Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
CANDIDATE FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS for the
PROLOGIS STEWART AND GRAY ROAD WAREHOUSE PROJECT
SCH No. 2022030738
T,71YETOTRIT141 •,,
a. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations The following Candidate Findings are made for the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project (Project). The environmental effects of the Project are addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) dated March 2024, which is incorporated by reference herein.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) [Section 21081(a)] and the CEQA Guidelines [Section 15091(a)] require that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant effects thereof, unless such public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment;
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been or can or should be adopted by that other agency; or
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
CEQA also requires that the findings made pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(b) be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Under CEQA, substantial evidence means that enough relevant information has been provided (and reasonable inferences from this information may be made) that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Substantial evidence may include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15384).
CEQA further requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental effects when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a)).
When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its actions based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record.
If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Having received, reviewed, and considered the Final EIR for the Project (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2022030738), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Findings) are hereby adopted by the City of Downey (City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for current and subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies for the implementation of the Project.
b. Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of the following documents and other evidence:
• The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project;
• All responses to the NOP received by the City;
• The Final EIR;
• The Draft EIR;
• All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft EIR;
• All responses to the written comments included in the Final EIR; • All written and oral public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the Project at which such testimony was taken;
• The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
• The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in any responses to comments in the Final EIR;
• All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in, or otherwise relied upon during the preparation of, the EIR;
• Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to, federal, state, and local laws and regulations;
• Any documents expressly cited in these Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
• Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e).
C. Custodian and Location of Records
The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the City's actions on the Project are located at the City's Community Development Department, 11111 Brookshire Avenue, VY Floor, Downey, CA 90241. The City's Community Development Department is the custodian of the Project's administrative record. Copies of the document that constitute the record of proceedings are on
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
the City's website and at all relevant times have been available upon request at the offices of the City's Community Development Department. The Draft EIR and Final EIR were placed on the City's website at https://www.downeyca.org/our-city/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/environmental- documents. This information is provided in compliance with the Public Resources Code 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines 15091(e).
II. PROJECT SUMMARY
a. Project Location
The Project site is located on an approximately 29.16-acre site in the southeastern portion of the City in the southern portion of Los Angeles County (County). The Project site is located approximately ten miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and nine miles northwest of the County of Orange. Regional access is provided via the following freeways: the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5 [1-5]), the San Gabriel Freeway (1-605), the Century Freeway (1-105), and the Long Beach Freeway (1-710). The Project site is bounded by Hall Road on the north, Woodruff Road on the east, Stewart and Gray Road on the south, and an industrial building on the west. The site is comprised of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 6284-019-013 through 017. Primary vehicular access to the Project site is provided by Stewart and Gray Road and Hall Road.
b. Project Description
The proposed Project would include the demolition of the existing buildings totaling approximately 433,000 square feet (SF) and the construction of an approximately 535,685-SF industrial concrete tilt -up building for warehouse/logistics uses. The Project would include 683 automobile parking spaces, 255 trailer and/or container parking spaces, and 109 dock loading doors. The new industrial building would be used for logistics and distribution purposes, and specifically as a fulfillment center and for cold storage. Approximately 95 percent of the warehouse (508,900 SF) would be high cube fulfillment and the remaining 5 percent (26,785 SF) would be for cold storage (i.e., refrigerated warehouse space). The facility would also include 20,000 SF of office area and 25,000 SF of mezzanine area within the 535,685-SF building. On -site activities would include storage, distribution, and/or consolidation of manufactured goods, and last -mile fulfillment and delivery; and general industrial/warehouse with refrigeration and cold storage component for the purposes of receiving, storing, shipping of food and/or beverage products. The office space would be used for office uses ancillary to the warehouse operations. The proposed facility would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The building would include concrete tilt up panels on all sides of the building. The southeast, southwest, and northwest sides of the building would be the entrance to the office component and would include glazed windows, metal and wood side paneling, metal canopies at select locations, enhanced exterior building materials and building modulation. Exterior and interior glazing would be tempered with vision glass and spandrel glass at the main entryways and around the perimeter of the building.
The proposed building would be up to 55 feet tall with a rectilinear form. Roof lines on each side would generally be uniformly linear but each elevation would be modular such that every 50 to 60 feet of the facade would have varied design elements of material, color, and pattern to provide articulation.
Mechanical equipment (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units) would be placed on the rooftops
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
and screened by parapet walls incorporated into the design of the building. Proposed color schemes would be predominantly gray and white, with browns and silvers associated with wood and metal siding, and blue glazing on the windows.
In addition, the Project would include landscaping totaling 10.5 percent of the site area, and a perimeter screen wall. Ornamental landscaping would be provided along the Stewart and Gray Road and Hall Road frontages, as well as at the building entrances and within parking areas.
