
Development Plan Conditions
1. Approval of this Development Plan (DP) request shall apply only to the subject project and shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the same time as Building Permit Issuance. The approved use is a new for a Battery Energy Storage System Facility, and for no other use.
2. The Applicant and Property Owner shall file an executed and acknowledged Acceptance of Terms and Conditions of Development Plan No. 24-09 within 10 calendar days after the approval of said entitlements. The Applicant and Property Owner understand and agree that approval of the Resolution for Development Plan No. 24-09 will be of no force or effect unless such written consent is submitted to the City within the stated 10-day period.
3. Failure to comply with any of the conditions set forth herein, or as subsequently amended in writing by the City, may result in failure to obtain a building final and/or a Certificate of Occupancy until full compliance is reached. The City’s requirement for full
Conditions of Approval
DP No. 24-09
compliance may require minor corrections and/or complete demolition of a noncompliant improvement, regardless of costs incurred, where the Project does not comply with design requirements and approvals that the Applicant agreed to when permits were pulled to construct the Project.
4. Construction plans submitted for Building Permits shall be in substantial compliance with plans approved by this action of the City Council. Any major modifications to the use, building, site, or Project description shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and may require a separate planning entitlement review process.
5. A copy of the conditions of approval provided herein shall be included in the construction documentation package for the Project, which shall be continuously maintained on site during construction.
6. It shall be the responsibility of the Property Owner and Applicant to ensure that any required permits, inspections, and approvals from any regulatory agency shall be obtained from the agency concerned prior to the establishment of the use.
7. The Project uses shall always operate in a manner that is not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking, or other actions.
8. All building corners shall be established by a licensed surveyor prior to construction of the foundation.
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan showing locations and height of all exterior lighting fixtures with arrows showing the direction of light being cast by each fixture for review and approval of the City of Industry Planning Department, the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
10. The Lighting Plan shall ensure any exterior night lighting installed on the Project site is of low intensity, low glare design, minimum height, and shall be hooded to direct light downward onto the subject lot and prevent spill-over onto adjacent lots. The fixtures will be reviewed for quality, aesthetics, illumination values, sustainability values such as LED and shall be decoratively and architecturally consistent with the building design.
The location, height, style, and design shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Industry Planning Department and the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department.
11. A complete landscape/irrigation package prepared by a landscape architect licensed by the State of California shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Industry Planning Department prior to issuance of building permit. The plans shall include the following elements: a. Water conservation concept statement. b. Calculation of maximum applied water allowance. c. Calculation of estimated total water use. d.
Landscape design plan. e. Irrigation design plan. f. Certificate of substantial completion. g. The landscape plan shall demonstrate compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements related to minimum dimensions and percentages of landscaping in parking areas, including required front yard setback landscaping.
Conditions of Approval
DP No. 24-09
12. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall install said landscaping and irrigation system and shall have a licensed landscape architect or licensed landscape contractor, certify in writing that it was installed in accordance with the approved plan. Said written certification shall be submitted to the Planning Department.
13. The landscape irrigation system shall be designed to accept recycled water from future recycled water lines, which are currently being planned to be in the area. The irrigation plan, which is submitted to the City for approval per Chapter 13.18 of the Municipal Code, shall be designed and clearly noted to allow the transition from potable water to recycled water when and if recycled water lines are eventually installed in the immediate vicinity.
14. All irrigation systems shall function properly, and landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition. The maintenance of landscaping and the irrigation system shall be permanently provided for all areas of the Project site, as well as walkways and the portion of public rights-of-way abutting the Project site. Furthermore, the plans shall identify responsibility for the continued maintenance.
15. Trash enclosures shall be provided with three decorative walls, enhanced wall caps, a pedestrian entrance, a gate, and a structural steel cover, in a style compatible with the structure’s architecture. The gate shall be maintained in working order and shall remain closed except when it is in use.
16. Storage use and removal of toxic substances, solid waste, and flammable liquids shall conform to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. All required licensing shall always be maintained.
