Agenda packet — Gardena City Council, November 18, 2025 (part 2 of 5)

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Pasadena Area Community College District New Rosemead Satellite Campus Project, Rosemead, California (2025)
Cultural Resources Assessment
Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood, California (2024)
Cultural Resources Assessment
Southern California Gas Company Del Rey Wells 4 and 9 Abandonment Project, Playa del Rey, City of Los Angeles, California (2025) Archaeological Monitoring Report
Grevillea Hotel Project, City of Hawthorne, California (2024) Cultural Resources Assessment
Wilshire Country Club Stream Restoration Project, City of Los Angeles, California (2024)
Cultural Resources Assessment
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Highway 74 16 -Inch Sewer Extension, Riverside County (2024-present)
Cultural Resources Mitigation Plan and Archaeological Monitoring San Juan Plaza Project, City of San Juan Capistrano, California (2024) Peer Review of Cultural Resources Report
1404 Royal Oaks Development Project, Duarte, Los Angeles County, California (2025).

Cultural Resources Assessment

Email: [email protected]
Mobile: 760-207-9736

EDUCATION
B.A., Anthropology, minor in
American Indian Studies, San
Diego State University, 1995

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Society for California
Archaeology

CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Archaeologist for
Unincorporated Orange
County, California
Certified Paleontologist for
Unincorporated Orange
County, California

TRAININGS
AB 52 and CEQA Training,
2016
Cultural Side of NEPA
Seminar, 2007
Traditional Cultural
Properties Management
Seminar, 2005
Senate Bill 18 of 2005
Compliance Training, 2005
CEQA Workshop and
Updated Training, 2004,
2005, and 2007

Kevin Hunt

PRINCIPAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
Kevin Hunt is a cultural resources management professional with more than 30 years of experience in California with specific expertise in the cultural resources requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA-Plus, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). His re sponsibilities include the management and preparation of cultural resources studies, Native American scoping and consultation, and quality assurance and quality control for cultural res ources documents. Mr. Hunt draws from his experience and training to ensure that all projects consider the full spectrum of cultural resources including archaeological, historic built environment, and tribal cultural resources. He is an expert in Native American consultation and has strong working relationships with California tribes and Native American consultants. Mr. Hunt coauthored and instructed a Native American monitor training course at the Cahuilla Reservation in 2005. Mr. Hunt also served on the City of Oceanside’s Historic Preservation Advisory Commission from 2020-2023, when he moved out of the city. In addition to experience with cultural resources, Mr. Hunt has managed multidisciplinary projects that included biological and paleontological resources services.

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Metro Link Union Station (Link US) Utilities Project, City of Los Angeles, California (2024-ongoing). Archaeological, historic built environment, and arboricultural services.

CT Warehouse Project, City of Carson, Los Angeles County (2020). Phase I cultural resources report.

Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Highway 74 16 -Inch Sewer Extension from Wasson Canyon Road to Ethanac Road Project , Riverside County, California (202 4-present). Archaeological, biological, and paleontological monitoring services.

Avalon Cabrillo Mole Phase II Project, Avalon, Santa Catalina Island, Los Angeles County, California (2020-2021). Phase I cultural resources report subject to CEQA, NEPA, and Section 106 of the NHPA.

Five Corners Intersection Improvements Project, Avalon, Santa Catalina Island, Los Angeles County, California ( 2020). Phase I cultural resources report subject to CEQA, NEPA, and Section 106 of the NHPA. 414 South San Gabriel Project, City of San Gabriel, Los Angeles County (2020). Phase I cultural resources report.

Email: [email protected]
Mobile: 760-334-3355

EDUCATION
M.F.A., Historic Preservation,
Savannah College of Art and
Design, Savannah, Georgia,
2004
B.A., History, Bridgewater
College, Bridgewater,
Virginia, 2002

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
California Preservation
Foundation
Los Angeles Conservancy
Society of Architectural
Historians
National Trust for Historic
Preservation

Sarah Corder, MFA

PRINCIPAL ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
Sarah Corder is the Principal Architectural Historian at South Environmental with 20 years’ experience in all elements of cultural resources management, including project management, historic preservation planning, rehabilitation of historic buildings, community engagement, intensive -level field investigations, citywide surveys, architect ural history studies, and historical significance evaluations in consideration of the NRHP, CRHR, and local-level evaluation criteria. Sarah has conducted thousands of hist orical resource evaluations and developed detailed historic context statements for a multitude of property types and architectural styles, including private residential, commercial, military, industrial, educational, recreational, civic, and agricultural properties. Sarah has also worked closely with design teams, property owners, and agencies on numerous projects that required conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) and local design guidelines.

Sarah e xceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for both Architectural History and History. She has extensive experience preparing environmental compliance documentation in support of projects that fall under the CEQA/NEPA, and Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Sarah also has extensive experience consulting with lead agencies and mana ging large scale projects for municipalities like the City of Coronado, the City of San Diego, and the County of Los Angeles.

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Pasadena Area Community College District New Rosemead Satellite Campus Project, City of Rosemead, Los Angeles County, California (2025).

Historic built environment technical report.

Grevillea Hotel Project, City of Hawthorne, California (2024).

Historic built environment technical report.

Beach Avenue/La Colina Drive Development Project, City of Inglewood, California (2024).

Phase I cultural resources report.

Hampton Court Mixed Use Development Project, Venice
Neighborhood, City of Los Angeles, California (2025).

Historic resource assessment

Email: [email protected]
Mobile: 303-818-3632

EDUCATION
B.S., Wildlife Ecology, University
of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004

CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Wildlife Biologist, The
Wildlife Society 2014
Certified Technical Service
Provider (TSP) for Fish and
Wildlife Management Plans,
USDA NRCS 2017
Authorized Desert Tortoise
Biologist – Numerous BOs

TRAINING
Wetland Delineation Training
Course – The Wetland Institute
(2014)
Southwest Willow Flycatcher
Workshop, 2017
USGS Desert Tortoise Health
Assessment and Tissue
Collection Techniques Training,
2009

Matthew South

PRINCIPAL BIOLOGIST
Matthew South founded South Environmental in 2018. He is a certified wildlife biologist with over 19 years of professional experience providing natural resources consulting services for a wide variety of clients that include residential, commercial, government, utility, infrastructure, research, and non-profit projects. For the last 15 years, Mr. South has been an environmental consultant in southern California acting as a Wildlife Biologist and Geographic Information System (GIS) Analyst. In early 2018 he started South Environmental and has since been supporting clients in Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties.

Mr. South’s background in ecology has led to a passion for conservation planning and resources assessments for the purpose of preservation and management. The integration of the latest technologies such as advanced GIS systems, mobile computing, and drone sensing allows him to innovate new data collection, analysis, and collaboration tools for the environmental sciences that produce more accurate data and better-informed resource managers. Mr. South has conducted and managed rare plant and arborist surveys, wetland and jurisdictional delineations, and habitat assessments.

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Hope Gardens Sequoia Building Project, Los Angeles County, California (2021-present)
Biological Resources Assessment, Jurisdictional Delineation, Oak Tree Report St. Andrews Recreation Center Project, City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, California (2023)
Biological Resources Assessment and Tree Survey Report
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Highway 74 16 -Inch Sewer Extension, Riverside County (2024-present)
Pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys and Burrowing Owl Surveys Southern California Edison (SCE) Santa Ana River Pole Replacements , Orange and Riverside Counties (2023)
Rare Plant Surveys
SCE Pole Replacements, Southern California (2021-ongoing) Nesting Bird Surveys
Marlay Drive, Santa Monica Mountains, Los Angeles County (2022) Focused Mountain Lion Assessment
Decker Edison Road Development, City of Malibu (2020)
Biological Resources Assessment

Email: [email protected]
Mobile: (575) 621-1983

EDUCATION
Doctoral candidate in
Biological Sciences,
University of Calgary
M.S., Biology, San Diego
State University, 2008
B.A., Geology, Biology minor,
Occidental College, 2004

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology (2010–present)
Southwest Paleontological
Society (2015-present)

Joshua Ludtke, M.S.

SENIOR PALEONTOLOGIST
Joshua Ludtke is a paleontological resources professional with more than 20 years of experience in the fields of paleontology and biology. He meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleonto logy’s definition of a Qualified Professional Paleontologist. Mr. Ludtke has conducted paleontological surveys , excavations, laboratory analysis, and education in California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and Canada. He has specific expertise in the paleontological resources requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009 (PRPA) , and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). His responsibilities include the management and reporting of paleontological resource survey, salvage, and monitoring programs, as well as training paleontological monitors on proper recording, excavation, and handling of fossil materials.

Mr. Ludtke has a strong understanding of geology and is knowledgeable in animal anatomy (both invertebrate and vertebrate ). He has experience monitoring geologically and paleontologically significant sites and is capable of both the interpretation and creation of geologic and topographic maps. He has had extensive involvement in the collection and excavation of fossil materials including invertebrate, vertebrate and plant remains. He practices the most up to date excavation techniques to ensure safe and efficient collection of fossil materials in the field and has published more than ten paleontology articles in peer-reviewed journals.

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
EVMWD Highway 74 16 -Inch Sewer Extension from Wassan Canyon Road to Ethanac Road Project, Lake Elsinore, California (2025) . Mr.

Ludtke is preparing the final paleontological resources monitoring report for this project subject to CEQA. Role: Senior Paleontologist.

Coachella Data Center Project, City of Coachella, California (2025) . Mr.

Ludtke prepared a paleontological resources assessment for this 260 -acre electronic data storage project. He conducted a paleontological resources records search, pedestrian survey, and prepar ed a paleontological assessment in compliance with CEQA. Role: Senior Paleontologist. 4100 Guardian Street Development Project, Simi Valley , California (2025-present). Mr. Ludtke prepar ed the Paleontological Resources Mitigation Monitoring Plan for this commercial development project and will oversee paleontological monitoring. The project is subject to CEQA. Role:

Senior Paleontologist.

IAN ADAM

MESM, CPSWQ, QSD
VP , Specialty Practices
Irvine, CA
Ian is Vice President, Specialty Practices and Fuscoe’s Stormwater Management team leader. His specialty is water resources, with an emphasis in water quality regulations, sea-level rise policy, Clean Water Act Citizen Suits and resource agency negotiation. Since joining Fuscoe in 2001, Ian has served as an effective leader and technical resource for numerous projects and clients. Ian has worked on over 100 General Plan Updates and Specific Plans throughout California to assist municipalities and developers with infrastructure assessments, zoning approvals, EIR technical support and long term capital improvement planning.

For the past decade, Ian’s experience with local and regional professional thoroughbred stabling operations has led to him to become an expert on CAFO NPDES permitting, including the negotiation of unique individual permits with the top management levels of all three Southern California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Diego, Santa Ana and Los Angeles). This expertise also includes providing assistance with the resolution of multiple third party lawsuits against commercial stabling operators.

Ian has also worked extensively in the California Coastal Zone, processing Coastal Development Permits, addressing Sea-Level Rise technically and politically, and working in partnership with Coastal Staff on individual projects, Specific Plans and Local Coastal Programs. Through this experience, Ian is uniquely trained to address complex drainage and water quality projects for both public and private clients, especially those needing site-specific solutions, multi-phased schedules and high-level regional board involvement. For the past two years, Ian has been assisting local municipalities and counties on regional stormwater improvement projects, including both feasibility and final design.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE:
› U-Haul Redevelopment Project, Gardena
› City of Inglewood General Plan Update
› City of Lomita General Plan Update & EIR Report
› City of Burbank Downtown Specific Plan, Golden State Specific Plan & Media District Specific Plan
› City of Long Beach Shoreline Village Specific Plan
› City of Anaheim NPDES Stormwater Programs
EDUCATION:
› Master of Environmental Science and Management
Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and
Management University of California, Santa Barbara
› BS, Science - Ecology and Systematic Biology
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS:
› Certified Professional in Stormwater Quality
› QSD/QSP Certified
AFFILIATIONS:
› BIA/Southern California
› National Association of Environmental Professionals
› Urban Land Institute
› U.S. Green Building Council
Fuscoe Team Member Since 2001
Fuscoe Principal Since 2011

SUSAN WILLIAMS

PE, MS, QSD/P
Technical Manager
Irvine, CA
Susan has 25+ years of experience in the civil engineering field of water resources for land development and public works. She is a very conscientious and responsible Technical Manager who acts as a central design team leader. Susan is highly proficient in designing the layout of project drainage facilities using applicable design standards, agency processing requirements and client expectations. Her specialties include drainage design (hydrology, hydraulics, stormwater) and preparation of H&H reports (including Drainage Reports, SWDR, WQMP, SWPPP, SUSMP) and construction plans (PS&E). She also has expertise in sewer and water design as well as preparation of hydraulic calculations, report and construction plans. Susan ensures quality of design and implements new ideas through communication, teamwork, supervision, participation, and plan reviews.

Susan has provided services for a wide range of projects including mixed use developments, affordable housing, retail/commercial, master planned communities and various parks. She has worked with clients such as Irvine Company Apartment Communities, Brookfield Residential, Sares-Regis Group, Alliance Residential, Lyon Living, KB Home, Costco Wholesale, Cities of Irvine, Anaheim, Brea and Newport Beach, among others.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE:
› City of Inglewood General Plan Update
› City of Lomita General Plan Update & EIR Report
› City of Burbank Downtown TOD Specific Plan
› City of Burbank Providencia EIR
› City of Redondo Beach General Plan & EIR
› City of Long Beach Shoreline Village Specific Plan
EDUCATION:
› MS, Civil Engineering, California State University,
Long Beach
› BS, Civil Engineering, California State University,
Long Beach
REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS:
› PE CA#52976
› QSP/D CA #20169
› Coastal Engineering Certificate, Old Dominion
University, VA
AFFILIATIONS:
› American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Fuscoe Team Member Since 2013

Firm
Verdantas Inc.

Office Location
Irvine, CA
Education
BS, Chemical Engineering,
University of California, Santa
Barbara - 2006
Licenses/Certifications
CA Civil Engineer – 83229
CFR 1910.120 OSHA 40-Hour
Training
CFR 1910.120 OSHA 8-Hour
Refresher
Conﬁned Space Entry Training
Years of Experience
18 Years of Industry Experience
18 Years at Verdantas

Mark Withrow, PE
Principal Engineer

Verdantas.com
Mark has extensive experience in site assessment and remediation including remedial action plan development, executing remedial investigations, remedial design, and preparing deliverables ranging from workplans and cost estimates to complex feasibility studies for client and regulatory approval. His expertise includes dual-phase extraction, soil vapor extraction, in-situ chemical oxidation, and remedial excavation. He is well versed in all aspects of soil and groundwater sampling. He has worked successfully with multiple regulatory agencies including California Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Department of Toxic Substances Control, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and local oversight agencies to negotiate closure in multiple sites throughout Southern California.