C. Discretionary Actions
The Final EIR is intended to provide documentation pursuant to CEQA to cover all local, regional, and state permits and/or approvals that may be needed to implement the Project. Implementation of the Project would require the following discretionary approvals from the City:
• Site Plan Review
• Conditional Use Permit
• Variance of Standards (for building height)
• Lot Merger
• Demolition Permit
• Grading Permit
• Building Permit
• Temporary Use of Land Permit (for nighttime construction) Permits by other Responsible and/or Trustee Agencies include:
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to ensure consistency with water quality protection requirements during construction.
d. Project Objectives
The objectives of the Prologis Stewart and Gray Road Warehouse Project include the following:
• Create a professional, well -maintained, and attractive environment for the development of a warehouse building consistent with the underlying zoning adjacent to nearby transportation infrastructure.
• Expand economic development, attract new businesses, and provide employment opportunities in the City of Downey.
• Increase the industrial base in the City of Downey by providing a Class A industrial facility that meets industry standards for operational design and can accommodate a wide variety of industrial uses.
• Facilitate a project that provides goods for the regional economy. • Design the facility for energy efficiency and sustainability.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
• Encourage warehouse development as attractive and productive uses while minimizing conflicts to the extent possible with the surrounding existing uses • Encourage new warehouse distribution services that take advantage of the area's close proximity to various freeways and transportation corridors to reduce traffic congestion on surface streets and to reduce concomitant air pollution emission from vehicle sources. • Encourage new development consistent with the capacity and municipal service capabilities.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The lead agency approving the Project and conducting environmental review under CEQA (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq., and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq. (CEQA Guidelines)), shall be the City. The City as lead agency shall be primarily responsible for carrying out the Project. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City published a NOP on March 29, 2022, which began a 30-day period for comments on the appropriate scope of the EIR. Consistent with CEQA Section 21083.9, the City held a public agency scoping meeting on April 18, 2022 at Downey City Hall in the City Council Chamber. The purpose of this meeting was to seek input and concerns from the public regarding the environmental issues that may potentially result from the Project.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(d)(3), HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. prepared and submitted environmental documents to the City on behalf of the applicant. The City reviewed and approved the Draft EIR for public circulation. The City filed a Notice of Completion with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, indicating that the Draft EIR had been completed and was available for review and comment by the public. The City also posted a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15087. The Draft EIR was circulated for 45 days for public review and comment beginning on December 12, 2023 and ending on January 25, 2024. After the close of public review, the City prepared the Final EIR, which provided responses in writing to comments received on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR, dated March 2024, has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
The Final EIR addresses the environmental effects associated with implementation of the Project. The Final EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for public agency decision -makers and the public regarding the objectives and components of the Project. The Final EIR addresses the potential significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the Project and identifies feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these impacts. The Final EIR is the primary reference document for the formulation and implementation of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the Project.
The City, acting as the Lead Agency, certifies with these Findings that the Final EIR reflects the City's own independent judgment and analysis under Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(a)-(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15090(a)(3).
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
IV. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Impacts associated with specific issue areas (e.g., transportation and noise) resulting from approval of the Project and future implementation are discussed below.
The Final EIR concludes the Project will have no impacts with respect to the following issue areas:
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Mineral Resources
• Recreation
The Final EIR concludes the Project will have a less than significant impact and requires no mitigation measures with respect to the following issue areas:
• 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
• Wildfire
The Final EIR concludes the Project will potentially have a significant impact but mitigated to below a level of significance with respect to the following issue areas:
• Cultural Resources
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Land Use and Planning
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
The Final EIR concludes the Project will potentially have a significant unmitigated impact and no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts to below a level of significance for the following issue area:
• Noise (nighttime construction noise)
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
V. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
a. Introduction
The findings reported in the following pages incorporate the facts and discussions in the Final EIR, including the responses to comments, for the Project as fully set forth therein. For each of the significant impacts associated with the Project, the following discussion is provided:
• Environmental Impact: A specific description of the environmental effects identified in the EIR, including a conclusion regarding the significance of the impact. • Facts in Support of Finding: A summary of the reasons for the finding(s). • Mitigation Measures: Identified feasible mitigation measures or actions, that are required as part of the Project, and if mitigation is infeasible, the reasons supporting the finding that the rejected mitigation is infeasible.
• Finding: One or more of the three specific findings set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment;
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been or can or should be adopted by that other agency; or
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
• Reference: A notation on the specific section in the Final EIR that includes the evidence and discussion of the identified impact.
b. Findings Regarding Impacts that Can Be Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance The City, having independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the record of proceedings, finds pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1) AND adopts the following findings regarding the significant effects of the Project, as follows:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR. The basis for this conclusion follows.