17. All proposed mechanical units, air conditioning equipment, blowers, make-up air units, ducts, etc. shall be shown on the building permit plans. The Applicant shall effectively screen from view all ducts, blowers, air conditioning equipment, and any other mechanical equipment, whether on the structure, on the ground, or on the roof, with materials architecturally compatible with the building. Screening details shall be shown on the plans submitted for issuance of building permits, the adequacy of which shall be determined by the Planning Department. All required screening shall be provided prior to occupancy. The construction plans shall include appropriate elevations and crosssection drawings demonstrating how such equipment is to be screened from view (include dimensions, materials, colors, etc.).
18. All ground mounted utility structures such as transformers and back flow prevention valves shall be located out of view from a public street or screened using landscaping and/or masonry walls.
19. A bumper guard or wheel stops shall be provided, where necessary, to protect the structure or parked vehicle.
20. The Applicant, and/or Property Owner shall arrange for a final inspection by representatives of the City of Industry Planning Department, the Los Angeles County
Conditions of Approval
DP No. 24-09
Building and Safety Department, the City of Industry Public Works Department, and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) prior to the release of occupancy. Any discrepancy between the approved plans and the field conditions shall be remedied prior to occupancy such that the field condition is consistent with the approved plans.
21. Pedestrian paths shall be maintained in such manner to allow the safe and convenient passage of people across drive aisles. Pedestrian pathways shall be clearly marked with paint and/or enhanced paving materials and designated with adequate and appropriate signage. Pedestrian pathways adjacent to the drive aisles shall be separated by a raised curb or other device to ensure a safe and adequate separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles.
22. Prior to any permit issuance, the Applicant shall provide a letter to the Planning Department that certifies that the following will be adhered to during all stages of development:
• All equipment used on site meets the EPA Tier 4 Interim emissions standards for off-road diesel-powered construction equipment with more than 50 horsepower, unless it can be demonstrated to the City that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB’s regulations.
• All equipment used on site has emission noise control parts in place and has not been altered in any way from their initial condition as delivered from the factory.
• A list of all operating equipment in use on the construction site including the make, model, and numbers of each piece of equipment.
• All equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.
• All nonessential idling of construction equipment is limited to no more than five minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9.
23. Prior to issuance of grading permits, Applicant shall identify to the Planning Department a construction relations officer to function as a community liaison concerning on-site activity, including resolution of issues related to dust generation from grading/paving activities.
24. Electronic gates shall be equipped with a Knox electric switch and an alternative energy back-up system, such as a generator or battery, which would allow operation of the security gate(s) during an electrical power outage. Access through the gates shall be provided for both the Los Angeles County Fire and Sheriff Departments. The location of Knox boxes shall be shown on the building plans and approved by both the LACoFD
Conditions of Approval
DP No. 24-09
and the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department.
25. A note shall be added to the building plans stating that the construction contractor shall only use interior and exterior paints with a VOC content of 90 grams per liter (g/L) or less for the building structures to reduce VOC emissions. Prior to issuance of building permits, the construction contractor shall provide documentation to the satisfaction of the Planning Department that verifies use of coatings with a VOC content of 90 g/L or less.
26. The Applicant/Property Owner shall comply with all surface drainage and driveway requirements set forth in the City's Code.
27. The applicant shall submit a complete set of electronic plans that conform to all the Conditions of Approval to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to Building and Safety plan check submittal.
28. There shall be no deviation of architectural design or details from the approved set of plans. The Planning Division shall first approve any alteration.
29. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit, a wall design specification and plan details including colors and materials must be submitted and approved by the Planning Division to assure a decorative wall design is provided.
30. Prior to Building Permit Final, the Project shall demonstrate that LACoFD and any other agencies have reviewed and approved the Project.
31. The Project would be properly segregated from other surrounding industrial uses and include all proper safeguards, including a reinforced 10-foot-high CMU block wall to be built around the site.
