RESOLUTION NO. 24-8244
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DENYING
APPEAL BY GOLDEN STATE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE
(GSEJA) AND UPHOLDING THE DETERMINATION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ALL PROJECT APPROVALS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "PROLOGIS STEWART & GRAY ROAD
WAREHOUSE PROJECT"
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2022, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and California Code Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines"), the City prepared a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") for a project titled "Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project" ("Project") that was circulated to and available for comment to residents, public agencies, and other interested parties between March 25, 2022 and April 27, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2022, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15083, the City held a public scoping meeting to provide details and clarification, as well as to receive comments from residents, public agencies, and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2022, the City extended and recirculated the NOP for the Draft EIR for the Project for comment to residents, public agencies, and other interested parties between April 22, 2022 and May 20, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2023, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared and circulated for public comment the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2022030738) for a 45-day review period from December 13, 2023 and January 25, 2024; and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2024, the City received a comment letter prepared and submitted by Blum, Collins and Ho LLP on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA); and
WHEREAS, the City responded to the comments made in the letter dated January 24, 2024 within the EIR itself, in the section entitled "Response to Comments"; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2024, a notice of the public hearing to certify a Final EIR was sent to all property owners and tenants within 500' of the subject site, all interested properties requesting notification, outside public agencies, and the notice was published in the Downey Patriot newspaper; and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Downey held a duly noticed public hearing to consider all testimony, written and oral, related to the Final EIR, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2024, the Planning Commission voted to 4-0-1 to adopt Resolution No. 24-4022 to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, to adopt Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Resolution No. 24- 4023 to approve Site Plan Review and Variance (PLN-21-00025) and Lot Merger (PLN-23-00086) ("Project Approvals"); and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2024, the City Clerk's office of the City of Downey, received an appeal letter dated March 12, 2024, authored, and signed by Mr. Joe Bourgeois, Executive Director, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA) and Mr. Ramon Amaya, Treasurer, GSEJA ("Appellant"); and
RESOLUTION NO. 24-8244
PAGE 2
WHEREAS, in the appeal letter, Appellant urged that the Planning Commission erred by determining that the Project would not result in further impacts on an already polluted -burdened and traffic congested citizenry. Appellant also incorporated the reasons from its earlier letter dated January 24, 2024.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY,
CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. On June 11, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed hearing on Appellant's Appeal and found that:
A. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Project has been determined to be adequately evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Report, as further detailed immediately below.
The Final Environmental Impact Report identified that the project may create the following:
No impacts related to the topics of Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Mineral Resources and Recreation.
Less Than Significant impacts related to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, Population and Housing, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildlife, because the project outputs meet or exceed the established thresholds by external regulating bodies.
In the case of aesthetics, it is not foreseeable that the Project would produce impacts, because no landmarks or scenic views are within close proximity to the Project.
Relative to biological resources, there is a scarce amount of trees on the site and it is not anticipated that nesting is to occur.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated impacts related to Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use Planning, and Transportation.
Regarding cultural resources, mitigation measures were included in order to reduce potential impacts to unanticipated archaological resources discovered during construction. There are management recommendations in the event that resources are discovered.
With respect to tribal cultural resources, mitigation measures are included to impacts that may affect tribal and cultural resources discovered during construction. These mitigation measures are incorporated in order to appropriately appoint, identify and preserve resources in the event of a discovery.
Mitigation measures for hazard and hazardous materials consist of monitoring for hazardous materials that may become exposed during excavation, demolition, or application of materials. This includes the appropriate procedures to follow if a hazardous substance is located, as well as testing of building materials for substances, such as lead and asbestos and providing appropriate remediation, if items are found.
RESOLUTION NO. 24-8244
PAGE 3
The land use and planning and transportation category mitigations require the applicants to submit a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Program outlining both physical measures (e.g., bike lockers, designated carpool parking spaces, etc.) and programmatic measures (e.g., guaranteed ride home program, employee transportation coordinator, etc.) that would be implemented in order to provide traffic alternatives and reduce vehicular traffic.
The land use and planning section of the EIR discusses potential conflicts with the City's General Plan and truck traffic, in particular, the Circulation Element Policy 2.3.3, which discourages land uses that generate high amounts of truck traffic. However, the Circulation Element also provides guidance for when approval and consderation of such uses is appropriate.
Specifically, per Program 2.3.3.1, increases in truck traffic may be deemed appropriate when they provide a benefit to the community. Additionally, Program 2.3.3.2 calls for a requirement that such uses undergo a discretionary process to analyze appropriateness. Land Use and Planning impacts are reduced to less than significant with mitigation when taking into consideration the programs stated above and in combination with the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce overall traffic.
Impacts related to transportation involve total Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT). VMT is the unit of measurement used by CEQA to calculate the total miles driven within a specified area or to/from a particular site. The proposed Project is forecasted to generate a baseline employment VMT of 19.2 VMT per employee. However, the threshold for significant impact is 15.3 VMT per employee. That number can be reduced by providing alternative forms of travel, or providing amenities to those that use alternative travel, as detailed in the mitigations. Amenities include installing bike lockers and exclusive parking for carpooling. Programs include guaranteed rides home or connecting individuals wishing to carpool. The specific activities provided by the applicant are stipulate in the mitigations and the TDM. The combination of programs and incentives in the TDM will reduce the project VMT per employee to 15.2, and under the South Coast Air Quality Management District's established threshold.