Cultural Resources (Historical Resources)
Environmental Impact: The possibility exists that unknown, buried historical resources may be present within the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to unknown historical resources within the Project area.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Facts in Support of Finding: A project -specific Historical Resources Evaluation Report was prepared to evaluate the existing buildings on the Project site. None of the buildings were found to be of significant historic value. The Cultural Resources Survey conducted for the Project site included a records search for an area that included the Project site and a one -mile radius around it. The records search and study did not identify any known historical resources within the Project area. The entire Project area has been disturbed by previous agricultural activities, irrigation systems, road construction, transportation (railway) and utility (transmission and gas line) installation, and manufacturing uses. The entire Project site is currently developed and has been since the 1950s. Two buildings were identified in the archival research as being present in the Project area between 1896 and 1951, both likely associated with the previous agricultural uses. These were demolished and replaced with the existing on -site buildings beginning in the early 1950s. Considering the extended presence of parking lots and limited change to the Project area since 1952, it is possible that there are cultural resources associated with the small structure identified in the archival research as having been present in the northwest corner of the Project site under the asphalt. There is also the possibility of similar resources present in the northeast corner, but development in that portion of the Project area has likely destroyed or heavily impacted possible resources there. While no historical resources were identified during the cultural and historic resources studies, the possibility exists that unknown, buried historical resources may be present within the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to unknown historical resources within the Project area.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would address unanticipated discoveries of historical resources and would require implementation of a cultural resources monitoring program during grading and other ground -disturbing activities that would extend below the existing on -site fill soils.
Finding: Implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 would reduce potential impacts to unknown historical resources to a less than significant level. Thus, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Section 4.3.6.
Cultural Resources (Archaeological Resources)
Impact: The possibility exists that unknown, buried archaeological resources may be present within the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to unknown archaeological resources within the Project area.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Cultural Resources Survey conducted for the Project site included a records search for an area that included the Project site and a one -mile radius around it. The records search and study did not identify any known archaeological resources within the Project area. Due to the presently developed nature of the site, the Project area did not undergo an intensive pedestrian survey and so the ground surface was not investigated. The Project site is located in alluvial soils, where there is the potential for buried cultural resources. As discussed above under V.b.i, it is possible that there are buried cultural resources in the northwest and northeast corners of the Project site under the asphalt. While no archaeological resources were identified during the cultural resources study, the possibility exists that unknown, buried archaeological resources may be present within the Project site.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Therefore, the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to unknown archaeological resources within the Project area.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would address unanticipated discoveries of archaeological resources and would require implementation of a cultural resources monitoring program during grading and other ground -disturbing activities that would extend below the existing on -site fill soils.
Finding: Implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 would reduce potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources to a less than significant level. Thus, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Section 4.3.6.
iii. Cultural Resources (Human Remains)
Impact: The proposed Project may disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Cultural Resources Survey conducted for the Project site included a records search for an area that included the Project site and a one -mile radius around it. Additionally, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
The records search and SLF did not reveal any resources known to contain human remains within or near the Project site. While no human remains are known to be present on the Project site, implementation of the proposed Project has the potential to result in unanticipated discovery of human remains through discovery of unknown burial sites. As such, the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to cultural resources associated with unknown human remains within the Project area.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would address unanticipated discoveries of archaeological resources, including human remains, and would require implementation of a cultural resources monitoring program during grading and other ground -disturbing activities that would extend below the existing on -site fill soils. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 requires proper treatment of human remains, if found, in accordance with applicable laws, including Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If human remains are found during excavation, excavation would be halted in the vicinity of the find until the County Coroner has investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains.
Finding: Substantial adverse changes to the significance of human remains resulting from implementation of the proposed Project would be reduced to below the level of significance through the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, which is in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). Thus, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Reference: EIR Section 4.3.6.
iv. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Release of Hazardous Materia Impact: The proposed Project may create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment associated with on -site contaminated soils and groundwater and presence of hazardous building materials.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site has been impacted by historical use of hazardous materials in various manufacturing processes. As a result of these uses, the soil and groundwater beneath the site have been exposed to various constituents and contamination at the site has been documented. During soil vapor testing, volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations in samples exceeded regulatory screening levels for trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), chloroform, and benzene.
Groundwater samples contained VOCs exceeding regulatory levels for TCE and cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE). The Project site is the subject of an ongoing cleanup and remediation process, which includes indoor air quality monitoring, groundwater monitoring, and operation of a soil vapor extraction system.
Based on the results of the investigations for asbestos -containing material, lead -based paint, and the presence of lead in drinking water, demolition activities associated with the Project could result in releases of asbestos and lead associated with the presence of asbestos -containing material and lead - based paint. The risk of release of asbestos would be associated with the removal of the buildings at 9301 Stewart and Gray, 9400 Hall Road, 9399 Stewart and Gray Road, and 9333/9363 Stewart and Gray Road. The risk of release of lead would be associated with the removal of the building at 9400 Hall Road.
Release of these hazardous materials could result in a potentially significant impact to the public and environment.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 addresses VOC-contaminated soil and includes specific recommendations and protocols that would be implemented during Project construction activities.