Project Experience
Rancho Los Amigos South Campus | Downey, CA
Project Engineer. Managed environmental sampling from borrow site stockpiles. Coordinated with general contractor, reviewed analytical results and prepared report for project documentation. Soil and groundwater investigations to assess the extent of gasoline contamination in soil and groundwater. Multiple methods used for free product removal. Semi-annual groundwater monitoring continues under a RWQCB order. Soil and groundwater investigations to assess the extent of gasoline contamination in soil and groundwater. Multiple methods used for free product removal. Semi- annual groundwater monitoring continues under a RWQCB order.

Proposed Residential Community | Eastvale, CA
Mark served as Principal Engineer for the Proposed Residential Community Project. He conducted sampling for lead and OCPs, arsenic, TPH and VOCs on 43-acre site proposed for a residential development. The site was an active dairy and stock yard, which required coordination with the property owner and working around the livestock for advancing borings.

Mesa Court Towers University of California Irvine | Irvine, CA Principal Engineer. Three six-story towers with two sitting on a two-story podium structure underlain by a basement. Evaluated shallow and deep foundation systems for the project. For the deep foundations, an analysis was performed to develop axial and lateral pile capacities of various pile diameters Verdantas worked closely with the structural engineer, and UCI to obtain the approval of our geotechnical exploration report.

EightTwenty Mission Mixed Use Development | South Pasadena, CA

MARK WITHROW, PE RESUME CONT.

Verdantas.com
Project Engineer. The EightTwenty project redeveloped a former medical device manufacturing facility, and previously a torpedo detonator facility, and constructed a 31,000-square-foot boutique luxury condominium and townhome development with premium retail space on Mission Street. The EightTwenty project redeveloped a former medical device manufacturing facility, and previously a torpedo detonator facility, and constructed a 31,000-square-foot boutique luxury condominium and townhome development with premium retail space on Mission Street.

Sendero at Eastvale | Eastvale, CA
Project Engineer. Conducted sampling for lead and OCPs, arsenic, TPH and VOCs on 43-acre site proposed for a residential development. The site was an active dairy and stock yard, which required coordination with the property owner and working around the livestock for advancing borings.

Property Assessment for Leasing | Wilmington, CA
Project Engineer. Prepared a baseline environmental site characterization of soil and groundwater at seven parcels prior to new lessee. Data for the report was obtained through collection of soil and groundwater samples from 27 exploratory soil borings. The parcels were previously cargo container and/or chassis storage, which is similar to the new lease business model.

Berth 74-84 Promenade and Town Square | Wilmington, CA
Task Manager. Provided environmental review and comment on contractor's construction plans, request for information (RFI), and stockpile analytical data .

Wilmington Waterfront Avalon Gateway | San Pedro, CA
As Project Engineer, Mr. Withrow managed the advancement of 45 borings, installation of gas probes and collection of samples. Prepared analysis of laboratory data with recommendations for removals. Field investigation of two parcels to provide the Port a baseline environmental site characterization of soil, soil gas, and groundwater. Volumes for soil impacted by arsenic and lead was provided for non-hazardous waste, and hazardous waste classifications.

Firm
Verdantas Inc.

Office Location
Irvine, CA
Education
M.S., Geology, Loma Linda
University, Loma Linda, CA
BS, Biology, Chemistry Minor,
Southwestern College, Keene, TX
Licenses/Certifications
Professional Geologist CA 8326
CFR 1910.120 OSHA 40-Hour
Training
CFR 1910.120 OSHA 8-Hour
Supervisor and Refresher
Training
Years of Experience
21 Years of Industry Experience
18 Years at Verdantas

Meredith Church, PG
Principal Geologist

Verdantas.com
Meredith has experience in all aspects of environmental assessment investigations including drilling soil borings, installing groundwater monitoring wells, reviewing oil well records, oversight of Underground Storage Tank (UST) removals and associated remedial excavations. She has managed numerous Phase I and Phase II site assessments, as well as the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of various soil/groundwater remediation systems utilizing vapor extraction and multiple phase extraction.

Meredith has utilized Risk Based Corrective Action to achieve regulatory closure with in-place soil and groundwater contamination.

Project Experience
1000 Grand by Windsor | Los Angeles, CA
Project Geologist for concurrent Phase I and Phase II environmental assessments. Project includes construction of eight-story mixed-use dwelling and ground floor retail underlain by three levels of underground parking.

Redevelopment Environmental Monitoring | Anaheim, CA
Project Manager for the investigation of a commercial and light industrial area, including a former train station, lumberyard, and gas station, in preparation for a new residential development. Investigations have included soil and soil vapor sampling, decommissioning of an auto station, including removal of the hydraulic hoists and clarifier, and removal of subsurface ink pits associated with a printing facility. A large offsite source of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) was identified in this area, and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) oversaw the Remedial Action Workplan (RAW) and installation of vapor barriers. Semi-annual vapor monitoring is being conducted at the property. Site investigation of a commercial and light industrial area, for a new multi-family development. Mitigation of the health risk posed by PCE via vapor barrier with passive venting and periodic monitoring of vapor probes was approved by DTSC. Semi-annual vapor monitoring continues.

MEREDITH CHURCH, PG RESUME CONT.

Verdantas.com
Commercial Property Redevelopment | Anaheim, CA
Project Manager for asbestos containing material (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) surveys conducted for the City of Anaheim, including two 3-story motel structures totaling 45,270 square feet, where 127 ACM samples were obtained. In addition, two warehouse structures totaling 60,000 square feet were surveyed and 134 ACM samples obtained. Samples were analyzed by PLM, TEM, and/or the point count method, as appropriate, to determine the asbestos classification.

The survey reports identified a hazard ranking for each material identified to contain asbestos, and included recommendations for handling and disposal during renovation/demolition.

Property Acquisition for Redevelopment | Anaheim, CA
Project Manager for reconnaissance-level assessment property for redevelopment consisting of storage warehouses, car dealerships, smog check station, ice packing plant, along with other vacant and commercial properties. Various screenings and surveys had been performed at different lots within the site, such as soil vapor surveys and near surface soil screenings for asbestos, metals, and pesticides.

Proposed Multi-family Development | Anaheim, CA
Project Geologist for a Phase I and II ESA of an approximately 1.5-acre property that was occupied by an auto repair facility, a former electrical substation, and a former gasoline station. Three undocumented USTs were removed from the Site prior to redevelopment with condominiums.

Strathmoore Residential Development | Huntington Beach, CA Project Manager overseeing 3rd party oversight of a proposed residential development located within an oil field.

Methane has been detected onsite up to a concentration of 722,000 parts per million by volume (ppmv) and hydrogen sulfide has been detected at a concentration up to 19.5 ppmv. The source of the elevated methane and hydrogen sulfide at the site has been identified to be biogenic in origin (an organic peat layer), based on soil sampling results and isotopic analysis of methane samples. The assessment and mitigation of the methane and hydrogen sulfide is being overseen by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. A methane mitigation system is being designed to be fully protective under a scenario where pressurized methane gas is present up to 1,000,000 ppm/v (100% by volume).

Proposed Industrial Property Redevelopment | Anaheim, CA Project Geologist for the historic Packard building, a single-story 8,000 square foot structure constructed in approximately 1925. The property was used as an auto detailing and repair shop, whose last tenant vacated the premises prior to completing the appropriate facility closure process with the Anaheim Fire Department.

City Owned Proposed Redevelopment | Anaheim, CA
Site investigation of improperly stored waste drums, and excavation of impacted soils. City owned property was leased by paving company, and is identified for redevelopment to residential use.

Firm
Verdantas Inc.

Office Location
Irvine, CA
Education
BS, Earth Science, California State
University, Long Beach
Licenses/Certifications
CA- Certified Engineering
Geologist – 2774
CA – Geologist – 9219
CFR 1910.120 OSHA 40-Hour
Training
CFR 1910.120 OSHA 8-Hour
Refresher Training
CPR AED First Aid Training
Years of Experience
20 Years of Industry Experience
11 Years at Verdantas

Eric Holliday, PG, CEG
Associate Engineering Geologist
Verdantas.com
Eric has nearly twenty years of extensive experience managing, planning and conducting ﬁeld geotechnical, environmental and geologic investigations for various projects including, slope stabilization, fault investigations, piles, caissons, asphalt paving, footings, utility backﬁlls, drill logging, rock coring, test trenching, monitoring and pump well installations. He has participated in many aspects of project development from project planning, investigation, construction services, and project management. Experience includes planning and directing subsurface investigations, earth and rock material characterization, sampling and laboratory soil testing; interpreting and analyzing data and test results, performing geotechnical analyses pertaining to foundation, slope stability, seepage, groundwater, instrumentation and construction monitoring, preparing cost estimates and technical reports.

Project Experience
Proposed Broadstone Promenade | Long Beach, CA
Eric served as project manager for the proposed development consists of an 8-story multi-family residential building sitting atop a three-story parking structure with two subterranean levels. Geotechnical design considerations for the project include a deep excavation adjacent to existing structures, and relatively shallow groundwater near the excavation bottom. Proposed development consists of an 8-story multi-family residential building sitting atop a three-story parking structure with two subterranean levels.

Geotechnical design considerations for the project include a deep excavation adjacent to existing structures, and relatively shallow groundwater near the excavation bottom.
2801 Kelvin Apartments | Irvine, CA
Associate Engineering Geologist for the 2801 Kelvin Apartments Project. This project consists of the redevelopment of industrial site to upscale apartments. Construction of 5-story wood-framed building will encompass a central parking structure with similar height. The parking structure includes a partial basement level.

Alliance Broadstone Promenade | Long Beach, CA
Project manager/geologist for an 8-story mixed-use development with multi- family residential and ground floor commercial overlying two subterranean parking levels. Initial design investigation included the advancement of three hollow auger stem borings drilled to maximum depths of approximately 75 feet below ground surface. Subsurface data was utilized to provide geotechnical recommendations for deep excavation, shoring, mat foundations, and dewatering.

The George | Anaheim, CA

ERIC HOLLIDAY, PG, CEG RESUME CONT.

Verdantas.com
Associate Engineering Geologist for the George Project. Verdantas completed a preliminary geotechnical engineering investigation and as-needed geotechnical observation and testing services during construction of this multi-family residential development in Anaheim’s Stadium District. The 340-unit, five-story wrap apartment complex includes an eight level parking structure with two levels of below grade construction, a 24,000 square-foot amenity space that features luxurious finishes, a rooftop pool, a full sports bar and lounge. Built at the edge of the stadium parking lot, residents can almost watch a game from the rooftop. Verdantas’ scope of services included excavation and sampling of several soil borings and cone penetrometer soundings to collect subsurface soil information, some of which were extended to a depth of up to 80 feet below grade. During the design process it was determined that ground improvements consisting of deep soil mixing would be necessary due to the demanding structural loads necessary to support the parking structure. Verdantas provided observation and testing services during the implementation of the deep soil mixing process and completed a program of confirmation testing to document that the ground improvements met design requirements. Verdantas also performed geotechnical observation and testing services during grading and post-grading activities for the project.

FLIGHT at Tustin Legacy | Tustin, CA
Associate Engineering Geologist for the FLIGHT at Tustin Legacy Project. The 18-acre project is within the boundary of the former MCAS Tustin. Achieved is nine buildings totaling 870,000 sq. ft. connected visually with glass walls, balconies, and large operable doors; and a stand-alone 1,250 space parking structure.

Proposed Three Tower Hotel and Retail Complex | Garden Geove, CA Associate Engineering Geologist for the geotechnical exploration and design level report for new hotel -conference complex. Design consists of three main hotel towers from 158 to 240 feet in height with general-use pool, dining terrace and spa; concrete reinforced parking garage with 7-levels of parking above grade with rooftop amenities deck and one subterranean level that covers a majority of the project site; retail/restaurant/entertainment buildings; entry turn- around and drop off areas; access roads and utility infrastructure.

Bolsa Row | Westminster, CA
Associate Engineering Geologist for the Bolsa Row Project. The Bolsa Row Mixed Use Development evokes the community spirit of pre-1970 Vietnam featuring a festival street, landmark tower, celebration bridge, wedding garden all around a 144 four-star hotel, 37,550 feet of retail, 48,000 square feet of banquet space, 201 unit apartment and parking structure. Verdantas evaluated seismic hazards to plan a preliminary geotechnical investigation and infiltration evaluation in support of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and geotechnical design for the project. Primary concern for the site is shallow groundwater and loose sandy soils which amplify the effects of liquefaction. Liquefaction analyses were performed to understand the settlement characteristics of soils below groundwater and dry sand settlement of soils above the groundwater table.

Firm
Verdantas Inc.

Office Location
Rancho Cucamonga, CA

Education
MS, Civil Engineering, California
State University, Long Beach
BS, Civil Engineering, California
State Polytechnic University,
Pomona
Licenses/Certifications
CA – Civil Engineer - #61778
CA – Geotechnical Engineer -
#2711
Years of Experience
26 Years of Industry Experience
26 Years at Verdantas

Jason Hertzberg, PE, GE
Principal Engineer
Verdantas.com
Mr. Hertzberg has 26 years of experience in various areas of public works, water, levees, wastewater, industrial, energy and pipelines, roadway, and transportation throughout Southern and Central California. He has served as the Quality Control Manager for Quality Control and Inspection Programs (QCIP) on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulated dams. He has experience working on restoration/rehabilitation of dams, lakes, bridges, and roadways in support of critical infrastructure.

Project Experience
The Boulevard Apartments | Woodland Hills, CA
Project Manager for geotechnical services during construction of new apartment complex.

Bridge Point Ontario | Ontario, CA
Principal Engineer for the redevelopment of 12-acre parcel for two warehouse/industrial structures with associated parking. Building footprints of 171,480 SF and 89,032 SF are proposed. The proposed warehouses will include dock-high loading areas. Drainage, utility, drive aisles, hardscape and landscape improvements are also planned.

Goodman Commerce Center at Eastvale | Eastvale, CA
Project Manager for the geotechnical exploration for the entire site and methane investigations on one of the existing properties. This task required advancing seven direct push soil borings and installing soil gas probes to monitor for methane gas. New 200-acre industrial and commercial center.

Set against the I-15, twin +1 million sf Amazon warehouses anchor the development. Extensive infrastructure was required including 10 storm water detention basins for low ﬂow inﬁltration. New 200-acre industrial and commercial center.

Piemonte at Ontario Center | Ontario, CA
Project Engineer responsible for accuracy and quality of geotechnical report.

Reviewed well permeameter test data for inﬁltration capacity and seismic analysis for design recommendations. Piemont Center is proposed for retail and multi-family housing on disconnected parcels. These 48 acres are being developed as separate projects with multiple owners. Verdantas completed a Phase I ESA and Preliminary Geotechnical Study for the 48 acres, providing our client three separate reports for the retail center on the western side, the multi-family housing, and a second retail center in the middle.

DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 90
APPENDIX B – THIRD-PARTY PEER REVIEW EXAMPLE
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

14830 CARMENITA ROAD

WAREHOUSE PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
June 2024
Lead Agency:

City of Norwalk
12700 Norwalk Blvd
Norwalk, CA 90650

Project Applicant:

Rexford Industrial
11620 Wilshire Boulevard, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025

3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

This page is intentionally left blank.
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
i
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1. PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION .................................................................................................................... 2

2. PROJECT SETTING ........................................................................................................................... 3

2.1. PROJECT LOCATION..................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2. EXISTING PROJECT SITE ............................................................................................................................... 3

2.3. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ................................................................. 3

2.4. SURROUNDING LAND USE, GENERAL PLAN, AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ................................ 3

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 2

3.1. PROJECT OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................... 2

3.2. PROJECT FEATURES ....................................................................................................................................... 2

3.3. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ................................................................................................................... 3

3.4. CONSTRUCTION PHASING ......................................................................................................................... 3

3.5. OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................................. 3

3.6. DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS, PERMITS, AND STUDIES ........................................................................ 3

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ...................................................................................................... 11

4.1. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ...................................................................... 11

4.2. DETERMINATION ......................................................................................................................................... 12

5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 15

5.1. AESTHETICS .................................................................................................................................................. 15

5.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 19

5.3. AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................................ 21

5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................ 30

5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................. 33

5.6. ENERGY ........................................................................................................................................................ 36

5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................................. 40

5.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................. 46

5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................................................. 50

5.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................................................................... 55

5.11. LAND USE AND PLANNING ...................................................................................................................... 60

5.12. MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 67

5.13. NOISE ............................................................................................................................................................ 68

5.14. POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................................................. 77

5.15. PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................ 79

5.16. RECREATION ................................................................................................................................................ 82

5.17. TRANSPORTATION ..................................................................................................................................... 83

5.18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................ 87

5.19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 89

5.20. WILDFIRE ...................................................................................................................................................... 94

5.21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ....................................................................................... 96

6. DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS ........................................................................... 99

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ii
Figures
FIGURE 2-1: REGIONAL LOCATION........................................................................................................................................ 5 FIGURE 2-2: LOCAL VICINITY ................................................................................................................................................. 7 FIGURE 2-3: AERIAL VIEW...................................................................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 2-4A: EXISTING SITE PHOTOS ................................................................................................................................ 11 FIGURE 2-4B: EXISTING SITE PHOTOS................................................................................................................................. 13 FIGURE 2-4C: EXISTING SITE PHOTOS ................................................................................................................................ 15 FIGURE 2-5: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION ........................................................................................................... 1 FIGURE 2-6: EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION ..................................................................................................................... 3 FIGURE 3-1: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN .................................................................................................................................... 5 FIGURE 3-2: ELEVATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 FIGURE 3-3: CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN........................................................................................................................ 9 Tables
TABLE 2.4-1: SURROUNDING EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ............................................................... 3 TABLE 5.1-1:CONSISTENCY WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS .......................................................................................... 16 TABLE 5.3-1: SCAQMD REGIONAL DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS ................................................................................ 22 TABLE 5.3-2: REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (LBS/DAY) ...................................................................... 23 TABLE 5.3-3: REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................... 24 TABLE 5.3-4: LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ....................................................................................... 25 TABLE 5.3-5: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISK WITHOUT MITIGATION ......................... 25 TABLE 5.3-6: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CANCER RISK WITH MITIGATION .............................. 26 TABLE 5.3-7: LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ........................................................................................... 27 TABLE 5.3-8: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONAL HEALTH RISK ................................................................. 27 TABLE 5.3-9: UNMITIGATED COMBINED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL HEALTH RISK ............................................. 28 TABLE 5.3-10: MITIGATED COMBINED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL HEALTH RISK ............................................... 28 TABLE 5.6-1: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT FUEL USAGE .................................................................................................... 36 TABLE 5.6-2: ESTIMATED PROJECT VEHICLE USAGE ............................................................................................................ 37 TABLE 5.6-3: TOTAL CONSTRUCTION FUEL USAGE ............................................................................................................ 37 TABLE 5.6-4: PROPOSED PROJECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES DURING OPERATION ......................................... 38 TABLE 5.8-1: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................................................... 48 TABLE 5.8-2: PROJECT TOTAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .......................................................................................... 48 TABLE 5.11-1: GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ...................................................................................................... 60 TABLE 5.11-2: RTP/SCS CONSISTENCY ........................................................................................................................... 64 TABLE 5.13-1: FTA CONSTRUCTION NOISE CRITERIA ........................................................................................................ 69 TABLE 5.13-2: PERMITTED NOISE LEVELS ............................................................................................................................ 69 TABLE 5.13-3: EXISTING (AMBIENT) NOSIE MEASUREMENT RESULTS ................................................................................. 70 TABLE 5.13-4: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE EMISSIONS AND USAGE FACTORS .................................................... 71 TABLE 5.13-5: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT THE NEARBY RECEPTORS ...................................................................... 72 TABLE 5.13-6: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS AT THE NEARBY RECEPTORS ......................................................................... 73 TABLE 5.13-7: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT .................................................................. 75 TABLE 5.17-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ........................................................................................................................ 84 TABLE 5.19-1: CITY OF NORWALK WATER SUPPLY PROJECTIONS (ACRE-FEET) ............................................................... 91 TABLE 5.19-2: LANDFILL CAPACITY .................................................................................................................................... 92

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
iii
Appendices

A AIR QUALITY, HEALTH RISK, GREENHOUSE GAS, AND ENERGY IMPACT REPORT

B HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

C HISTORIC RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

D GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

E CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDY

F PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

G PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

H SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION REPORT

I PRELIMINARY LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT PLAN

J PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY STUDY

K NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS

L TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS AND VMT SCREENING ANALYSIS

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
iv
This page intentionally left blank.

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
This document is an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project, which involves a Site Plan Review to allow for the d emolition of the existing warehouse buildings totaling 89,870 square feet (SF) to construct a 138,966 SF warehouse, and associated site improvements, within the Heavy Manufacturing zone (M-2) (“proposed Project”, “Project”). This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines).

An initial study is conducted by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if the initial study indicate s that the proposed project under review may have a potentially significant impact on the environment. A negative declaration may be prepared instead, if the lead agency prepares a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed project would not h ave a significant effect on the environment, and, therefore, why it does not require the preparation of an EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a negative declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:

(a) The initial study shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or (b) The initial study identified potentially significant effects, but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

If revisions are adopted into the proposed project in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b), a mitigated negative declaration is prepared. This document includes such revisions in the form of mitigation measures. Therefore, this docume nt is a Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates all of the elements of an initial study. Hereafter this document is referred to as an IS/MND.

This IS/MND incorporates by reference the City of Norwalk General Plan EIR and the technical documents that relate to the proposed Project or provide additional information concerning the environmental setting of the proposed Project. The information within in this IS/MND is based on the following technical stud ies and/or planning documents:

City of Norwalk General Plan
(https://www.norwalk.org/home/showpublisheddocument/20041/636561304601230000) City of Norwalk Municipal Code (https://ecode360.com/NO4978) Technical studies, personal communications, and web sites listed as references at the end of each subsection of Section 5, Environmental Analysis.

In addition to the websites listed above, all documents are available for review at the City of Norwalk Planning Division, located at 12700 Norwalk Boulevard, Norwalk, CA 90650. The proposed Project 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2 evaluated herein involves a Site Plan Review for construction of an approximately 138,966 SF warehouse on an approximately 7.03-acre site located at 14830 Carmita Road. The Project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Heavy Industrial (HI) and a zoning designation of Heavy Manufacturing (M-2). The proposed Project warehouse uses are consistent with the intended uses provided and analyzed by the General Plan for the site, and as such, is consistent with the General Plan EIR.

This IS/MND serves as the environmental review for the proposed 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project. The Project proposes development of a site within the boundaries of the City of Norwalk , which would fulfill the purpose of the City’s General Plan land use designation for the site.

1.2. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This IS/MND includes the following sections:

Section 1.0 Introduction
Provides information about CEQA and its requirements for environmental review and explains that an Initial Study/MND was prepared by the City of Norwalk to evaluate the proposed Project’s potential to impact the physical environment.

Section 2.0 Project Setting
Provides information about the proposed Project’s location.

Section 3.0 Project Description
Includes a description of the proposed Project’s physical features and construction and operational characteristics, as well as a list of the discretionary approvals that would be required by the proposed Project.

Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist
Includes the summarized results in the Environmental Checklist from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and identifies if an EIR is required, and if one is, what environmental topics need to be analyzed in the EIR.

Section 5.0 Environmental Analysis
Includes the information and data that was analyzed leading to the results of the Environmental Checklist, which evaluates the proposed Project’s potential to result in significant adverse effects to the physical environment.

Section 6.0 Document Preparers and Contributors
Includes a list of the persons that prepared this IS/MND.

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3 2. PROJECT SETTING

2.1. PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed Project site is located in southeastern Los Angeles County within the City of Norwalk. The Project site is located at 14830 Carmenita Road, Norwalk, California 90650. The site is within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Whittier 7.5-Minute Series Quadrangle and can be identified within Township 3 South, Range 11 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian. The City of Norwalk is approximately 12 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles and 16 miles northwest of downtown Santa Ana.

Regional access to the Project site is provided by Interstate 5 (I-5), approximately 0.2 mile south of the site.

Local access to the site is provided from Carmenita Road and Excelsior Drive. The Project site and surrounding area are shown in Figure 2-1, Regional Location, and Figure 2-2, Local Vicinity.

2.2. EXISTING PROJECT SITE
The Project site consists of one parcel encompassing approximately 7.03-acres. The parcel is identified as Los Angeles County Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 8069-002-085. The Project site is currently developed with two multi-tenant industrial warehouse buildings totaling 89,870 SF. The existing buildings are currently occupied by RV Storage Depot, an RV storage company. The site is striped and paved with asphalt concrete surrounding the buildings, and no landscaping currently exists. Direct access to the Project site is available via one driveway on Excelsior Drive. Reciprocal access is available through the adjacent property to the west, via one driveway on Carmenita Road. The Project site’s existing conditions are shown in Figure 2 -3, Aerial View, and Figure 2-4a though 2-4c, Existing Site Photos.

2.3. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
The Project site has a City of Norwalk General Plan Land Use designation of Heavy Industrial, as shown in Figure 2-5, Existing General Plan Designation. The General Plan states that the Heavy Industrial land use designation provides for large scale manufacturing, assembly, and fabrication activities. The Project site has a zoning designation of Heavy Manufacturing (M-2), as shown in Figure 2 -7, Existing Zoning Designation .

The M-2 Heavy Manufacturing zone is intended to provide for a variety of uses, including heavy industrial, light manufacturing, warehouse and distribution, and related uses.

2.4. SURROUNDING LAND USE, GENERAL PLAN, AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS The Project site is located within a fully developed area. The surrounding land uses are described in Table

2.4-1.

Table 2.4-1: Surrounding Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations Existing Land Use City General Plan
Designation City Zoning Designation
North Industrial manufacturing development. Heavy Industrial M-2 West Industrial development. Heavy Industrial M-2
South Industrial and warehouse development. Heavy Industrial M-2 East Industrial manufacturing development. Heavy Industrial M-2

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4 This page intentionally left blank.

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Applicant for the proposed Project is requesting approval from the City of Norwalk to demolish the existing buildings and to construct an approximately 138,966 SF warehouse building with a parking lot, ornamental landscaping, and associated infrastructure on the 7.03-acre lot. For purpose of this analysis, no more than 15 percent of the total building square footage (20,845 SF) would be used for cold storage. The proposed Project would result in a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.45. The building would achieve LEED Gold certification. Figure 3-1, Conceptual Site Plan, illustrates the proposed site plan.

3.2. PROJECT FEATURES
Building Summary
The proposed speculative 138,966 SF warehouse building would be inclusive of 132,333 SF of warehouse space, 3,609 SF of ground floor office space, and 3,024 SF of mezzanine space. The building would be single-story with a mezzanine and would have a maximum height of 45 feet at the parapet. Figure 3-1, Conceptual Site Plan, illustrates the proposed site plan.

The proposed Project would include a building setback of 40 feet from the northern property line, 59.4 feet from the eastern property line, and 125.3 feet from the southern property line. The proposed building would abut the existing industrial building to the west, which is owned by the Project Applicant.

Architectural Features
As shown in Figure 3-2, Elevations, the proposed Project would utilize a varied color scheme and glazing to establish an architectural presence through an emphasis on building finish materials and consistent material usage. The proposed elevation materials would include painted concrete i n varying shades of white and gray, aluminum canopies, and blue glazing. The building height would vary in order to reduce massing, with a maximum height of 45 feet at the building parapet.

Loading Dock and Parking Summary
The proposed Project would include 22 loading docks doors along the southern side of the building. The proposed Project would also provide 142 passenger car parking spaces, inclusive of 111 standard stalls, 6 accessible stalls, 4 electric vehicle charging (EV) stalls, 19 electric ready or future EV stalls, and 2 accessible EV stalls.

Access and Circulation
Direct access to the proposed Project would be provided via an existing 28-foot-wide driveway on Excelsior Drive. In addition, reciprocal access to the Project site would be provided through the adjacent property to the west via one existing 35-foot-wide driveway on Carmenita Road. Circulation throughout the site would be provided by a 28-foot-wide fire access road. In addition, the Project proposes to install 6-footwide sidewalks on-site to provide pedestrian access from Excelsior Drive to the main entrance of the building.

Landscaping and Fencing
The proposed Project would include approximately 25,000 SF of ornamental landscaping that would cover approximately 8 percent of the site, as shown in Figure 3 -3, Conceptual Landscape Plan . Proposed landscaping would include 24 -inch and 36 -inch box trees, including Thornless Palo Verde, Forest Pansy, Eastern Redbud, Wilson Olive, Fern Pine, and Pink Dawn Chitalpa to screen the proposed building and truck 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3 court from off-site views. The proposed Project would include additional shrubs and groundcover throughout the Project site.

The existing perimeter fence along the northern, eastern, and southern property lines would remain in place.

In addition, a retaining wall would be constructed along a portion of the eastern property line.

Infrastructure Improvements
Water and Sewer Improvements
The proposed Project would connect to the existing 6-inch water line within Excelsior Drive for domestic water service. In addition, the Project would install 590 linear feet of a 12-inch water line from the street connection in Carmenita Road through the adjacent property to the west of the Project site to the site property line for fire water service. The proposed Project would also connect to an existing 6-inch on-site sewer line, which conveys wastewater to the 8-inch sewer main within Excelsior Drive.

Drainage Improvements
The Project proposes to install several inlets and on-site drainage pipes to convey site runoff to two proposed underground infiltration basins, located at the southern and northeastern portion of the site. The existing drainage pattern would be maintained in the proposed plan such that runoff from the northern portion of the site would be discharged to Spring Avenue, while runoff from the southern portion would be discharged to Excelsior Drive.

3.3. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Heavy Industrial and zoning of M-2. Neither the General Plan land use nor the zoning designation set a maximum allowed floor area ratio. The proposed FAR is 0.45. In addition, warehousing is an allowed use within the M-2 zoning designation.