32. For the Project, none of the battery enclosures will be permitted to be within 25 feet of any property line.
33. The battery enclosures will be required to be equipped with internal, failsafe heat and gas detection and alarm systems, which shall provide audio and visual early warnings of increases in heat or gas in any battery enclosure to a third-party reporting station that actively monitors for such warnings on a 24/7/365 basis. Furthermore, whenever any of the batteries fail, reach the end of their useful life, or need to be disposed of due to a legal requirement or due to their continued presence posing an added risk to public health or safety, the Project applicant will be required to promptly discontinue use and dispose of such batteries in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to those related to hazardous materials and hazardous waste.
34. A Hazardous Material Business Plan (“HMBP”) as defined by Section 25505 of the Health & Safety Code will be required to be prepared for the Project in accordance with established requirements and submitted to the City and LACoFD for review and approval. The requirements for HMBP shall include the following:
• An inventory of hazardous materials onsite.
Conditions of Approval
DP No. 24-09
• An Emergency Action Plan including procedures and contacts for communicating an immediate response to a reportable release or threatened release of a hazardous material, and procedures to mitigate a release or threatened release.
• Employee training in project safety procedures and emergency response plans and procedures in the event of a reportable release or threatened release. • A site map that depicts north orientation, loading areas, internal roads, adjacent streets, storm, and sewer drains, access and exit points, emergency shutoffs, evacuation staging areas, hazardous material handling and storage areas, and emergency response equipment
35. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Project shall demonstrate compliance with all then-applicable mitigation measures in the MND/MMRP. A final mitigation monitoring matrix/spreadsheet demonstrating such compliance shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval.
36. The Applicant shall comply with all the requirements set forth in the mitigation measures of the MND for the Project. In the event of any conflict between the Conditions of Approval set forth herein and those set forth in the MND, the mitigation measures set forth in the MND shall prevail.
Mitigation Measures
37. CUL-1 Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the project applicant to monitor during ground-disturbing activities in native soils and address any inadvertent discoveries identified for the duration of construction activities.
In consideration of the potential to encounter intact cultural deposits beneath imported (non-native) fill soils and/or existing development, the qualified archaeologist shall survey the development area once fill soils have been removed to ensure that no cultural deposits underly the fill layer. If it is determined, based on the surveys during ground-disturbing activities into native soils, that cultural resources are present or may be present that may be impacted during project construction, further study including subsurface testing as well as archaeological monitoring may be warranted. If it is determined that monitoring is warranted, a qualified archaeological principal investigator, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, shall oversee and adjust monitoring efforts as needed (increase, decrease, or discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the observed potential for construction activities to encounter cultural deposits or material. The archaeological monitor shall be responsible for maintaining daily monitoring logs.
38. CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery Treatment and Protocol In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities, all construction work occurring within 50 feet of the find shall immediately stop and a qualified archaeologist shall be notified immediately to assess the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. If human remains or suspected human
Conditions of Approval
DP No. 24-09
remains are discovered, all construction work occurring within 50 feet of the find shall immediately stop. Encroachment into the 50-foot buffer may occur at the discretion of a qualified archaeologist. Depending on the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA as determined by the qualified archaeologist, additional work such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, data recovery, or monitoring may be warranted. Within 60 days following completion of ground disturbance, an archaeological monitoring report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Industry for review. The report shall document compliance with approved mitigation, document the monitoring efforts, and include an appendix with daily monitoring logs. The final report shall be submitted to the South-Central Coastal Information Center. Geology and Soils.
39. GEO-1: Paleontological Discovery
In the event that fossils or fossil locality deposits are discovered during ground disturbing activities (e.g., trenching, soil removal), excavation within 100 feet of the fossil locality shall be temporarily halted until removal occurs. Encroachment into the 100-foot buffer may occur at the discretion of a qualified paleontologist. The contractor shall notify a qualified paleontologist to investigate its significance. If the fossil locality is determined to be significant by the qualified paleontologist, the paleontologist shall work with the project applicant and construction contractor to follow accepted professional standards, such as further testing for evaluation or data recovery, as necessary. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that shall be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the project applicant determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project based on the qualities that make the resource important.