Mitigation Measures HAZ-2 and HAZ-3 address removal of asbestos -containing materials and lead -based paint in accordance with regulatory requirements prior to building demolition.
Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3, along with compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulatory requirements, potential impacts associated with accidental release of hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant. Thus, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Section 4.7.6.
V. Land Use and Planning (Consistency with Land Use Plans Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect)
Impact: The proposed Project may conflict with General Plan Circulation Element polices that discourage land uses that generate high amounts of truck traffic.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Facts in Support of Finding: The Project would be consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element requirement for acceptable level of service (LOS) of D or less, as analyzed intersections in the Project vicinity that are part of the City's Circulation Element roadway network would operate at a LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. General Plan Circulation Element Policy 2.3.3 , however, discourages land uses that generate high amounts of truck traffic. While the Project would replace a similar industrial use, it would result in increased traffic trips and an increase in traffic in the Project vicinity. However, the supporting Programs identified in the Circulation Element under Policy 2.3.3 further specify to discourage land uses that attract high amounts of truck traffic without corresponding benefits to the community (Program 2.3.3.1). The Project would provide additional industrial sector uses that provide goods movement services and employment opportunities for the community and region.
Program 2.3.3.2 requires discretionary approvals for land uses generating high amounts of truck traffic, including general warehouses, truck parking, truck company headquarters, and distribution centers. The Project is subject to the City's discretionary approval process to identify and minimize potential impacts.
With regard to transportation, and as identified below in Section V.b.vi, the Project would result in potentially significant transportation impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and as such, would potentially be inconsistent with General Plan Circulation Element Policy 2.3.3, resulting in a potentially significant land use impact.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure TR-1 would require implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program for the life of the Project that identifies TDM measures to be implemented for the Project and documentation of how 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.) would be provided.
Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1, impacts related to consistency with land use plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would be reduced to less than significant. Thus, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Section 4.9.6.
vi. Transportation (VMT)
Impact: The proposed Project would be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) regarding VMT.
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Project is forecast to generate a baseline employment VMT of
19.2 VMT per employee. Application of VMT reduction project design features, including increased job density (i.e., VMT reduction achieved by a project that is designed with a higher density of jobs compared to the average job density in the Country) would reduce the Project's VMT to 17.3 per employee, but this would still exceed the South County threshold of 15.3 VMT per employee. Therefore, the Project would result in a significant VMT impact.
Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure TR-1 would require implementation of a TDM Program that identifies TDM measures to be implemented for the Project and documentation of how both physical measures (e.g., bike lockers, designated carpool parking spaces, etc.) and programmatic measures
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
(e.g., guaranteed ride home program, employee transportation coordinator, etc.) would be provided.
The TDM Plan would be implemented for the life of the Project and would include TDM strategies related to commute trip reduction, ridesharing, and bicycle facilities to reduce significant VMT impacts.
Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1, VMT impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Thus, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Section 4.11.6.
vii. Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact: The possibility exists that unknown, buried historical resources may be present within the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to unknown historical resources within the Project area.
Facts in Support of Finding: The Cultural Resources Survey conducted for the Project site included a records search for an area that included the Project site and a one -mile radius around it. The records search did not identify any tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources or a local register of historical resources. Additionally, the NAHC did not identify any known sacred lands or Native American cultural resources within the Project area, but that the area may be sensitive for cultural resources. During the Assembly Bill 52 tribal consultation with the Kizh Nation, Tribal representatives indicated that the Project area has a high sensitivity for the presence of unknown, subsurface tribal cultural resources. The Kizh Nation provided confidential information to the City identifying culturally sensitive areas within the Project area that may be affected by subsurface ground disturbance activities. Thus, although no tribal cultural resources were identified during the cultural and historic resources studies, the possibility exists that unknown, buried tribal cultural resources may be present within the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project could cause a significant impact to unknown tribal cultural resources within the Project area.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would address unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources and would require implementation of a cultural resources monitoring program during grading and other ground -disturbing activities that would extend below the existing on -site fill soils. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 requires proper treatment of human remains, if found, in accordance with applicable laws, including Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If human remains are found during excavation, excavation would be halted in the vicinity of the find until the County Coroner has investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains.
In addition to Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, the Project would incorporate mitigation measures recommended by the Kizh Nation concerning potential impacts to as -yet undiscovered tribal cultural resources. The mitigation measures include requirements for procedures in the event of an unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural and archaeological resources (Mitigation Measure TCR-1), retaining a Native American Monitor/Consultant (Mitigation Measure TCR-2), and procedures for the unanticipated discovery of burials and human remains (Mitigation Measure TCR-3).
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, CUL-2, TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant. Thus, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that mitigate, or avoid, or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Section 4.12.6.