3.4. CONSTRUCTION PHASING
Construction activities for the Project would occur over one phase and include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving. Grading work of soils is expected to result in cut of 1,007 cubic yards (CY) and fill of 30,218 CY of soils for a net soil import of 29,211 CY. Construction is expected to occur over 14 months beginning in September 2025 and would occur within the hours allowable by City of Norwalk Municipal Code Section 9.04.150, which states that construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM (or sunset, whichever is later).

3.5. OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
The Project would operate as an industrial warehouse and is expected to begin operation in the first quarter of 2027. Typical operational characteristics include employees and customers traveling to and from the site, delivery of materials and supplies to the site, truck loading and unloading, and manufacturing activities. The Project is anticipated to operate 7 days a week 24 hours a day.

3.6. DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS, PERMITS, AND STUDIES
The following discretionary approval, permits, and studies anticipated to be necessary for implementation of the proposed Project include, but may not be limited to the following:

City of Norwalk
• Adoption of the CEQA document – Mitigated Negative Declaration • Site Plan Review
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4 • Approvals and permits necessary to execute the proposed Project, including but not limited to, demolition permit, grading permit, building permit, etc.
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
11 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This section includes the completed environmental checklist form. The checklist form is used to assist in evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The checklist form identifies potential Project effects as follows: ( 1) Potentially Significant Impact; ( 2) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated; (3) Less Than Significant Impact; and ( 4) No Impact. Substantiation and clarification for each checklist response is provided in Section 5 , Environmental Analysis. Included in the discussion for each topic are standard condition/regulations and mitigation measures, if necessary, that are recommended for implementation as part of the proposed Project.

4.1. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below ( ) would be potentially affected by this P roject, involving at least one impact that is “ Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
 Aesthetics  Agriculture and Forest
Resources
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Energy
 Geology/Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology/Water Quality  Land Use/Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise  Population/Housing  Public Services
 Recreation  Transportation  Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities/Service Systems  Wildfire  Mandatory Findings of Significance

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
12 4.2. DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency) on the basis of this initial evaluation:
 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
 I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

City of Norwalk
Printed Name For

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
13 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved ( e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards ( e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significa nt Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analysis,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(d).

In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
(a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. (b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. (c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14 This page intentionally left blank.
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
15 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

5.1. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099 would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?     b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
   
c) In non- urbanized areas, s ubstantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
   
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
   
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. Scenic vistas consist of expansive, panoramic views of important, unique, or highly valued visual features that are seen from public viewing areas. This definition combines visual quality with information about view exposure to describe the level of interest or concern that viewers may have for the quality of a particular view or visual setting. A scenic vista can be impacted in two ways: a development project can have visual impacts by either directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista or by blocking the view corridors or “vista” of the scenic resource. Important factors in determining whether the Project would block scenic vistas include the Project’s proposed height, mass, and location relative to surrounding land uses and travel corridors.

The City of Norwalk does not have any designated scenic vistas or views (City of Norwalk, 1995). The Project site is within an urbanized and developed area of the City. In addition, the Project site is not directly adjacent to any roadways and the building would not impact any long-distance public views from surrounding roadways. The site is surrounded by industrial uses on all sides. The Project would demolish the existing buildings onsite and construct a new warehouse building that would be similar to the characteristics of the surrounding industrial area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any impact to a scenic vista.
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
16 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The nearest Officially Designated State Scenic Highway is a portion of State Route ( SR-91), which is located approximately 14.7 miles southeast of the Project site and is not visible from the site .

Additionally, a portion of State Route 57 (SR-57), located 9.2 miles northeast of the site, and State Route 1 (SR-1), located 9.2 miles southwest of the Project site, are designated as eligible highways; both of which are not visible from the site. Therefore, no impacts to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur.
c) In non- urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within an urbanized area of the City , surrounded by industrial uses. The proposed Project would redevelop the site and construct a new warehouse building with related improvements that would be consistent with the General Plan and zoning designation. The Project would meet site design requirements including but not limited to setbacks, building height, parking, and landscaping as shown in Table 5.1 -1 below. The Project would incorporate landscaping and design standards that comply with the City’s Municipal Code and would thus comply with the City’s General Plan.

The Project’s compliance with building code requirements would be verified during the City’s plan check and permitting process. As a result, the warehouse building would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings and impacts related to scenic quality within the urbanized environment would be less than significant.

Table 5.1-1:Consistency with Development Standards

Development
Feature
M-2 Zoning Requirement Proposed Project Consistency
Maximum FAR N/A Consistent. The proposed Project would
have a FAR of 0.45.

Building Height 75 feet Consistent. The proposed Project would be a maximum of 45 feet in height at the
parapet.

Front Yard Setback N/A Consistent. The Project would provide a 125.3-foot-wide front yard setback
from the southern property line.

Side Yard Setback N/A Consistent. The Project would abut the existing property line to the west.

Rear Yard N/A Consistent. The Project would provide a
40-foot-wide side yard setback from the
northern property line.

Parking Office: 1 stall/1000 SF if <20% of GFA
Warehouse: 1 stall/1000 SF of GFA
Total Required: 145
Consistent. The proposed Project would
provide 142 passenger vehicle parking
stalls.

Landscaping 25 SF per parking space
Total Required: 3,750 SF
Consistent. The proposed Project
would provide 25,000 SF of
landscaping.
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
17 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is in a developed urban area surrounded by industrial uses.

Existing sources of light in the vicinity of the P roject site include streetlights, parking lot lighting, building illumination, security lighting, and lighting from building interiors that pass through windows.

Construction
Although construction activities would occur primarily during daylight hours, construction activities could extend into the evening hours, as permitted by the City’s Municipal Code Section 9.04.140 (permitted construction activities from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or sunset, whichever is later). In addition, construction may include nighttime security lighting; however, this would be similar to the existing security lighting on the site, adjacent sites, and streetlights. Also, any construction-related lighting would be temporary. Therefore, construction of the P roject would not create a new source of substantial light that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and light impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.

Operation
The Project would include the provision of nighttime lighting for security purposes around the building and in the parking areas. Implementation of the Project could contribute additional sources to the overall ambient nighttime lighting conditions. However, the P roject site is currently developed and emanates light from the existing buildings and parking areas, and the site is located within an urban area that includes various sources of nighttime lighting . Additionally, all outdoor lighting would be hooded or appropriately angled away from adjacent land uses and would comply with California Building Code requirements that provide for directing lighting away from adjacent uses and intensity of security lighting. Because the P roject area is within an already developed area with various sources of existing nighttime lighting, and because the Project would be required to comply with the City’s lighting regulations that would be verified by the City during the plan check and permitting process, any increase in lighting that would be generated by the Project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Overall, lighting impacts would be less than significant.

Reflective light (glare) can be caused by sunlight or artificial light reflecting from finished surfaces such as window glass or other reflective materials. Generally, darker or mirrored glass would have a higher visible light reflectance than clear glass. Buildings constructed of highly reflective materials from which the sun reflects at a low angle can cause adverse glare. Although the building would contain windows, the windows would be comprised of blue reflective glazing, which reduces glare over other transparent surfaces and the windows would be separated by stucco that would limit the potential of glare . As described previously, onsite lighting would be angled down, which would avoid the potential of onsite lighting generating offsite glare. Therefore, the P roject would not generate substantial sources of glare, and impacts would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
No existing plans, programs or policies.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to aesthetics are required. 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
18 Sources
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (N.D.) California State Scenic Highway System Map.

Retrieved February 2022 from
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805 7116f1aacaa

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
19 5.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an o ptional model
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

In determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest
carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources
Board. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
   
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
  

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Governme nt Code section
51104(g))?
  

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
   
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
   
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. The Project site is developed and located in an area that is fully developed with urban uses. The Project site and its vicinity are void of agricultural uses. The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies the site as Urban and Built -Up Land and it is not identified as Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (California Department of Conservation, 2022) .

Therefore, conversion of such farmland designations would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project. No impact would occur.
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
20 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Project site is zoned Heavy Manufacturing (M -2), which does not provide for agricultural uses. In addition, there is no agricultural zoning designation nor are there Williamson Act contracts within the City of Norwalk. Thus, the proposed P roject would not result in impacts related to conflict with an existing agricultural zone or Williamson contract.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The Project site is currently developed with two industrial structures and is within an urbanized and developed area. No forest land exists on or adjacent to the P roject site. The P roject site is currently zoned Heavy Manufacturing (M-2) and is not zoned for forest land or timberland uses. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in impacts related to a conflict with existing forest land or timberland zoning. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The Project site is currently developed with an i ndustrial use and is within an urbanized and developed area. No forest land exists on or adjacent to the Project site. Thus, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use, and impacts would not occur. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As described above, the Project site is currently developed with an industrial use and is within an urbanized and developed area. No agricultural uses or forest land exists on or adjacent to the site.

Therefore, the implementation of the proposed P roject would not involve other changes in the existing environment which would result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
There are no impacts reducing Plans, Programs, and Policies related to agriculture and forestry that are applicable to the Project.

Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures related to agriculture and forestry are required.

Sources
California Department of Conservation. (2022). California Important Farmland Finder . Accessed February 27, 2024, Retrieved at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
21 5.3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
   
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
 
 
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
   
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) affecting a substantial number of people?
   
The discussion below is based on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (EPD 2024) included as Appendix A and the Health Risk Assessment (EPD 2024) includes as Appendix B. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which addresses federal and state Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the Basin. In preparation of the AQMP, SCAQMD and SCAG use land use designations contained in General Plan documents to forecast, inventory, and allocate regional emissions from land use and development-related sources.

For purposes of analyzing consistency with the AQMP, if a proposed project would have a development density and vehicle trip generation that is substantially greater than what was anticipated in the General Plan, then the proposed project would conflict wi th the AQMP. On the other hand, if a project’s density is consistent with the General Plan, its emissions would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP, and the project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s attainment plans. In addition, the SCAQMD consi ders projects consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation.

As detailed below , the proposed P roject would not result in exceedance of local or regional significance thresholds. The Project site is designated as Heavy Industrial in the City’s General Plan, which allows for a broad range of large-scale manufacturing, assembly, and fabrication activities. The proposed Project would develop the site with a 138,966 SF speculative warehouse building, which would be under the allowable FAR.

In addition, emissions generated by construction and operation of the Project would not exceed thresholds as described in the analysis below, which are based on the AQMP and are designed to bring the Basin into attainment for the criteria pollutants for which it is in nonattainment. Therefore, because the Project does not exceed any of the thresholds it would not conflict with SCAQMD’s goal of bringing the Basin into attainment 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
22 for all criteria pollutants and, as such, is consistent with the AQMP. As a result, impacts related to conflict with the AQMP from the Project would be less than significant. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact. The Basin is in a non-attainment status for federal ozone standards, federal carbon monoxide standards, and state and federal particulate matter standards. Any development in the Basin, including the proposed P roject, could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant exceedances . The methodologies from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating Project impacts.

SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table

5.3-1. Should construction or operation of the proposed Project exceed these thresholds, a significant impact could occur; however, if estimated emissions are less than the thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant.

Table 5.3-1: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds Air Pollutant
Maximum Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Construction Operation
ROGs 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
SO2 150 150
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
Source: Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A) Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the following construction activities: demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring. Construction activities would generate emissions from the demolition of the 89,870 SF of existing structures. In addition, the analysis assumes a net soil import of 29,211 cubic yards and a need for construction worker vehicle trips to and from the Project site during the estimated 14 months of construction.

Construction-related effects on air quality from the proposed Project would be greatest during the site preparation phase due to the disturbance of soils. It is mandatory for all construction projects to comply with several SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust, PM 10, and PM 2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders t o uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the proposed site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 12 inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling and is included as PPP AQ-1.

This analysis utilized the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) to forecast the Project’s impact. As shown in Table 5.3-2, CalEEMod results show that construction emissions generated by the proposed Project 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
23 would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, construction activities would result in a less than significant impact.

Table 5.3-2: Regional Construction Emission Estimates (lbs/day) Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2025
Demolition 2.7 39.9 27.8 0.1 10.8 3.0
Site Prep 4.1 37.5 33.5 0.1 7.8 4.5
Grading 2.5 36.8 26.6 0.1 7.2 3.1
Building Construction 1.4 11.7 17.4 0.0 1.5 0.7
Maximum Daily Emissions 4.1 39.9 33.5 0.1 10.8 4.5 2026
Building Construction 2.6 22.5 32.5 0.1 1.8 1.0
Paving 1.3 7.2 10.9 0.0 0.5 0.3
Architectural Coating 69.6 1.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Maximum Daily Emissions 69.6 22.5 32.5 0.1 1.8 1.0 Maximum Daily Emission
2024-2025 69.6 39.9 33.5 0.1 10.8 4.5
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Report (Appendix A) Operation
Implementation of the proposed P roject would result in long -term air pollutant emission impacts associated with mobile sources, natural gas, architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment.

PM10 (coarse particles 10 microns or less in diameter) emissions can result fro m running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways.

Entrainment of PM 10 occurs when vehicles pulverize small rocks and pavement and the vehicle brakes generate airborne dust. The contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other PM emission processes. Gasoline-powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with diesel- powered vehicles.

Energy source emissions result from activities in buildings for which electricity and natural gas are used. The quantity of emissions is the product of usage intensity and the emission factor of the fuel source. Major sources of energy demand for the proposed Project could include building mechanical systems, such as heating and air conditioning.

Typically, area source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions located at the Project site, including architectural coatings, consumer products, and the use of landscape maintenance equipment.

Long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed Project were calculated using CalEEMod and are shown in Table 5.3-3 below. As shown, the proposed Project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria pollutants that would be below the SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds and thus would not have a significant effect on regional air quality. Therefore, operation of the Project would not result in a cumulatively 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
24 considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 5.3-3: Regional Operational Emissions
Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 1.2 10.3 15.5 0.1 5.1 1.4
Area 4.5 0.1 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy 0.1 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.1
Off-Road 0.0 12.4 123.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Stationary 0.4 1.1 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total Project Operational
Emissions 6.1 24.8 146.9 0.1 5.2 1.6
Existing Use Operational
Emissions 6.1 5.1 14.2 0.0 2.1 0.6
Net New Emissions 0.0 19.7 132.7 0.1 3.2 0.9
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Report (Appendix A) c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

The SCAQMD recommends the evaluation of localized NO 2, CO, PM 10, and PM 2.5 construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Such an evaluation is referred to as a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis. The impacts were analyzed pursuant to the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology . SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of NOx, CO, PM
10, and PM2.5 pollutants for each of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in the Basin. The Project site is located in SRA 5, Southeast Los Angeles County.

Sensitive receptors can include uses such as long -term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, and retirement homes. Residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities can also be considered sensitive receptors. The neare st sensitive receptor s to the Project site are residential homes located approximately 988 feet from the site to the north of the Project boundary.