40. NOI-1
The construction contractor shall limit construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. daily, as required by the Los Angeles County Code
12.08.440, Construction Noise. Construction is prohibited outside these hours.
Construction is also prohibited on Sundays and County of Los Angeles holidays.
The construction contractor shall also implement the following best practices:
• Utilize sound control devices no less effective than those provided by the manufacturer.
• Maintain equipment in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. • No equipment will have unmuffled exhausts.
• Equipment idling will be kept to a minimum.
41. TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of GroundDisturbing Activities The Project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project
Conditions of Approval
DP No. 24-09
description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of any grounddisturbing activity. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered tribal cultural resources (TCR), as defined by Section 21074(a) of the Public Resources Code. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the City upon written request to the Tribe. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the monitor and/or archeologist.
The tribal monitor will recover and retain discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner they deem appropriate, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural, and/or historic purposes.
42. TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98(d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the Project Site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human remains shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner, and all ground-disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Construction activities may resume in other parts of the Project Site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the tribal monitor determines that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f)). Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any discovery of Native American human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.
43. TCR-3: Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains
To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. If the discovery of human remains includes
Conditions of Approval
DP No. 24-09
four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery, and a separate treatment plan shall be created. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected.
If the Project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the Project applicant, before ground-disturbing activities may resume on the Project Site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains; funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on-site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the Project Site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered. The Tribe will work closely with the Project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically, and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches.
All data, recovery data, and recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the Native American Heritage Commission. The Tribe does not authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.
44. APM-1: Best Management Practices
The project applicant will implement the Revised Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP) prepared for the proposed Project, which outlines best management practices (BMPs) for use in the event impacted soil or groundwater is encountered during construction of the proposed Project. The detailed list of BMPs to be implemented are outlined in the SMGP.
45. APM-2: Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System
A vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) will be implemented for the proposed office building to address the documented soil gas concentrations detected on-site.
46. APM-3: Emergency Action Plan
Conditions of Approval
DP No. 24-09
The project applicant will prepare an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for submittal to and approval by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in accordance with the provisions of Standard 1910.38 (Emergency action plans) of Part 1910 (Occupational Safety and Health Standards). A copy of the OSHA-approved EPA will be submitted to the City of Industry for its records.
47. APM-4: Emergency Response Plan
To mitigate exposure to carbon monoxide and smoke as a result of a potential (although unlikely) runaway thermal event, an emergency response plan will be prepared by a qualified fire safety engineer for the specific design of the proposed BESS facility pursuant to the LACoFD requirements. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the LACoFD during the building permit process.
48. APM-5: Pre-construction Nesting Bird Survey
If construction is scheduled to commence during the nonnesting season (i.e., September 1 to January 31), no preconstruction surveys or additional measures are required. To avoid impacts to nesting birds on the project site, a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys of all potential nesting habitat within the project site for construction activities that are initiated during the breeding season (i.e., February 1 to August 31). The surveying biologist must be qualified to determine the status and stage of nesting by migratory birds and all locally breeding raptor species without causing intrusive disturbance. The raptor survey shall focus on potential nest sites (e.g., cliffs, large trees, windrows) around the project site. Surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to construction activities. If active nests are found, a suitable buffer (e.g., 200-300 feet for common raptors; 30-50 feet for passerine species) shall be established around active nests and no construction within the buffer allowed until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (e.g., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). Encroachment into the buffer may occur at the discretion of a qualified biologist.
In the event that any of the aforementioned mitigation measures conflict with the measures in the adopted IS/MND and MMRP, the measures in the IS/MND and MMRP shall prevail.
BUILDING DIVISION
49. The Project will be required to adhere to the provisions of the LACBC and CBC (The Los Angeles County Building Code (LACBC; Title 26 of the Los Angeles County Code) and the California Building Code (CBC; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2), adopted by reference in Title 15 (Buildings and Construction), Chapter 15.04 of the Industry Municipal Code).
50. The Project shall comply with the applicable provisions of the California Green Building Standards Code and provide at least 15 percent of the rooftop area for solar photovoltaic power.