C. Findings Regarding Impacts that are Found to be Significant and Unavoidable The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the Record of Proceedings and pursuant to Public Resource Code §21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3), hereby finds that the environmental impacts described below for Noise are significant and unavoidable, and there is no feasible mitigation that can be applied to reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. "Feasible" is defined in Section 15364 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." The CEQA statute (Section 21081) and Guidelines (Section 15019(a)(3)) also provide that "other" considerations may form the basis for a finding of infeasibility.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations of the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR (SCH No. 2022030738) as described below.
These findings are based on the discussion of impacts in Section 4.10 of the EIR.
Noise (Construction)
Impact: Project construction activities associated with nighttime concrete pouring would generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site.
Facts in Support of Finding: Due to high daytime temperatures, pouring of concrete for Project construction may be required to be conducted at night. The combined noise from two concrete mixer trucks, a concrete pump truck, and a backhoe (all working in close proximity to each other) would result in a combined time -averaged noise level of 64.9 A -weighted decibels (dBA) at a distance of 300 feet.
Concrete pouring equipment could be stationary for more than an hour and positioned near the Project property lines. Therefore, noise -sensitive land uses within 300 feet of the Project site could be exposed to temporary construction noise more than 10 dBA above nighttime ambient noise levels. Project nighttime concrete pouring noise would be potentially significant.
It is anticipated that nighttime concrete pouring work would occur on approximately 40 nights during Project construction. Included in those 40 nights, approximately 12 consecutive nights (including on weekends) would be required to pour the building slab foundation/floor. Typical nighttime concrete pouring work would require the use of multiple concrete mixer trucks, a concrete pump truck, and a backhoe. Nighttime concrete pouring work would typically commence at midnight with pouring completed by mid -morning and concrete finishing work continuing into the afternoon.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require written notification of potential nighttime/weekend concrete work and the anticipated duration to all residences located within 300 feet of the Project site at least 48 hours in advance.
Finding: Mitigation measure N01-1 is identified and would be implemented; however, it would not reduce Project temporary construction -related noise levels to acceptable limits. Further, because some of the affected residents within 300 feet of the Project site are within the upper levels of a two-story building, other noise -reducing mitigation such as temporary sound walls would have to be unreasonably high (more than 20 feet) to provide adequate noise reduction and would not be feasible. Impacts associated with nighttime concrete pouring noise would be significant and unavoidable. Thus, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations of the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Reference: EIR Sections 4.10.6 and 4.10.8.
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION MEASURES WHICH ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ANOTHER AGENCY (CEQA 21081(A)(2) AND CEQA GUIDELINES 15091 (A)(2)) The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the Record of Proceedings, finds pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) that there are no changes or alterations which could reduce significant impacts that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency.
VII. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), an EIR must contain a discussion of "a range of reasonable alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f) further states that "the range of alternatives in an EIR is governed by the 'rule of reason' that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice." Thus, the following discussion focuses on project alternatives that are capable of eliminating significant environmental impacts or substantially reducing them as compared to the proposed Project, even if the alternative would impede the attainment of some project objectives, or would be more costly. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1), among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are: (1) site suitability; (2) economic viability; (3) availability of infrastructure; (4) general plan consistency; (5) other plans or regulatory limitations; (6) jurisdictional boundaries; and (7) whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site.
As required in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), in developing the alternatives to be addressed in this section, consideration was given to an alternative's ability to meet most of the basic objectives of the project. Because the Project will cause potentially significant environmental effects unless mitigated, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternatives to the Project, evaluating
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
whether these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects while achieving most of the objectives of the Project.
The alternatives presented and considered in the Final EIR constitute a reasonable range of alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice among the options available to the City and/or the Project proponent. The City, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the Record of Proceedings, and pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), makes the following findings with respect to the alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations of the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR (SCH No. 2022030738) as described below. "Feasible" is defined in Section 15364 of the CEQA Guidelines to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." The CEQA statute (Section 21081) and Guidelines (Section 15019(a)(3)) also provide that "other considerations" may form the basis for a finding of infeasibility. a. Alternatives under Consideration
The Project alternatives are summarized below along with the findings relevant to each alternative.
No Project Alternative
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e), requires that an EIR evaluate a "no project" alternative along with its impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow a lead agency to compare the impacts of approving the project to the impacts of not approving it. Under the No Project Alternative, the project would not be implemented, and the site would remain in its current condition.
Accordingly, the No Project Alternative assumes that the Project would not be adopted, no demolition of the existing buildings would occur, and the new warehouse building would not be constructed.
Potentially Significant Effects
The No Project Alternative would avoid the significant and unmitigated (or unavoidable) impacts to noise (construction noise) identified for the Project. It would also not result in any changes to VMT in comparison to existing conditions and would therefore, eliminate the need for mitigation related to transportation, which is also related to land use plan policy consistency impacts. Additionally, the No Project Alternative would avoid all other less than significant impacts of the Project. The majority of the impacts necessitating mitigation are related to construction of the proposed Project. The No Project Alternative would not involve construction, which would eliminate the need for mitigation measures related to cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources.