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project has the potential to expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants. The Project was modeled assuming the implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403 (included as PPP AQ-1) dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Additionally, the Project contractors would be required to implement all required SCAQMD regulations such as Rule 1113 (included as PPP AQ-2). Even though the Project’s construction would not exceed any of the emissions thresholds as shown in Table 5.3-3 above, compliance with Rule 403 dust suppression techniques can further reduce the fugitive dust generation. As 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
25 shown in Table 5.3 -4, Project construction-source emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LSTs, and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 5.3-4: Localized Construction Emission Estimates
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
2025
Demolition 22.2 19.9 6.6 1.7
Site Prep 37.5 32.4 7.6 4.5
Grading 20.6 19.6 3.4 2.0
Building Construction 11.3 14.1 0.5 0.4
Maximum Daily Emissions 37.5 32.4 7.6 4.5
2026
Building Construction 21.3 28.1 0.8 0.8
Paving 7.1 9.9 0.3 0.3
Architectural Coating 1.1 1.5 0.0 0.0
Maximum Daily Emissions 21.3 28.1 0.8 0.8
Maximum Daily Emission 2025-2026 37.5 32.4 7.6 4.5
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 188 4966 116 52
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Report (Appendix A)

Construction Health Risk Assessment
To determine the potential health risk to people living and working near the proposed Project associated with the exhaust of diesel-powered trucks and equipment, a construction HRA was conducted for the Project.

The carcinogenic and chronic health risks from the construction of the proposed Project are shown in Table

5.3-5 below. The residential risk incorporates both the risk for a child living in a nearby residence for 9 years, which is the standard period of time for child risk, and an adult living in a nearby residence for 30 years, which is a conservative period of time for an individual to live in any one residence.

Table 5.3-5: Summary of Proposed Project Construction Health Risk without Mitigation Receptor
Cancer Risk (per million) Exceeds
Significance
Threshold? Maximum Lifetime
Proposed Project Risk
Significance
Threshold
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor –
Infant to Adult (30 years) 10.16 10 Yes
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor –
Child 10.16 10 Yes
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor –
Adult 0.28 10 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor –
70 Years 10.16 10 Yes
Maximum Impacted Worker Receptor 7.00 10 No
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
26 Receptor
Chronic Non-Cancer Hazard Index Exceeds
Significance
Threshold? Maximum Lifetime
Proposed Project Risk
Significance
Threshold
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor –
Infant to Adult (30 years) 0.02 1.0 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor –
Child 0.02 1.0 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor –
Adult 0.02 1.0 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor –
Lifetime (70 Years) 0.02 1.0 No
Maximum Impacted Worker Receptor 0.55 1.0 No
Source: Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B)
As shown in Table 5.3-5 above, the maximum cancer risk for the closest sensitive receptor would be 10.16 in one million, slightly greater than the threshold of 10 in one million. The worker receptor risk would be lower at 7.00 in one million. The total chronic hazard index would be 0.02 for the nearest sensitive receptor and 0.55 for the nearest worker receptor, which are both below the threshold of 1.0. Therefore, health risk levels to nearby residents from construction related emissions would be above the SCAQMD’s health risk thresholds prior to mitigation.

Table 5.3-6: Summary of Proposed Project Construction Cancer Risk with Mitigation Receptor
Cancer Risk (per million) Exceeds Significance
Threshold? Maximum Lifetime
Proposed Project Risk
Significance
Threshold
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor
– Infant to Adult (30 years) 1.04 10 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor
– Child 1.04 10 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor
– 70 Years 1.04 10 No
Source: Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B)
As such, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which requires Tier 4 construction equipment.

As shown in Table 5.3-6 above, the maximum cancer risk with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ- 1 for the closest sensitive receptor would be 1.04 in one million, significantly lower than the threshold of 10 in one million. Therefore, health risk levels to nearby sensitive receptors from construction related emissions would be below the SCAQMD’s health risk thresholds and impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1.

Operation
Operation of the proposed Project has the potential to expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates. The Project would be required to implement all required SCAQMD regulations (included as PPP AQ-3). As shown in Table 5.3 -7, Project operation-source emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LSTs, and impacts would be less than significant.
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
27 Table 5.3-7: Localized Operational Emission Estimates Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 1.5 3.4 0.2 0.1
Area 0.05 6.30 0.01 0.01
Energy 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.1
Off Road 12.4 123.3 0.0 0.0
Stationary 1.1 1.0 0.1 0.1
Total 16.0 134.8 0.3 0.2
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 211 5682 32 14
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Report (Appendix A) Operational Health Risk Assessment
To determine the potential health risk to people living and working near the proposed Project associated with the exhaust of diesel-powered trucks and equipment, an operational HRA was conducted for the Project.

The carcinogenic and chronic health risks from the proposed Project are shown in Table 5.3 -8 below. The residential risk incorporates both the risk for a child living in a nearby residence for 9 years, which is the standard period of time for child risk, and an adult living in a nearby residence for 30 years , which is a conservative period of time for an individual to live in any one residence.

Table 5.3-8: Summary of Proposed Project Operational Health Risk Receptor
Cancer Risk (per million)
Exceeds Significance
Threshold? Maximum Lifetime
Proposed Project Risk
Significance
Threshold
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor –
Infant to Adult (30 years) 5.73 10 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor –
Child 4.09 10 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor –
Adult 0.93 10 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor –
70 Years 6.74 10 No
Maximum Impacted Worker Receptor 3.31 10 No
Receptor
Chronic Non-Cancer Hazard Index
Exceeds Significance
Threshold? Maximum Lifetime
Proposed Project Risk
Significance
Threshold
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor –
Infant to Adult (30 years) <0.01 1.0 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor –
Child <0.01 1.0 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor –
Adult <0.01 1.0 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor –
Lifetime (70 Years) <0.01 1.0 No
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
28 Maximum Impacted Worker Receptor 0.01 1.0 No
Source: Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B)
As shown in Table 5.3-8 above, the maximum cancer risk for the closest sensitive receptor would be 6.74 in one million, less than the threshold of 10 in one million. The worker receptor risk would be lower at 3.31 in one million. The total chronic hazard index would be less than 0.0 1 for the nearest sensitive receptor and

0.01 for the nearest worker receptor, which are both below the threshold of 1.0. Therefore, all health risk levels to nearby residents from operation related emissions would be well below the SCAQMD’s HRA thresholds and no significant health risk would occur from Project operational emissions.

Combined Health Risk Assessment
As shown in Table 5.3 -9, below, the combined unmitigated construction and operational health risk at the nearest sensitive receptor would be 14.74 in one million, exceeding the 10 in one million health risk threshold.

However, as shown in Table 5.3-10, incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce the health risk at the sensitive receptor to 4.46 in a million, which is less than the 10 in one million SCAQMD threshold.

Therefore, with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1, combined construction and operational health risk impacts would be less than significant.

Table 5.3-9: Unmitigated Combined Construction and Operational Health Risk Receptor
Cancer Risk (per million)
Exceeds Significance
Threshold? Maximum Lifetime
Proposed Project Risk
Significance
Threshold
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor –
Infant to Adult (30 years) 14.74 10 Yes
Maximum Impacted Worker Receptor 5.18 10 No
Source: Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B)
Table 5.3-10: Mitigated Combined Construction and Operational Health Risk Receptor
Cancer Risk (per million)
Exceeds Significance
Threshold? Maximum Lifetime
Proposed Project Risk
Significance
Threshold
Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor
– Infant to Adult (30 years) 4.46 10 No
Source: Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B)
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed P roject would not generate other emissions beyond those described previously. Also, typical land uses generally associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses (livestock and farming), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities.

The Project site has a zoning designation of M-2 ( Heavy Manufacturing), which does not allow land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. During Project construction, some odors may be present due to diesel exhaust. However, these odors would only be temporary and limited to the construction period. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project- generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would not include any activities or operations 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
29 that would generate objectionable odors and once operational, the Project would not be a source of odors.

The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (included as PPP AQ-3) to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. Based on the potential future use of the site as various limited manufacturing businesses, and with compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402, impacts related to odors would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP AQ -1: Rule 403. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following:
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather; preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less.

PPP AQ-2: Rule 1113. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.

PPP AQ -3: Rule 402. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402. The Project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injur y or damage to business or property.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Tier 4 Equipment. The proposed Project shall utilize Tier 4 Final or superior equipment for engines exceeding 50 horsepower (hp). If construction equipment cannot meet Tier 4 Final engine certification standards, the Project representative or contractor must provide a future study with written findings, backed by substantial evidence, for approval by the City of Norwalk before resorting to alternative technologies or strategies. Potential alternative strategies may encompass the use of Tier 4 Interim equipment, reducing the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment, or limiting simultaneous equipment operation. All equipment must undergo tuning and adhere to the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. Maintenance records for each piece of equipment, along with those of their contractors, shall be made available for inspection and kept on-site for at least two years following construction completion.

Sources
EPD Solutions. (2024) Air Quality, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis. (Appendix A).

EPD Solutions. (2024). Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B).

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
30 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
  

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
   
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
  

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
   
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
  

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
   
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact. The Project site is currently developed with two industrial warehouse buildings. The Project site is entirely paved, and no landscaping is present. Thus, no suitable habitat exists for a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. In addition, there are no special status species listed by the federal or state governments as endangered, threatened, rare, or candidate for listing in the City of Norwalk (City of Nowalk, 2022). Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any sensitive species and no impact would occur. 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
31 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. Riparian habitats occur along the banks of rivers, streams, or wetland areas. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by regulatory agencies or are known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species. As described in the previous response, the Project site is within a fully developed urban area, and does not contain any natural habitats, including riparian habitat or sensitive natural community. Additionally, the Project site is bound by develo ped areas that include buildings, pavement, roadways, and small areas of ornamental landscaping that do not contain sensitive natural habitat areas. Thus, no impacts related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans would result from Project implementation. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal, pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. Wetlands are defined under the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in sat urated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps, marshes, and bogs. The Project site and adjacent areas are located within a developed urban area and do not contain natural wetlands. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts to wetlands. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. Wildlife corridors are areas where wildlife movement is concentrated due to natural or anthropogenic constraints and corridors provide access to resources such as food, water, and shelter. Animals use these corridors to move between different habitats and provide avenues for wildlife dispersal, migration, and contact between other populations. The Project site does not support conditions of migratory wildlife corridors or linkages, as it is completely developed and surrounded by roadways and industrial uses. The surrounding area is developed, urban and does not provide functions for wildlife movement. There are no rivers, creeks, or open drainages near the site that could function as a wildlife corridor. In addition, the Project site does not contain nor is it adjacent to any trees that could be used for bird nesting. Thus, implantation of the Project would not result in impacts related to wildlife movement or wildlife corridors. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. There are no local biological-related policies or ordinances, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance that are applicable to the Project, since the site is fully developed and devoid of trees or landscaping. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with local polices or ordinances protecting trees and no impact would occur.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The City of Norwalk does not contain any natural lands that are subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan (SCAG, 2022). As previously described, the Project site is in a fully developed and urban area. The Project site is devoid of any landscaping or trees; therefore, development of the Project would not conflict with other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. The Project would not result in impacts to biological habitat plans.

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
32 Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
There are no impact reducing Plans, Programs, or Policies related to biological resources that are applicable to the Project.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to biological resources are required.

Sources
City of Norwalk. (2022). Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan (SCAG). From https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/p0222-norwalk.pdf?1655313632

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
33 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to in §
15064.5?
   
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
   
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?

  
This discussion is based on the Cultural Resources Study (BFSA, 2024) included as Appendix E , Historic Resource Assessment ( JM Research and Consulting , 2024) included as Appendix C and a Geotechnical Investigation (Sladden Engineering Inc., 2019) included as Appendix D. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact . According to the State CEQA Guidelines , a historical resource is defined as something that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); (2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); (3) identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) determined to be a historical resource by the project’s Lead Agency.

The CRHR defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns or local or regional history of the cultural heritage of California o r the United States; (2) associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or (4) has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

Construction of t he two existing buildings on the Project site was completed in 1972 and 1973. Thus, the buildings onsite were constructed more than 50 years ago. As such, a Historic Resources Assessment was conducted by JM Research and Consulting in order to evaluate the buildings’ integrity as a potential historical resource (included as Appendix C).

As discussed in the Historic Resources Assessment, in the1970s the existing onsite buildings were constructed by architect and civil engineer Serge Michael Papayans. The design limitations of Serge Michael Papayans are evident as the two warehouse buildings do not possess high artistic value to meet the state or national threshold for eligibility. Although the buildings were constructed over 50 years ago, the City does not have a local preservation ordinance or criteria with which to establish local designation eligibility, and the local value of the property does not rise to the threshold of significance to support strong association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national or state history or with significant 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
34 persons in the past. Therefore, the structures have been found ineligible under National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Criterion A and B and CCRHR Criterion 1 and 2.

The existing building s onsite consist of two industrial warehouse buildings along with the associated hardscape and landscaping, and it is currently being utilized as a storage yard fo r large vehicles. The buildings were constructe d between 1968 and 1974 . The two large warehouse buildings are of common design and construction and do not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value. Therefore, the structures are ineligible under NHPA Criteria C and CRHR Criteria 3.

The results of the research under the Historical Resources Assessment did not yield or predict the likelihood of the previously graded and disturbed property to yield information important in history or prehistory and therefore is ineligible under NRHP Criteria D and CRHR Criteria 4.

While among other commercial and industrial property, the geographic distance of similar historic properties and extent of modern development in the area suggests no potential for the property to contribute to a collective resource. Therefore, the buildings are not eligible for listing as a historical resource under the NRHP or CRHR, and the potential for local designation does not exist at this time. Therefore, the onsite buildings do not qualify as a historical resource under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project site has been disturbed from previous development and industrial uses. Demolition of the existing structures and associated improvements would disturb the upper three to five feet of soil. Additionally, the artificial fill and native low density near surface soil would be removed to competent native soil or to a minimum depth of at least three feet below the bottom of the footings, whichever is greater (Sladden Engineering, 2019). As part of the Cultural Resources Assessment, an archaeological records search was conducted through the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at Cal State University, Fullerton (CSU Fullerton). The results of the records search did not identify any resources within the Project site ; however, 29 previously recorded resources were identified within one -half mile of the Project boundaries. The resources identified within one mile of the Project site are all historic and primarily built environment resources.

Further, a field survey of the Project site was conducted on January 19, 2024, and did not identify the presence of any historic or prehistoric cultural resources as defined by CEQA. Given the current development of the Project site, the potential for intact subsurface archaeological resources is low. However, due to restricted visibility during the archaeological survey , Mitigation Measure CUL -1 is included to require archaeological evaluation in the event a resource is inadvertently discovered. With imple mentation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, impacts related to archeological resources onsite would be less than significant. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact. The Project site has been previously disturbed, as described above, and has not been previously used as a cemetery. It is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed P roject would result in the disturbance of human remains. In addition, existing regulation under the California Health and Safety Code, included as PPP CUL-1, outlines the procedures to undertake if human remains are found on the Project site. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure impacts related to potential disturbance of human remains are less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP CUL-1: Human Remains. Should human remains be discovered during P roject construction, the Project will be required to comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that no further 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
35 disturbance may occur within 50 feet of the discovery until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will no tify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine the identity of and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD must complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent Discoveries. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the City of Norwalk Building & Safety Division shall verify that all Project grading and construction plans and specifications state that in the event that potential archaeological resources are discovered during excavation, grading, or construction activities , work shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist from the City or County List of Qualified Archaeologist has evaluated the find to determine whether the find constitutes a “unique archaeological resource,” as defined in Section 21083.2(g) of the California Public Resources Code. Any resources identified shall be treated in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g). If the discovered resource(s) appears Native American in origin, a Native American Monitor shall be contacted to evaluate any potential tribal cultural resource(s) and shall have the opportunity to consult an appropriate treatment and curation of these resources.