51. Prior to the issuance of any permit a soils report is required to be submitted to the
Conditions of Approval
DP No. 24-09
Building Division for review and approval.
52. The Project shall provide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance accessibility to public right-of-way.
53. The Project shall provide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance throughout the site.
PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING
54. The Applicant shall provide drainage and grading plans to be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. Such plans shall be in substantial conformity with the development plans.
55. The Applicant shall supply sanitary sewer facilities to serve all buildings to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the final approval of the development and hook-up utilities.
56. The Applicant must use the City of Industry Standard Plans.
57. Depending upon the nature of the proposed use, the Applicant shall obtain an Industrial Waste Permit or receive Domestic Wastewater Clearance from the City Engineer depending on the building use.
58. The Applicant shall use the City of Industry Benchmark’s (NAVD-29) for all construction plans. Contact the City’s survey department for benchmark information.
59. The Applicant shall construct storm drains and water quality devices to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the final approval of the development and the hook-up of utilities.
60. In conformance with Chapter 13.16 of the Municipal Code, and prior to the start of grading and construction, the Applicant shall provide a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), developed by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) and consistent with the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction general permit, along with proof that a Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) Number has been obtained, to the City Engineer for review and approval.
61. In conformance with Chapter 13.16 of the Municipal Code, the Applicant shall provide:
1) a Low Impact Development (LID) plan; and
2) an operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. Upon approval, the Applicant shall construct storm drains and water quality devices according to the approved plans and the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to building final and/or issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall provide the City Engineer with a signed and recorded covenant and agreement stating that the Property and all structural or treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be maintained in compliance with the
Conditions of Approval
DP No. 24-09
municipal NPDES permit (also sometimes called the MS4 permit) and other applicable regulatory requirements.
62. Prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy Applicant shall submit digital copies of asbuilt plans to the City Engineer.
63. Prior to the close out of the grading permit the Applicant shall video via CCTV or any other applicable method all sewer and storm drain on-site and submit to the City Engineer for approval.
64. All existing easements within the project shall be Quitclaimed. No proposed structural shall be built over existing easements.
65. Applicant shall provide a Street and Highway Easement Grant Deed for the 30’ wide frontage along Gale Avenue to the City of Industry.
66. Applicant shall provide sidewalk easement and at all driveway crossings for pedestrian path of travel along Gale Avenue, as needed and submit to the City Engineer for approval.
67. Applicant shall record a “Covenant and Agreement to Hold Property as One Parcel” for Parcel Nos. 8242-016-033, 8242-016-034, 8242-016-036, 8242-016-044, and 8242-016-061 prior to issuance of building occupancy.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
68. Before any permit is issued, besides those allowed by the building department to be at risk, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from LACoFD of all facility and equipment plans subject to LACoFD authority. These plans shall include but not be limited to any necessary requests for variance(s) from the default prescriptive requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Code [i.e., requests to “use an alternate material, assembly of materials, equipment, method of construction, method of installation of equipment or means of protection” from that which is prescribed by the codes and standards to be the default requirement. Said approvals from the LACoFD shall be obtained from the LACoFD, specifically the Engineering Section of the fire Prevention Division, and bear the signature of the LACoFD Fire Marshal
69. An Explosion-Hazard Early Warning Detection and Notification shall be required.
Where the chemistry or design of the ESS, or battery ESS (BESS, or electrochemical ESS), is capable, during normal or failure modes, of creating an explosive atmosphere of consequence within the airspace of its battery compartment, room, or other enclosure (whether a full-volume or partial-volume explosive atmosphere) a. Early warning detection and notification via a fire-alarm system compliant with the Los Angeles County Fire Code and the NFPA-72 standard shall be designed with detection inside each battery compartment to effectively provide advanced warning of any accumulation towards an explosive limit of flammable/explosive gases, in accordance with the Los Angeles County Fire Code.