Facts In Support of Finding
While the No Project Alternative would avoid the significant environmental effects associated with Project, it would not achieve most of the objectives of the proposed Project and the benefits of the proposed Project would not be realized under the No Project Alternative. This alternative would leave
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
the site as -is and the proposed Project would not be constructed, and therefore this alternative would not create a warehouse building that would expand the City's industrial base, expand economic development, provide a new Class A industrial facility, or provide a new energy -efficient and sustainable facility.
The No Project Alternative is rejected because specific economic, social, or other considerations including matters of public policy make this alternative infeasible.
This alternative is rejected because it could not feasibly accomplish the basic objectives of the Project.
Reference
EIR Section 5.3.1.
Reuse of Existing Buildings Alternative
Under the Reuse of Existing Building Alternative, the existing buildings and associated facilities on -site would be retained and reoccupied by the Project applicant for use as a warehouse and logistics facility.
The existing buildings, which encompass a total of approximately 433,000 SF, would be re -used as a warehouse and logistics center. The physical conditions of the Project site would generally remain as they are today.
Potentially Significant Effects
Under this alternative, the environmental impacts would be similar to those identified for the No Project Alternative discussed above in Section Vll.a.i. The reuse of existing buildings would eliminate the need for demolition and construction of new structures and therefore would eliminate the need for the mitigation measures related to construction that were identified in this EIR for cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources. Thus, it would avoid the significant unavoidable temporary construction noise impact of the proposed Project. The reuse of existing buildings as a warehouse and logistics center may result in an increase in VMT over existing conditions.
However, due to the reduced square footage of the warehouse and logistics center, this increase in VMT would likely be less than the projected increase in VMT under the proposed Project and with the implementation of mitigation measure TR-1 would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impacts related to land use plan policy consistency also would be similar to the proposed Project given the potential increase and associated VMT impacts. As with the proposed Project, impacts to aesthetics would be less than significant but visual quality would not be improved if the existing buildings would remain and the site improvements associated with the proposed Project would not be constructed.
Potential geology and soils impacts would also be less than significant like the Project but could be slightly more severe because the existing older buildings would not be replaced with a new modern building designed in conformance with current seismic design parameters. The Reuse of Existing Buildings Alternative would have less than significant impacts related to air quality, energy, and GHG
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
emissions, but the impacts would be slightly less than those associated with the Project given the reduced building space.
Facts in Support of Finding
The Reuse of Existing Buildings Alternative would not meet the majority of the objectives identified for the Project. This alternative would locate the warehouse near efficient access points to various freeways and transportation corridors, facilitate a project that provides goods for the regional economy, and provide employment opportunities in the City. While this alternative would continue to generate revenue, the Project site is currently underutilized. This alternative would use the existing buildings and facilities on the Project site for warehouse and logistics uses and has the potential to continue providing goods to the local economy. Due to changing demands in the warehouse industry and the condition and type of buildings on the existing site, the availability of potential tenants could be limited due to the age of the existing buildings. Therefore, this alternative may not be able to meet the objective of expanding economic development and attracting new businesses to the City. This alternative would also fail to provide a Class A industrial facility that meets industry standards for operational design. The existing facilities also lack the energy efficiency and sustainability design features included as an objective for the proposed Project.
The Reuse of Existing Building Alternative is rejected because specific economic, social, or other considerations including matters of public policy make this alternative infeasible.
Rationale
This alternative is rejected because it could not accomplish most objectives of the Project.
Reference
EIR Section 5.3.2.
iii. Reduced Building Height Alternative
The Reduced Building Height Alternative would develop the warehouse largely as described in this EIR, but with a reduced maximum building height of 45 feet. As the maximum building height of the proposed Project evaluated in this EIR is 55 feet, this would be a 10-foot reduction in overall building height. The square footage and other components of the site would remain the same as the proposed Project evaluated in this EIR.
Potentially Significant Effects
Under the Reduced Building Height Alternative, most of the environmental impacts would be the same as the proposed Project. Construction would still be required to develop the site, and the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to reduce impacts related to cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources during construction would still be required.
Because nighttime construction would still be required, this alternative would also result in a significant
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
unavoidable temporary construction noise impact. The alternative would also increase employment and therefore increase VMT, which would necessitate the implementation of mitigation measure TR-1 to reduce potential VMT impacts and land use plan policy consistency. The reduced building height would eliminate the need for a variance from the Downey Municipal Code with regard to maximum building height and would further reduce less than significant aesthetics impacts by reducing the height of the building. All other less than significant Project impacts would be the same under the Reduced Building Height Alternative.
Facts in Support of Finding
The Reduced Building Height Alternative would attain most of the Project objectives. It would create a warehouse building consistent with the underlying zoning and provide goods for the regional economy, it would expand economic development in the City while expanding its industrial base, and it would take advantage of the area's close proximity to various freeways and transportation corridors. With the reduced building height, this alternative could still be designed for energy efficiency and sustainability.