Sources
BFSA Environmental Services. (2024). Cultural Resources Study (See Appendix E).

California Legislative Information. (1992) California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 . Retrieved at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum= 21084.1.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. (N.D.) State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a).

JM Research and Consulting. (2024). Memorandum Report. (See Appendix C).

Sladden Engineering Inc. (2019). Geotechnical Investigation. (See Appendix D).

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
36 5.6. ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
   
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
   
The discussion below is based on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis included as Appendix A.
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would begin in the last quarter of 2025 and occur over 14 months.

During the construction of the proposed Project would consume energy in three general forms:

1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project site, construction worker travel to and from the Project site, as well as delivery truck trips;

2. Electricity associated with providing temporary power for lighting and electric equipment; and

3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.

Construction activities related to the proposed self -storage development and the associated infrastructure are not expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per-development basis than other development projects in Southern California. Table 5.6-1 details the construction fuel usage over the Project’s construction period.

Table 5.6-1: Construction Equipment Fuel Usage
Activity Equipment Number
Hours
per
day
Horse-
power
Load
Factor
Days of
Construction
Total
Horsepower-
hours
Fuel Rate
(gal/hp-hr)
Fuel Use
(gallons)
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 33 0.73 20 3854 0.042009925 162 Excavator 3 8 36 0.38 20 6566 0.051215091 336
Rub Tire 2 8 367 0.4 20 46976 0.047454783 2229
Site
Preparation
Rubber Tire Dozers 3 8 367 0.4 10 35232 0.047454783 1672 Crawler Tractors 4 8 87 0.43 10 11971 0.050488264 604
Grading
Graders 1 8 148 0.41 20 9709 0.051539291 500
Excavators 1 8 36 0.38 20 2189 0.051215091 112
Rubber Tire Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 20 23488 0.047454783 1115 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
37 Activity Equipment Number
Hours
per
day
Horse-
power
Load
Factor
Days of
Construction
Total
Horsepower-
hours
Fuel Rate
(gal/hp-hr)
Fuel Use
(gallons)
Crawler Tractors 3 8 87 0.43 20 17957 0.050488264 907
Building
Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2 210 82656 0.033776741 2792
Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 210 17405 0.07797542 1357
Cranes 1 8 367 0.29 210 178802 0.053012364 9479
Welders 1 8 46 0.45 210 34776 0.031716817 1103
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37 210 156643 0.053120784 8321 Paving
Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 20 10886 0.051516537 561
Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 20 10253 0.051165335 525
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 20 4378 0.052591665 230
Architectural
Coating Air Compressors 1 8 37 0.48 20 2842 0.030007254 85 Total 29,363
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A).

Table 5.6-2 shows that construction workers would use approximately 9,936 gallons of gasoline fuel to travel to and from the Project site. Haul trucks would use 18,820 gallons of diesel and vendor trucks would use 5,751 gallons of diesel fuel traveling to and from the Project site. This is in addition to the construction equipment fuel listed in Table 5.6-1.

Table 5.6-2: Estimated Project Vehicle Usage
Construction Source Total Number of
Trips VMT Fuel Rate Gallons of Diesel
Fuel
Gallons of Gasoline
Fuel
Haul Trucks 7,820 73,200 6.12 11,959 0
Vendor Trucks 5,040 51,408 8.94 17,709 0
Worker Vehicles 14,130 261,405 26.31 0 9,936
Total 29,668 9,936
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A).

Table 5.6-3 shows the overall fuel consumption for construction of the proposed Project. As shown, construction of the Project would consume approximately 9,936 gallons of gasoline fuel and 29,668 gallons of diesel fuel.

Table 5.6-3: Total Construction Fuel Usage
Construction Source Gallons of Diesel Fuel Gallons of Gasoline Fuel Construction Vehicles 29,688 9,936
Off-road Construction Equipment 32,090 0
Total 61,758 9,936
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A).

Construction of the Project would result in fuel consumption from the use of construction tools and equipment, vendor and haul truck trips, and vehicle trips generated from construction workers traveling to and from the site. There are no unusual Project characteristics that would cause the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the state.

Therefore, construction-related fuel consumption by the Project would not resu lt in inefficient, wasteful, or 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
38 unnecessary energy use compared with other construction sites in the region, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Once operational, the Project would generate demand for electricity, natural gas, as well as gasoline.

Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling, and lighting of the buildings, water heating, operation of electrical systems and plug -in appliances, parking lot and outdoor lighting, and the transport of electricity, natural gas, and water to the areas where they would be consumed. This use of energy is typical for urban development, and no operational activities or land uses would occur that wou ld result in extraordinary energy consumption.

As detailed in Table 5.6 -4, operation of the proposed Project is estimated to result in the annual use of approximately 154,579 gallons of diesel fuel, 70,257 gallons of gasoline fuel, approximately 3,600,493 British thermal units (BTU) of natural gas, and approximately 1,190,611 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity.

Table 5.6-4: Proposed Project Energy Consumption Estimates During Operation Operational Source Energy Usage
Electricity (Kilowatt-Hours)
Proposed Project 1,190,611
Existing Use 420,624
Natural Gas (Thousands British Thermal Units)
Proposed Project 3,600,493
Existing Use 1,732,347
Petroleum (gasoline) Consumption Annual VMT Gallons of Gasoline Fuel Proposed Project 933,915 70,257
Existing Use 422,995 27,090
Petroleum (diesel) Consumption Annual VMT Gallons of diesel Fuel Proposed Project 1,350,478 154,579
Existing Use 470,540 53,859
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A).

The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction standards through Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by local gove rnments. The City’s administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy-efficient heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); energy -efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water; and incorporation of sky lights, etc. Also, as Title 24 has become more progressive in realizing energy reductions and increasing efficiency, it now has requirements for solar installation for non-residential projects.

With the 2022 CBC updates, the CBC now mandates incorporation of solar photovoltaic systems and battery storage in many non-residential projects, or for non-qualifying projects installation of solar-ready roofs and systems. These requirements serve to offset electricity demand and the Project would be required to adhere to applicable Title 24 requirements. The Project’s compliance with Title 24 will be confirmed prior to issuance of building permits. In complying with the Title 24 standards, impacts to peak energy usage periods would be minimized, and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would be reduced. Therefore, construction and operations-related fuel consumption by the Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
39 or unnecessary energy use compared with other construction similar sites uses in the region, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact. The California Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are designed to ensure new and existing buildings achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. These measures (Title 24, Part 6) are listed in the CCR. The Cal ifornia Energy Commission is responsible for adopting, implementing and updating building energy efficiency. Local city and county enforcement agencies have the authority to verify compliance with applicable building codes, including energy efficiency. As required by Municipal Code Chapter 15.04, Building Code, prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall submit plans showing that the Project would be in compliance with 2022 Title 24 requirements. For instance, the Project would result in a minimal water demand associated single occupancy restrooms, fire sprinklers, and drought tolerant landscaping, which would increase energy efficiency. Also, equipment and vehicles associated with construction and operation of the Project would also be subject to fuel standards at the state and federal level.

In addition, construction equipment and trucks are required to comply with CARB regulations regarding heavy-duty truck idling limits of five minutes at a location and the phase -in of off-road emission standards that result in an increase in energy savings in the form of reduced fuel consumption from more fuel-efficient engines. Although these regulations are intended to reduce criteria pollutant emissions, compliance with the anti-idling and emissions regulations would also result in the efficient use of construction-related energy.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would not occur. As such, the Project would have less than significant impacts related to energy.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP ENG-1: CalGreen Compliance. The Project is required to comply with the CalGreen Building Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 15.30) to ensure efficient use of energy. CalGreen specifications are required to be incorporated into building plans as a condition of building permit approval.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to energy are required.

Sources
EPD Solutions. (2024). Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A).

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
40 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The discussion below is based on the Geotechnical Investigation (Sladden Engineering, 2019) included in Appendix D and a Paleontological Assessment (BFSA, 2024) included as Appendix D.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
   
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?    
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?     iv) Landslides?    
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?     c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
   
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?    
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
   
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
   
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
41 a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
No Impact. The Project site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no faulting occurs on the site. The closet known active fault to the site with the potential for surface fault rupture is the Elysian Park Thrust fault, located less than 2 miles from the site (California Department of Conservation, 2021). Therefore, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault delineated on the Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. No impact would occur.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within a seismically active region of Southern California, with numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions. The nearest fault to the Project site is the Elysian Park Thrust , located less than 2 miles from the site . The amount of motion expected at the Project site can vary from none to forceful depending upon the distance to the fault and the magnitude of the earthquake. Greater movement can be expected at sites located closer to an earthquake epicenter, that consists of poorly consolidated material such as alluvium, and in response to an earthquake of great magnitude.

Structures built in the City of Norwalk are required to be built in compliance with CBC, which regulates all building and construction projects within the City and implements a minimum standard for building design and construction that includes specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition. Compliance with the CBC included as PPP GEO-1, would include the incorporation of: (1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; (2) proper building footings and foundations; and (3) construction of the building structures so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking. Implementation of CBC standards would be verified by the City during the plan check and permitting process. Because the proposed P roject would be constructed in compliance with the CBC, the proposed P roject would result in a less than significant impact related to strong seismic ground shaking. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when vibrations or water pressure within a mass of soil cause the soil particles to lose contact with one another. As a result, the soil behaves like a liquid, has an inability to support weight, and can flow down very gentle slopes. Th is condition is usually temporary and is most often caused by an earthquake vibrating water-saturated fill or unconsolidated soil. Soil properties and soil conditions such as type, age, texture, color, and consistency, along with historical depths to ground water are used to identify, characterize, and correlate liquefaction susceptible soils.

Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, and uniformly graded fine - grained sands that lie below the groundwater table within approximately 50 feet below ground surface (bgs).

According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the Project site is located within a liquefaction hazard zone and the subsurface conditions encountered on the site are conducive to liquefaction (Sladden Engineering, 2019). However, the potential for seismically related differential settlements are expected to be less than 2.0 inches over a horizontal distance of 200 feet (Sladden Engineering, 2019).

As described previously, structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the CBC, as included in the City’s Municipal Code as Chapter 15.04 (and herein as PPP GEO-1), which regulates 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
42 all building and construction projects within the City and implements a minimum standard for building design and construction that includes specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site demolition. Compliance with the CBC (included as PPP GEO-1) would require proper construction of building footings and foundations so that it would withstand the effects of potential ground movement, including liquefaction and settlement. The CBC also includes provisions to reduce impacts caused by potential major structural failures or loss of life resulting from geologic hazards. For example, the CBC requires that a California Certified Engineering Geologist or California-licensed civil engineer provide site -specific engineering data to demonstrate the satisfactory performance of proposed structures. The City requires the Project specific engineering design recommendations be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a condition of construction permit approval. Therefore, the development of the proposed Project would be required to conform to the seismic design parameters of the CBC, as included as PPP GEO -1, which are reviewed by the City for appropriate inclusion as part of the building plan check and development review process. Compliance with the requirements of the CBC and City’s Municipal Code for structural safety would reduce hazards from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and settlement to a less than significant level. iv. Landslides?
No Impact. Landslides and other slope failures are secondary seismic effects that occur during or soon after earthquakes. Areas that are most susceptible to earthquakes induced landslides are steep slopes underlain by loose, weak soils, and areas on or adjacent to existing landslide deposits.

As described above, the Project site is located in a seismically active region subject to strong ground shaking. However, the Project site is relatively level and is not adjacent to any slopes or hills ides (Appendix D). Thus, the Project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects related to slope instability or seismically induced landslides and impacts would not occur. b) Result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed P roject has the potential to contribute to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Excavations and grading activities that would be required for the P roject would expose and loosen topsoil, which could be eroded by wind or water.

The City’s Municipal Code Chapter 18.04, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, implements the requirements of the Los Angeles County Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit Order No. R4-2012-0175, as amended, (MS4 Permit) which establishes minimum stormwater management requirements and controls that are required to be implemented for construction activities for the Project.

The proposed Project would also be subject to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting regulations, including implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and associated Best Management Practices (BMPs). BM Ps may include a combination of construction methods to reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from project -related grading and construction activities , which would be implemented by PPP WQ-1. The SWPPP is required to address site-specific conditions related to specific grading and construction activities that could cause erosion and the loss of topsoil and provide erosion control BMPs to reduce or eliminate the erosion and loss of topsoil. Erosion control BMPs include use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, o r gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, hydroseeding, etc. With compliance to the City’s Municipal Code stormwater management requirements through the implementation of BMPs, which would be reviewed and approved by the City’s Department of Pu blic Works, construction impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

The proposed Project includes installation of landscaping adjacent to the proposed high-cube warehouse and throughout the proposed parking areas. With this landscaping, areas of loose topsoil that could be eroded by wind or water would not exist upon operation of the proposed Project. In addition, as described 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
43 in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would be subject to the inclusion of a SUSMP which requires the Project to be designed to slow, filter, and retain stormwater within landscaping and the proposed infiltration basin, which would also reduce the potential for stormwater to erode topsoil included as PPP-WQ2. Furthermore, implementation of the Project requires City approval of a LID Plan, which would ensure that RWQCB requirements and appropriate operational BMPs would be implemented to minimize or eliminate the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil to occur. As a result, with implementation of existing requirements, operational impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant Impact. Landslides and other forms of mass wasting, including mud flows, debris flows, and soil slips, occur as soil moves downslope under the influence of gravity. Landslides are frequently triggered by intense rainfall or seismic shaking. As described in Response a) iv., the Project site is located in a relatively flat developed urban area that does not contain or adjacent to large slopes, and the P roject would not generate large slopes. Therefore, impacts related to landslides would not occur.

Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction‐induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. As discussed previously in threshold a) iii, the site is liquifiable so there is a potential for lateral spreading to occur. However, the site is relatively flat, and no evidence of faulting was observed during the geotechnical investigation so the potential for lateral spreading to affec t the site is very low (Sladden Engineering, 2019). Thus, impacts related to lateral spreading would be less than significant.

Subsidence is a general lowering of the ground surface over a large area that is generally attributed to lowering of the ground water levels within a groundwater basin. Localized or focal subsidence or settlement of the ground can occur as a result of an e arthquake motion in an area where groundwater in the basin is lowered. Based on the moisture content of the recovered soils samples during testing, the static groundwater table is at a depth greater than approximately 51.5 feet below the existing site grades (S ladden Engineering, 2019 ). The Project would not pump water from the Project area, thus impacts related to subsidence would not occur from implementation of the Project.