Significant and Unavoidable impacts related to Noise. Noise was identified in the EIR as the only category of impacts that was found to be significant and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared. The impact is limited to temporary nighttime construction activities. More specifically, nighttime construction activities associated with concrete pours could potentially expose neighboring sensitive land uses, such as residences, within 300 feet of the Project site to noise levels more than 10 dBA above the acceptable noise level of 70 dBA. While a mitigation measure has been prepared, the mitigation does not reduce the impact to less than significant. Nonetheless, the mitigation is still included in an effort to reduce potential burdens to nearby land uses. The applicant has shared that the nighttime construction would only occur for a maximum of 40 days, non -consecutively. The maximum length of any one event is approximately 12 consecutive days.
The mitigation measure requires that the contractor apply for a Temporary Use of Land Permit to allow for nighttime construction and to specify the exact dates and time the activity will be taking place. In addition, the applicant would also be required to send notices of the dates and times for nighttime construction to all residents, property owners, and businesses within 300', no later than 48 hours before the activity takes place. The notice is required for each event.
CEQA guidelines allow its decision -making authority to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including city-wide benefits, of the proposed project and find that these considerations outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effect. Through the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the
RESOLUTION NO. 24-8244
PAGE 4
adverse environmental effects can be considered acceptable. It is Staff's opinion that the acceptability of the environmental impact is further highlighted by the temporary nature of the impact.
B. Reasons originally provided by the Appellant were acknowledged and adequately responded to by the City, based on technical studies and reports, which are included in Section D.1, 2.0 — Response to Comments in the Final Environmental Impact Report. Based on the responses provided by the City, it was determined that no revisions to the EIR are necessary, and the preparation and recirculation of a revised EIR is not required.
C. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requires a subsequent EIR for a project only when the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) substantial changes occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
None of these findings were made in the Planning Commission's staff report, presentation and Resolution No. 24-4022, and therefore, the Project does not require subsequent environmental review.
D. Findings of fact are provided in Resolution No. 24-4023, to support the approval of the Site Plan Review and Variance requests (PLN-21-00025).
With respect to the Site Plan Review, the Project was found to be in compliance with the major development standards of the zoning district, including lot size (40,000 square feet required/29.16 acres, or 1,270,209.60 square feet provided), floor area ratio (0.6 per General Plan required/0.41 proposed), building setbacks (Front: 10 feet required/87.5 feet proposed. Rear: 20 feet required/53.33 feet proposed), parking (646 spaces required/668 standard and 150 trailer spaces proposed) and landscaping (10% of the site required/10.5% of the site proposed).
The Variance is a request to deviate from the 45-foot maximum allowable height in the Manufacturing Zones, to 54 feet. The majority of the height exceeding the requirement involves the parapet walls along the perimeter of the building designed to conceal roof -mounted equipment from public view. The interior of the building will only have a vertical clearance height of 47 feet.
Deviating from the current height requirement is necessary for the operation and function of the site due to the evolving industry standards placed upon warehousing distribution facilities, and the modern storage equipment now employed within these facilities. The current regulations were established prior to the development of these new industry standards and if strictly enforced, would limit the facility's ability to operate at what the applicant describes as a Class A facility. The development standards for the site do not consider these new emerging potential industrial
RESOLUTION NO. 24-8244
PAGE 5
tenants categorized as high distribution, high cube fullfillment centers and last mile distribution centers, which have become more prominent due to increases in online sales.
E. Findings of fact are provided in Resolution No. 24-4023, to support the approval of a Lot Merger (PLN-23-00086).
The lot merger is one of the appropriate procedures outlined in the Subdivision Map Act to facilitate the consolidation of multiple parcels. For the Project, the subject properties are required to merge into one lot to accommodate the construction of a structure across boundary lines, which would otherwise be prohibited by the California Building Code. Alternative methods of consolidation include lot ties, or a Parcel Map. No one method supercedes another concerning the proposed lot consolidation. The lot merger was selected by the applicant in coordination with the City's Public Works Department.
SECTION 2. The City Council, after hearing, considering and weighing all evidence in the record presented on behalf of all parties and being fully informed of the Planning Commission's decision on the Project, and the appeal filed by Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, hereby finds and determines that the Planning Commission's decision with respect to all Project Approvals was not made in error, that the Planning Commission's decision was not an abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission, and that the Planning Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record.
SECTION 3. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Prologis Stewart & Gray Road Warehouse Project ("Final EIR"). The City Council finds that the Final EIR, which consists of the Draft EIR, Errata and Response to Comments, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 4. Based on the substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to the Final EIR (SCH No. 2022030738), the City Council finds that, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Project has been determined to be adequately evaluated in the previously certified Final EIR SCH No. 2022030738), per Sections 15162 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby denies the appeal filed by Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's determination with respect to all Project Approvals, as conditioned therein. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above -said hearing, which includes, but is not limited to: the Agenda Memo dated June 11, 2024, and exhibits attached thereto, and the public testimony, written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June 2024.
MARIO TRUJILLO, Mayor
ATTEST:
RESOLUTION NO. 24-8244
PAGE 6
MARIA ALICIA DUARTE, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JOHN M. FUNK
City Attorney
1 HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Downey at a Regular meeting held on the 11th day of June, 2024, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
Council Members:
NOES:
Council Member:
ABSENT:
Council Member:
ABSTAIN:
Council Member:
MARIA ALICIA DUARTE, CMC
City Clerk