The warehouse would take advantage of the area's close proximity to various freeways and transportation corridors. However, the lower height would not be ideal for operations because the lower ceiling could potentially create some operational constraints. Lower building height limits prospective users of the facilities and could make it more difficult for the Project to meet some of the objectives because redevelopment of the site with new modern Class A buildings would not occur.
The Reduced Building Height Alternative is rejected because specific economic, social, or other considerations including matters of public policy make this alternative infeasible.
Rationale
The lower building height could limit operations that could create constraints for Class A tenants, which would not attract new businesses, expand economic development, and provide employment opportunities in the City as much as the Project. It would also not provide a Class A industrial facility that meets industry standards for operational design that could accommodate a wide variety of industrial uses.
Reference:
EIR Section 5.3.3.
iii. Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop a warehouse similar to the proposed Project, but with an overall building space reduction of 25 percent. Instead of the 535,685 SF building that would be included under the proposed Project, this alternative would develop an approximately 401,764 SF industrial concrete tilt -up building for warehouse/logistics uses. The auto parking spaces, trailer and/or container parking spaces, and dock loading doors would also be reduced by approximately 25 percent as compared to the proposed Project. The on -site uses and operating hours would remain the same as under the proposed Project.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Potentially Significant Effects
Under the Reduced Project Alternative, many of the potential impacts related to construction would be similar to those of the proposed Project. Construction would still be required to develop the site, and the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR to reduce impacts related to cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources during construction would still be required. Because nighttime construction would still be required, this alternative would also result in a significant unavoidable temporary construction noise impact. However, operational impacts under the Reduced Project Alternative would be reduced in comparison to the proposed Project. While this alternative would also increase employment in comparison to existing conditions and therefore also increase VMT, this impact would be less than that of the proposed Project because this alternative would require fewer employees to operate the warehouse and logistics center. Furthermore, this alternative would also have less of an impact on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy than the proposed Project because of the reduced square footage and therefore require less energy and fuel to construct and operate.
Facts in Support of Finding
The Reduced Project Alternative would attain most of the Project objectives. The warehouse would take advantage of the area's close proximity to various freeways and transportation corridors, it would increase the City's industrial base, and the new development would be consistent with the capacity and municipal service capabilities. This alternative would still provide a Class A industrial facility that meets industry standards for operational design, however the reduced building area may limit the variety of industrial uses that the facility could accommodate. Therefore, while the Reduced Project Alternative would meet most of the Project objectives, it would not attain all the Project objectives.
Finding
The Reduced Project Alternative is rejected because specific economic, social, or other considerations including matters of public policy make this alternative infeasible.
Rationale
The reduced building area could limit the variety of industrial uses that the facility could accommodate, which would not attract new businesses, expand economic development, and provide employment opportunities in the City as much as the Project.
Reference
EIR Section 5.3.4.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
Vlll. FINDINGS REGARDING OTHER CECIA CONSIDERATIONS
a. Growth Inducement
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) mandates that the growth -inducing impact of a project be discussed. This discussion is presented in Section 6.3 of the EIR. The City finds that the Project would not result in short- or long-term growth -inducing impacts.
Short -Term Growth Inducement
During the Project construction, demand for various construction trade skills and labor would increase.
It is anticipated that this demand would be met by the local labor force and would not require importation of a substantial number of workers that could cause an increased demand for temporary or permanent housing in this area.
Long -Term Growth Inducement
The Project would contribute to long-term growth through the redevelopment of existing industrial space. The Project is expected to create approximately 250 permanent jobs. None of the anticipated uses is expected to require the importation of a specialized workforce that is not already present in the region. While the Project has the potential to foster economic growth for the City through expanded industrial sector uses and associated jobs, it is expected to have a limited effect on regional population growth because it would draw from the local population for jobs. The Project would not directly or indirectly increase population growth in the region. No significant pressure on local housing supply or demand is expected to result from development of the Project.
The proposed Project would not include any off -site infrastructure or roadway improvements.
Stormwater drainage improvements would be made on -site, and new driveways would be constructed to accommodate the proposed Project. These improvements would not create an expansion of infrastructure that could induce population growth. Therefore, the Project would not remove barriers to population growth, nor would it create growth that would overwhelm or exceed existing services. As such, growth inducement would not be significant as a result of the Project. b. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes that will be Caused by the Project CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires an evaluation of significant irreversible environmental change that may occur as a result of project implementation. This discussion is presented in Section 6.2 of the EIR.
Irreversible environmental changes typically fall into three categories: (1) primary impacts, such as the use of nonrenewable resources (i.e., biological habitat, agricultural land, mineral deposits, water bodies, energy resources and cultural resources); (2) secondary impacts, such as road improvements which provide access to previously inaccessible areas; and (3) environmental accidents potentially associated with the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) states that irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that current consumption of such resources is justified.