Conditions of Approval
DP No. 24-09
b. These detection devices shall be addressable.
c. Automatic notification serving potential impact areas via on-site sets of horns, beacons (red or orange), and signs, shall be provided as determined by LACoFD. d. Automatic notification by the fire-alarm system shall be made to 9-1-1 as determined by LACoFD.
e. On-site identification of the particular enclosure(s) in alarm shall be achieved via horn-strobe notification device(s).
f. Gas detection systems, including any that are used to initiate an explosion-control system, shall comply with the requirements of NFPA 72 and be supervised by the fire-alarm system
70. An Explosion-Hazard Shielding shall be included requiring that the maximum-potential explosion-hazard consequences, including pressure-wave generation and projectile/shrapnel impact, for a battery-failure gas-accumulation scenario not lesssevere than the scenario defined by the LACoFD, shall be established by a qualified third party and subject to approval by the LACoFD.
a. Based on the maximum-potential explosion-hazard results, an explosionshielding wall that is engineered to provide protection from one such maximumpotential explosion occurrence, for the closest BESS enclosure thereto, for each BESS enclosure to be installed, shall be provided:
i. Around the entire BESS-installation perimeter of the BESS installation(s) or BESS field as a whole, to protect persons outside the facility; and ii. As a shield for four persons operating at each required first-responder/firecommand station for these installations. b. The height of these perimeter walls shall be a minimum height of 10 feet or exceed the height of the BESS enclosures by at least 18 inches, and shall in no case be less than any minimum height requirement set therefor by the jurisdictional planning agency.
c. Install a vehicular gate for fire apparatus access within the Project site providing an emergency vehicle access route. The vehicular gate shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet or greater to accommodate for the fire apparatus turning radii and maneuvering ability to adjoining fire lanes. This gate shall be identified as Emergency Vehicle Access, meeting the design criteria as any other gates, and remain locked with an approved Fire Department locking device. d. Fire apparatus access road gates through the wall shall be compliant with the Los Angeles County Fire Code, including Section 503 thereof and provide sufficient protection.
71. The site layout of the BESS units, in accordance with the Fire Code, will be required to have separation distances between BESS units, enclosures, and groups of BESS
Conditions of Approval
DP No. 24-09
units/enclosures, and setback distances from sensitive exposures called out by the Fire Code (e.g., combustibles, hazardous materials), shall be validated by largescale fire testing or modeling, as specified and approved by LACoFD
CODE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS
The following is a list of general planning conditions, code requirements and standards deemed applicable to the proposed Project. The list is intended to assist the Applicant by identifying requirements that must be satisfied during the various stages of Project permitting, implementation, and operation. It should be noted that this list is in addition to any “conditions of approval” adopted by the City Council and noted above. Please note that if the design of your Project or site conditions changes, the list may also change. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the City of Industry.
72. The Applicant and/or successor in interest shall comply with all Federal, State, County, and local laws, rules, and ordinances.
73. The Applicant shall pay off all existing deficit deposit accounts associated with processing this permit. The Applicant shall provide a receipt to the Planning Department, which shows that all discretionary deposit accounts have been paid. No Certificate of Occupancy or Final Planning Division Inspection will be issued/completed if there are deficit deposit accounts.
74. Current and future property owners, business managers, operators, successors, assigns, etc. shall be responsible for ensuring and complying with all conditions of approval contained herein.
75. The Applicant shall abide and continue to comply with all previous City approvals, permits, or requirements relating to the subject property, unless explicitly superseded or revised by this Approval.
76. The Applicant/Property Owner shall construct adequate fire protection facilities to the satisfaction of the LACoFD.
77. The Applicant/Property Owner shall supply sanitary sewer facilities to serve all buildings to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. One sewer connection per parcel is permitted and, in the case of multiple units or buildings, all sewer lines must join at the connection point.
78. The Applicant/Property Owner shall provide drainage and grading plans to be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permit. Such plans shall be in substantial conformity with the approved development plans.
79. In conformance with Chapter 13.16 of the Municipal Code and prior to the start of grading and construction, the Applicant/Property Owner shall provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), developed by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) and consistent with the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction general permit, along with proof that a Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) Number has been obtained, to the City Engineer for