As described previously, compliance with the requirements of the CBC and related recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation related to compaction of soils and development of foundations is required as part of the building plan check and development permitting process, and would reduce potential impacts related to liquefaction, settlement, and ground collapse to a less than significant level. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or swell as the moisture content changes; the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils.

Arid or semiarid areas with seasonal changes of soil moisture experience, such as southern California, have a higher potential of expansive soils than areas with higher rainfall and more constant soil moisture.

The Project site consists of artificial fill soil to a depth of approximately five feet bgs. Native soils consisting of sandy clay, sand, silty sand, and clayey sand were found underlying the artificial fill soil. The Geotechnical Exploration determined that the site soils are anticipated to have a “ very low” expansion potential based on soils testing. Thus, the proposed Project would not be located on expansive soils and would not result 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
44 related impacts. In addition, as described previously, compliance with the CBC would require specific engineering design recommendations be incorporated into grading plans and building specifications as a condition of construction permit approval to ensure that Project structures would withstand the effects of related to ground movement, including expansive soils. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. The Project would connect to the existing wastewater infrastructure that is adjacent to the site. Therefore, no impacts related to the use of such facilities would occur from implementation of the Project. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the remains of ancient plants and animals that can provide scientifically significant information about the history of life on Earth. Paleontological “sensitivity” is defined as the potential for a geologic unit t o produce scientifically significant fossils. This sensitivity is determined by rock type, past history of the rock unit in producing significant fossils, and fossil localities that are recorded from that unit. Paleontological sensitivity is assigned based on fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit, not just a specific site.

The Geotechnical Investigation confirmed that onsite testing identified artificial fill extending from ground surface to depths of approximately five feet bgs. Native earth materials were encountered beneath the fill soils and could be sensitive for paleontological resources. As described previously, the Project site has been disturbed from previous development activities which reduces the potential of existing resources onsite.

Demolition of the existing structures and associated improvements could cause disturbance of the upper three to five feet of soil . Construction activities could potentially result in the uncovering of paleontological resources in previously undisturbed Pleistocene soils that potentially underlay the artificial fill . As a result, Mitigation Measure PAL -1 is included to require that any substantial excavations below eight feet be monitored by a qualified paleontologist to identify and recover any significant fossil remains. With implementation of Mitigation Measure PAL -1, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP GEO-1: California Building Code. The Project is required to comply with the California Building Code as included in the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards. California Building Code related and geologist and/or civil engineer specifications for the Project are required to be incorporated into grading plans and specifications as a condition of P roject approval.

PPP WQ-1: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project developer shall have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) in accordance with the California State Water Resources Control Board National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ (General Construction Permit).

The SWPPP shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other NPDES regulations to limit the potential of erosion and polluted runoff during construction activities. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the SWPPP and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by the City of Norwalk staff or its designee to confirm compliance.

PPP WQ-2: Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project Applicant shall have a Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) approved by the City for implementation. The Project shall comply with the City’s Municipal Section 18.04.105 and the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements in effect for the Regional Water Quality Control 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
45 Board (RWQCB) at the time of grading permit to control discharges of sediments and other pollutants during construction and operations of the Project.

Mitigation Measures
MM PAL-1: Paleontological Resources. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the Applicant shall provide a letter to the City of Norwalk Planning Division, or designee, from a paleontologist selected from the roll of qualified paleontologists maintained by the County, stating that the paleontologist has been retained to provide services for the project. The paleontologist shall develop a Paleontological Res ources Impact Mitigation Plan (PRIMP) to mitigate the potential impacts to unknown buried paleontological resources that may exist onsite for the review and approval by the City. The PRIMP shall require that the paleontologist be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance.

The PRIMP shall also require paleontological monitoring for ground disturbing activities greater than eight feet in depth within native soil, as determined by the Project paleontologist.

In the event paleontological resources are encountered, ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the area of the discovery shall cease. The paleontologist shall examine the materials encountered, assess the nature and extent of the find, and recommend a course of action to further investigate and protect or recover and salvage those resources that have been encountered.

Criteria for discard of specific fossil specimens will be made explicit. If a qualified paleontologist determines that impacts to a sample containing significant paleontological resources cannot be avoided by project planning, then recovery may be applied. Actions may include recovering a sample of the fossiliferous material prior to construction, monitoring work and halting construction if an important fossil needs to be recovered, and/or cleaning, identifying, and cataloging specimens for curation and research purposes.

Recovery, salvage and treatment shall be done at the Applicant’s expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the paleontologist.

Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The paleontologist shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource.

Sources
BFSA Environmental Services. (2024). Paleontological Assessment. (See Appendix F).

California Department of Conservation. (2021). California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application . Retrieved April 16, 2024. Accessed at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ Sladden Engineering. (2019). Geotechnical Investigation. (See Appendix D).

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
46 5.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The discussion below is based on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (EPD 2024) included as Appendix A.

Background
Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in the Earth’s radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate.

Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or climate change.

Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses.

Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride . Transportation is responsible for 37 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, followed by electricity generation. Emissions of CO 2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off- gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean.

California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include AB 32, SB 1368, EO B-30-15, EO S-03- 05, EO S -20-06, and EO S -01-07. These regulations require the use of alternative energy, such as solar power. Solar projects produce electricity with no GHG emissions and assist in offsetting GHG emissions produced by fossil-fuel-fired power plants.

GHG Thresholds
SCAQMD does not have approved thresholds; however, SCAQMD does have draft thresholds that provide a tiered approach to evaluate GHG impacts. The current interim SCAQMD thresholds consist of the following:
• Tier 1 consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
   
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
   
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
47 • Tier 2 consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it does not have significant GHG emissions. • Tier 3 consists of screening values, which the lead agency can choose, but must be consistent with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to the project’s operational emissions. If a pro ject’s emissions are below one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant:
o Option 1: All land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
o Option 2: Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year; commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e per year; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
• Tier 4 has the following options:
o Option 1: Reduce business as usual emissions by a certain percentage; this percentage is currently undefined.
o Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures o Option 3, 2020 target for service populations (SP), which includes residents and employee: 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans; o Option 3, 2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 4.1 MTCO2e/SP/year • Tier 5 involves mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold.

The assessment of the proposed Project applies the Tier 3: Numerical Screening Thresholds approach. In addition, SCAQMD methodology for a project’s construction emissions are to average them over 30-years and then add them to the project’s operational emissions to determine if the project would exceed the screening values listed above (Appendix A).

Executive Order S-3-05’s year 2050 goal is the basis of SCAQMD’ draft Tier 3 screening level thresholds.

The objective of the Executive Order is to contribute to capping worldwide CO 2 concentrations at 450 ppm,
stabilizing global climate change. The City of Norwalk has utilized Option 1 for other projects within the city, thus, Option 1 was utilized for this analysis and the GHG threshold used is 3,000 MTCO2e per year. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as site excavation, grading, utility engines, heavy -duty construction vehicles onsite, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions from onsite construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.

In addition, operation of the proposed Project would result in area and indirect sources of operational GHG emissions that would primarily result from vehicle trips, electricity and natural gas consumption, water transport (the energy used to pump water), and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from electricity consumed by the building would be generated off-site by fuel combustion at the electricity provider. GHG emissions from water transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy require d to transport water from its source.

The estimated operational GHG emissions that would be generated from implementation of the proposed Project are shown in Table 5.8-2. Additionally, in accordance with SCAQMD recommendation, the Project’s amortized construction related GHG emissions (shown in Table 5.8-1) are added to the operational emissions estimate in order to determine the Project’s total annual GHG emissions. Based on the analysis results, the proposed Project would result in approximately 1,841 MT CO 2e/yr. As shown, GHG emissions would be
less than SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, based upon SCAQMD’s screening threshold, impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant. 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
48 Table 5.8-1: Project Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Activity Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)
2025 576
2026 336
Total Emissions 913
Total Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years 30
Source: Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Report (Appendix A) Table 5.8-2: Project Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Activity Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)
Mobile 1,920
Area 3
Energy 380
Water 82
Waste 45
Off-Road 97
Stationary 322
Total Project Gross Operation Emissions 2,854
Project Construction Emissions 26
Project Total Emissions 2,880
Existing Emissions 1,039
Net New Emissions 1,841
Significance Threshold 3,000
Threshold Exceeded? No
Source: Air Quality, Health Risk, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Report (Appendix A) b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. As described in the previous response, the Project would not exceed thresholds related to GHG emissions. In addition, the P roject would comply with regulations imposed by the state and the SCAQMD that reduce GHG emissions, as described below:
• Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) is applicable to the Project because many of the GHG reduction measures outlined in AB 32 (e.g., low carbon fuel standard, advanced clean car standards, and cap-and-trade) have been adopted over the last 5 years and implementation activities are ongoing.

The proposed Project would not conflict with fuel and car standards or cap-and-trade. • EO B-30-15 which added the immediate target of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The Project would not conflict with the state’s goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
• Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493) establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new (model year 2009-2016) passenger cars and light trucks. The Project would develop a new building that would not conflict with fuel efficiency standards for vehicles.
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
49 • Title 24 California Code of Regulations (Title 24) establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction that address the energy efficiency of new (and altered) buildings. The Project is required to comply with Title 24, which would be verified by the City during the plan check and permitting process. • Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard [LCFS]) requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10 percent less by 2020. Because the LCFS applies to any transportation fuel that is sold or supplied in California, all vehi cle trips generated by the P roject would comply with LCFS.
• California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) provides requirements to ensure water efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes. The Project is required to comply with AB 1881 landscaping requirements, which would be verified by the City during the plan check and permitting process.
• Emissions from vehicles, which are a main source of operational GHG emissions, would be reduced through implementation of federal and state fuel and air quality emissions requirements that are implemented by CARB. In addition, as described in the previous response, the Project would not result in an exceedance of an air quality standard.

The City currently does not have an adopted Climate Action Plan to reduce GHG emissions, and as described under Threshold 8 .a), emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and impacts would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
See (b) above for applicable regulations.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to greenhouse gas emissions are required.

Sources
EPD Solutions. (2024) Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A) South Coast Air Quality Management District (2008). Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Thresholds Accessed: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air- quality-analysis-handbook/ghg-significance-thresholds/page/2

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
50 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The discussion below is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ADR, 2017) included as Appendix G and a Subsurface Investigation (ADR 2017) included in Appendix H. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Less than Significant Impact. A hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to environment if released into the environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that regulatory agencies have a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the home, workplace, or environment. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because of their potential to damage public health and the environment.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
   
b) 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?
   
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
   
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
   
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
  

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
   
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
   
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
51 Construction
The proposed construction activities would involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and caulking. In addition, hazardous materials would be needed for fueling and servicing construction equipment on the site. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by federal and state requirements, which the P roject construction activities are required to strictly adhere t o. These regulations include: the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act and Hazardous Materials Transportation Act; Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CalOSHA), and the state Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program. As a result, routine transport and use of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant.

Operation
Operations of the proposed P roject would include warehousing and distribution activities , which generally use limited hazardous materials, such as: cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, and aerosol cans.

Normal routine use of these products would not result in a significant hazard to residents or workers in the vicinity of the Project.

In addition, should any future business that occupies one of the proposed units handle acutely hazardous materials (as defined in Section 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95), the business would require a permit from the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) Health Hazardous Materials Division. If the volume of hazardous materials handled or stored at the site is greater than 500 pounds of solid, 55 gallons of liquid, or 200 cubic feet of gaseous hazardous material, it is required by AB 2185 to also file a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan with the LACoFD Health Hazardous Materials Division. A Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan is a written set of procedures and information created to help minimize the effects and extent of a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. The intent of the Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan is to satisfy federal and state right -to-know laws and to provide detailed information for use by emergency responders. Such businesses are also required to comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires immediate reporting to the LACoFD Hazardous Materials Division and the State Office of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business.

Therefore, if future businesses that use or store hazardous materials occupy the proposed buildings, the business owners and operators would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, as permitted by the LACoFD Health Hazardous Materials Division to ensure proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Overall, operation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
b) 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? Less than Significant Impact. ADR Environmental Group, Inc . completed the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Phase II soil and soil vapor sampling for the proposed Project . The following information regarding existing onsite conditions is included in the reports.

On-Site Conditions
Recognized Environmental Conditions
The Project site has an existing clarifier and one long concrete lined trench covered with steel plates.

Clarifiers and trenches can be sources of hazardous material contamination due to cracks in the bodies and piping connections caused by settlement or improper installation. As such, within the Phase I Environmental 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
52 Site Assessment, ADR concluded that potential soil vapor intrusion was considered a recognized environmental condition (REC) to the Project site. Due to the potential contamination related to the onsite clarifier and trench, a Phase II soil and soil vapor sampling was conducted. The Phase II report collected a total of five samples varying between five and 10 feet in depth at the two locations of concern. The analysis of soil samples determined that no concentrations of VOC’s (volatile organic compounds) or the leak check compound, isobutane, were detected to be above laboratory limits. Therefore, ADR determined that VOCs are no longer considered a REC to the Project site. As a result, the recognized environmental conditions of potential soil vapors are less than significant.

Historic Recognized Environmental Conditions
In 1993, one 10,000-gallon gasoline underground storage tank (UST); one 10,000-gallon diesel UST; and associated dispenser and piping were removed from the southwest corner of 13555 Excelsior Drive portion of the property. The USTs were removed under the supervision of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LA CDPW). The soil with detected petroleum constituents was over-excavated and removed from the site. On January 13, 1994, the LACDPW issued a letter indicating no further action was required.

As a result, there are no significant impacts from the historically recognized environmental conditions.

Asbestos
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment indicated the buildings onsite potentially contain asbestos containing materials (ACMs) . ACMs require special handling and disposal, as they may be hazardous to demolition workers and could pose an environmental hazard if disposed of improperly. A written Asbestos Operations and Main tenance program would be implemented. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403, included as PPP HAZ-1, is required as an existing regulation and standard condition prior to issuance of a demolition permit and would reduce potential impacts related to ACMs to less than significant.

Operation
As described above, the risks related to upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be adequately addressed through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations. Development of the proposed Project would result in various limited manufacturing and office uses that would use and store common hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, and cleaning products. Also, building mechanical systems and grounds and landscape maintenance could also use a variety of products formulated with hazardous materials, incl uding fuels, cleaners, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and pesticides/herbicides.

The environmental and health effects of different chemicals are unique to each chemical and depend on the extent to which an individual is exposed. The extent and exposure of individuals to hazardous materials would be limited by the relatively small quant ities of these materials that would be stored, used, and handled. Additionally, any business or facility which uses, generates, processes, produces, packages, treats, stores, emits, discharges, or disposes of hazardous material (or waste) would require a hazardous materials handler permit from the LACoFD Health Hazardous Materials Division, as described previously.