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
As the site is currently developed with urban uses, implementation of the Project would not result in significant irreversible impacts to biological resources, historical resources, agricultural or forestry lands, or mineral resources. In addition, no water bodies are located on or adjacent to the site that would be impacted by the Project. While there are no recorded or known cultural resources within the Project site, there are recorded resources within the Project vicinity and thus, Project implementation has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change to unknown archaeological or tribal cultural resources.
Mitigation measures are identified in the Final EIR (Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, TCR-1, TCR-2, anc TCR-3) that would reduce impacts to below a level of significance such that no irreversible changes to cultural resources would occur.
The Project would entail the commitment of energy and non-renewable resources, such as energy in the form of electricity, energy derived from fossil fuels, natural gas, construction materials (i.e., concrete, asphalt, sand and gravel, petrochemicals, steel, and lumber and forest products), potable water, and labor during the construction phase. The Project features a number of sustainability elements to minimize its consumption of energy and non-renewable resources and associated impacts would be less than significant. Nevertheless, use of these resources on any level would have an incremental effect on the regional consumption of these commodities, and therefore result in long-term, irretrievable losses of non-renewable resources, such as fuel and energy.
Lastly, the Project would not involve road or highway improvements that would provide access to previously inaccessible areas. Further, no major environmental accidents or hazards are anticipated to occur as a result of Project implementation.
IX. FINDINGS REGARDING RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND REVISIONS IN THE FINAL EIR The Final EIR includes the comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments. The focus of the responses to comments is on the disposition of significant environmental issues that are raised in the comments, as specified by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c).
Finding/Rationale: Responses to comments made on the Draft EIR and revisions in the Final EIR merely clarify and amplify the analysis presented in the document, and do not trigger the need to recirculate per CEQA Guidelines Section 1S088.5(b).
Exhibit B.1 of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
(PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21081(b))
Pursuant to Section 21081(b) of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15093 and 15043, CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project.
If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081. CEQA further requires that when the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the EIR and/or other information in the record.
Pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City, having considered all of the foregoing, finds that the following specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits associated with the Project outweigh unavoidable adverse direct impacts related to construction noise.
The City declares that it has adopted all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the proposed environmental impacts to a less than significant level; considered the entire administrative record, including the EIR; and weighed the proposed benefits against its environmental impacts.
This determination is based on the following specific benefits, each of which is determined to be, by itself and independent of the other Project benefits, a basis for overriding and outweighing unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR. Substantial evidence supports the various benefits and can be found in the preceding sections (which are incorporated by reference into this section), the Final EIR, or in documents that comprise the Record of Proceedings for this matter.
The Project would create industrial sector uses in accordance with the City's General Plan Economic Development Element. Specifically, the Project would support the goals, policies, and programs of this Element by attracting new businesses in the City (Goal
9.1) and revitalizing an existing industrial site with new modern industrial development (Program 9.1.1.5).
2. The Project would create additional jobs in the City to reinforce the City as an employment center consistent with the City's General Plan Economic Development Element. The Project would support the goals, policies, and programs of this Element by promoting job -generating land uses (Goal 9.2.1) and promoting employment in various economic sectors (Policy 9.2.2 and Program 9.2.2.1).
The Project would increase the local tax base and generate a positive fiscal benefit to the City. This revenue may be spent by the City to improve vital services including police and fire protection, parks, roads, and other infrastructure in the City. This is consistent with the City's General Plan Economic Development Element Goal 9.2 of maintaining the fiscal balance of the City and Program 9.3.1.1 of encouraging land uses that generate property tax revenue.
Exhibit BA of Staff Report
Resolution 24-4022 Exhibit A
Candidate Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prologis Steward and Gray Road Warehouse Project
March 6, 2024
4. The Project would facilitate increased goods movement to foster economic development within the City by providing additional industrial base sector uses in close proximity to regional transportation facilities. This would be consistent with, and would implement, goals, policies, and programs in the City's General Plan Economic Development Element, including Goal 9.1 to attract businesses, Policy 9.1.2 to capitalize on the City's location as an asset, and Program 9.1.2.1 to capitalize on the City's central location and accessibility to freeways.
Implementation of the Project would further the City General Plan's Conservation Element policies aimed at energy conservation and sustainability. The Project would remove existing on -site buildings and replace them with a newly constructed, single building, which would incorporate updated technology, including improved energy efficiency. The Project would be constructed consistent with the requirements of Title 24, which regulates green building practices and includes standards for planning and design, water efficiency, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. The proposed building would incorporate several sustainability features such as solar and electric vehicle infrastructure and would achieve a SEED Silver certification.
The City finds in accordance with Public Resources Code Sections 21081(b) and 21081.5, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15093 and 15043, that any, or any combination of, the Statement of Overriding Consideration benefits noted above would be sufficient to reach the conclusion that overriding findings justify the significant, unmitigable impacts that were found.