Through existing City regulations and LACoFD Health Hazardous Materials Division permitting and occupancy procedures, hazardous materials would be used and stored in accordance with applicable regulations and such uses would be required to comply with federal and state laws to reduce the potential consequences of hazardous materials accidents. In addition, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is required to be implemented for the Project (as further discussed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and included as PPP WQ -2). The BMPs that would be implemented as part of the WQMP would protect human health and the environment should any accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials occur during operation of the Project.
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
53 As a result, implementation of the proposed P roject would not result in 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, and operational impacts would be less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. The nearest school is Ramona Preschool, located approximately 0.31 miles west of the Project site at 14616 Dinard Avenue, Norwalk, CA 90650. Therefore, there are no existing or proposed schools within 0.25 mile of the Project site. In addition, as previously described, use of hazardous materials would be limited and used and disposed of in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, which would reduce the potential for accidental release into the environment near a school. The emissions that would be generated from construction and operation of the Project were evaluated in the air quality analysis discussed under Threshold (3.b), and the emissions generated from the P roject would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the federal or state air quality standards. Thus, the Project would not emit hazardous or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste near a school, and impacts would be less than significant.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor listing, the Project site is not located on any hazardous material sites listed, pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC, N.D.). In addition, the Phase I E nvironmental Site Assessment included a review of federal, state, and local regulatory database s, which identified 20 sites included within 0.5 mile of the Project site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

As discussed in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, there are no listed sites located within the Project property boundaries (ADR, 2017). As a result, impacts related to hazards from being located on or adjacent to a hazardous materials site are unlikely to occur from implementation of the proposed Project and impacts would be less than significant.
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The Project site is not within two miles of an airport. The closest airport is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, which is approximately 3.7 miles southeast of the P roject site. According to Section 15.56.050 of the Fullerton Municipal Code, the Fullerton Airport Environs Land Use Plan area applies to land within 10,000 feet (1.9 miles) of the nearest point of the runway. Thus, t he Project site is not located within any land use compatibility zone, nor is it within an airport safety zone. Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project areas, and no impacts would occur. f) Impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact.

Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the P roject site or adjacent areas.

Excelsior Drive and Carmenita Road would remain open during construction of the Project driveway to ensure adequate emergency access to the Project area and vicinity. Impacts related to interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan during construction activities would be less than significant. 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
54 Operation
Operation of the proposed Project would not result in a physical interference with an emergency response evacuation. Direct access to the Project site would be provided from Excelsior Drive and Carmenita Road.

The Project is also required to design and construct internal access and provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) in conformance with the City Municipal Code and the Fire Department prior to approval to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9) and the Fire Code included per Municipal Code Chapter 15.0 8. As a result, the proposed P roject would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. According to Figure 12.5, Fire Hazard Severity Zones Policy Map , of the Los Angeles County General Plan, the City of Norwalk is not within or adjacent to a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Furthermore, according to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City does not have a Community Wildfire Protection Plan, as the City is not at risk for wildfires (City of Norwalk, 2022). Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impacts would occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP HAZ-1: SCAQMD Rule 1403. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Project Applicant shall submit verification to the City Building and Safety Division that an asbestos survey has been conducted on the structures proposed for demolition. If asbestos is found, the Project Applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403. Rule 1403 regulations require that the following actions be taken: notification of SCAQMD prior to construction activity, asbestos removal in accordance with prescribed procedures, placement of collec ted asbestos in leak -tight containers or wrapping, and proper disposal.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation related to hazards and hazardous materials is required.

Sources
ADR Environmental Group Inc. (2017). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. (See Appendix G) ADR Environmental Group Inc. (2017). Subsurface Investigation Report. (See Appendix H) CalFire Office of the State Fire Marshal. (2023) Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map. Retrieved April 16, 2024. From https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. (N.D.) EnviroStor listing. Retrieved April 15, 2024.

From https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

City of Norwalk. (2022). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved June 3rd, 2024. From https://www.norwalk.org/home/showpublisheddocument/26724/637849437930330000 City of Norwalk. (2023). Municipal Code. Retrieved April 15, 2024. From https://ecode360.com/43500348.

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
55 5.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
   
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
   
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
   
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;     ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
   
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
   
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?    
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
   
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
   
This discussion is based on the Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan (DRC Engineering, 2023) included as Appendix I and the Preliminary Hydrology Study (DRC Engineering, 2023) included as Appendix J. 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
56 a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction
Construction activities include demolition, site preparation, grading, paving, and installation of new landscaping that would expose and loosen sediment and would have the potential to degrade surface and receiving water quality via stormwater runoff. In addition, construction vehicles and equipment are prone to tracking soil from work areas to paved roadways, which could exacerbate sedimentation of receiving waters. Pollutants of concern during construction activity generally include sediment, trash, petro leum products, concrete water, sanitary waste, and chemicals.

The Project would be required to comply with NPDES construction permit regulations ( NPDES Permit for General Construction Activity, Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ) , which require the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), included as PPP WQ-1. As part of the SWPPP, erosion and sediment control measures would be included to minimize potential pollutants from entering stormwater during construction. These measures include the use of construction BMPs to ensure that impacts related to degradation of water quality would be less than significant. Erosion control BMPs used to prevent the degradation of water quality in the construction area may include the use of:
• silt fences;
• sediment/desilting basins;
• sediment traps;
• check dams;
• fiber rolls;
• gravel bag berms;
• sandbag barriers;
• straw bale barriers;
• street sweeping and vacuuming; and
• storm drain inlet protection.

Other BMPs that could be used to enhance erosion control include scheduling to avoid wet weather events, preserving existing vegetation, and placing cover material over exposed soil. BMPs would also include practices for proper handling of chemicals such a s avoidance of fueling at the construction site and overtopping during fueling, and installation of containment pans. Further, the Project would be required to comply with Municipal Code Chapter 18.04, which requires a development -specific SUSMP, which would include the applicable Low Impact Development (LID) requirements and BMPs necessary to control stormwater pollution during construction. Implementation of BMPs in compliance with the City’s permitting requirements would reduce potential erosion and sedimentation impacts to below a level of significance during construction.

Operation
Operation of the Project would result in potential for pollutants such as trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles, similar to existing conditions. These pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters and result in degradation of water quality. Under Norwalk Municipal Code Section 18.04.105, the Project would be required to implement a SUSMP, included as PPP WQ-2, to control pollutant discharge.

Implementation of the SUSMP would require use of LID features, pollutant source control features, and pollutant treatment control features, which would ensure that the Project would not violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality. In addition, the Project - 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
57 specific SUSMP would be reviewed and approved by the City during the development review and permitting process. Therefore, operational impacts would be less than significant. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) describes that the City relies on 31 percent groundwater, 65 percent imported water, and four percent recycled water. The main source of the City’s water supply is the Central Groundwater Basin. Groundwater from the Central Basin is managed by the Central Basin Municipal Water District (CBWD), which manages basin water supply through the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) (Norwalk UWMP, 2020). The BPP is set based on groundwater conditions, availability of imported supplies, and precipitation.

Water supply estimates are characterized in part by land use projections. The Project is consistent with the existing Heavy Industrial General Plan land use designation. Thus, water usage of the Project has been accounted for within the 2020 UWMP projections. Additionally, the amount of groundwater pumped is limited by the CBWD and the Project would not directly pump water from the Project area, as water supplies would be provided by CBWD.

Infiltration of the Project site would not substantially change; pre -development conditions contain approximately 99-percent impervious area while post-development conditions would contain approximately 93-percent impervious area (Appendix M). As a result, the proposed Project would increase pervious area onsite and would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge; and the Project would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Thus, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site does not contain, nor is adjacent to, a stream, river, creek, or other flowing water body. Thus, impacts related to alteration of the course of a stream or river would not occur. The Project site is relatively flat and would drain into the internal stormwater system proposed.

Construction
Construction and demolition activities would disturb and expose soil, which could be moved by wind and water, resulting in erosion and sedimentation of stormwater runoff. However, the Project site does not include any slopes, which reduces the construction erosion potential. Implementation of a SWPPP, through the use of construction BMPs, as required by the County of Los Angeles MS4 Permit, and preparation of the Project-specific SUSMP would ensure that Project impacts resulting in a degradation of water quality would be less than significant.

Operation
During Project operation, the pervious areas would be landscaped with groundcover that would inhibit erosion. There would be no substantial areas of bare or disturbed soil onsite subject to erosion. In addition, the Project is required to implement a SUSMP that would provide operational BMPs to ensure that operation of the warehouse would not result in erosion or siltation. With implementation of these regulations, impacts related to erosion or siltation onsite or off-site would be less than significant. 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
58 ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site does not include, and is not adjacent to, a natural stream or river. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map the Project site is not within a Flood Zone . As described previously, buildout of the Project would decrease the amount of surface runoff, as the percentage of impervious surface would decrease onsite compared to existing conditions (Appendix M). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. As described previously, the Project site would result in a decrease of impervious surfaces compared to existing onsite conditions. The Project proposes to construct on-site catch basins with filter inserts as well as two underground infiltration basins each designed to store the 85th percentile storm water depth in accordance with LA County LID standards. Any remaining surface runoff would then drain via surface flow or through preexisting concrete gutters before being discharged into the public drainage system. Since the proposed Project would add landscaping to the site, the pervious area onsite would increase by about 20,000 SF (DRC Engineering, 2023). In addition, the proposed on- site underground infiltration basin would reduce the post -development runoff rates ( DRC Engineering, 2023). As such, the Project would not contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

Impacts would be less than significant.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The Project is within Flood Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA, 2024). Zone X is an area determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual change floodplain. Thus, the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and impacts would not occur. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. The Project site is within Flood Zone X, an area of minimal flooding (FEMA , 2024). Thus, the Project site is not located within a flood hazard area that could be inundated with flood flows and result in release of pollutants. Impacts related to flood hazards and pollutants would not occur from the Project.

Tsunamis are tidal waves gen erally caused by shallow earthquakes, sea floor landslides, rock falls, and exploding volcanic islands. The Project is approximately 11.15 miles east of the ocean shoreline. Based on the distance of the Project site to the Pacific Ocean, the Project is not at risk of inundation from tsunami.

Therefore, the Project would not risk release of pollutants from inundation from a tsunami. No impacts would occur.

Seiching is a phenomenon that occurs when seismic ground shaking induces standing waves within a closed body of water. Seiches may cause retention structures to fail and flood downstream properties. The Project site is not near any closed bodies of water; t herefore, the proposed Project would not risk release of pollutants from inundation from seiche. No impact would occur. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. As described previously, the Project would result in more impervious area onsite in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge and impacts related to groundwater recharge would not occur. As discussed further in Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems, water demands from the Project have been accounted for in the City of Norwalk 2020 UWMP, since the Project is consistent with the existing land use designation. The 20 20 UWMP determined that water supply and demands will be met, and the City would monitor groundwater 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
59 withdrawals so as to not overdraft supplies. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the CB WD groundwater management plan.

During construction and operation, the Project would be required to comply with water quality control regulations through implementation of a Project -specific SWPPP and SUSMP. Compliance with each plan would be ensured through the City’s permitting process, as well as through post-construction BMP inspections and verifications. Therefore, impacts related to water quality control plans would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP WQ-1: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project developer shall have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) in accordance with the California State Water Resources Control Board National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ (General Construction Permit).

PPP WQ-2: Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan. Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project Applicant shall have a Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) approved by the City for implementation. The Project shall comply with the City’s Municipal Section 18.04.105 and the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements in effect for the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) at the time of grading permit to control discharges of sediments and other pollutants during construction and operations of the Project.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to hydrology and water quality are required.

Sources
DRC Engineering, Inc. L.P. (2023). - Preliminary Low Impact Development Plan. (Appendix I).

DRC Engineering, Inc. (2023). Preliminary Hydrology Study. (See Appendix J) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2024). National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer.

Map #06037C1837F. From:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b552 9aa9cd
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. NPDES Municipal Permit. From:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/
The City of Norwalk. (2023). Municipal Code. From: https://ecode360.com/NO4978 The City of Norwalk. (2020). Urban Water Management Plan. From: chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename= /public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F6124677360%2FNorwalk%20Final%202020%20UWMP_20 21-07-01.pdf

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
60 5.11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?     b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
   
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The physical division of an established community could occur if a major road were built through an established community or neighborhood, or if a major development was built which was inconsistent with the land uses in the community such that it divided the community. The environmental effects caused by such division could include lack of, or disruption of, access to services, schools, or shopping areas. It could also include the creation of blighted buildings or areas due to the division of the community.

The proposed Project would redevelop an existing industrial site with a new industrial warehouse building in an already urbanized area that is surrounded by industrial uses. The Project does not include the construction of a new road or the implementation of an inconsistent land use into the Project’s vicinity. In addition, the Project site is not adjacent to any residential communities. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact . The Project site has a General Plan designation of Heavy Industrial and is zoned Heavy Manufacturing (M-2). The proposed Project would redevelop an existing site that is currently developed with warehouse buildings with a new warehouse building whose tenants would be consistent with the M-2 zone allowable uses. Additionally, the City’s plan check and permitting process would ensure that the Project complies with the applicable zoning and Municipal Code requirements. Thus, impacts related to conflict with a policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would not occur. As shown in Table 5.11-1, the proposed Project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Norwalk General Plan. As such, no impact related to General Plan inconsistency would occur.

Table 5.11-1: General Plan Policy Consistency
Policy Consistency
T Policy 1.14: Limit driveway access to arterials streets to maintain a desired quality of arterial traffic flow.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 3, Project Description, driveway access for the Project would be from entrances on Excelsior Drive and Carmenita Road.

T Policy 3.1 : Encourage new development which
facilitates transit services, provides for non -automative circulation and minimizes vehicle miles traveled.

Consistent. The Project would construct pedestrian
access into the site off Excelsior Drive to promote the use of nearby public transit.

T Policy 3.4: Encourage the implementation of employer
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
requirements included in the City's adopted TDM
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.17, Transportation, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT and no mitigation measures would
be required. In addition, as discussed in Section 5.3, Air 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
61 Policy Consistency
ordinance and in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's Regulation 15 Program.

Quality, emissions related to operations of the Project would be less than significant.

T Policy 4.3: Promote new development that is designed
in a manner which (I) facilitates provision or expansion of transit service, (2) provides on -
site commercial and
recreational facilities to discourage mid-day travel and (3) provides non- automobile circulation withi n the
development.

Not Applicable. This policy is intended for residential development. The Project proposes an industrial
warehouse development.

T Action 4.3.1: Require new development to fund transit facilities, such as bus shelters and turn- outs, where
appropriate.

T Policy 4.4: Encourage developers to work with
agencies providing transit service with the objective of maximizing the potential for transit use by residents
and/or visitors.

T Policy 5. I: Require proposed developments, whenever
feasible, to dedicate easements for Class I bikeways and to provide additional right-of-way for Class II bike lanes in the project vicinity on all major roadways or other roadways where deemed appropriate.

Not Applicable. The driveways of the proposed Project
would connect to Exc elsior Drive and Carmenita Road.

The Project would not require any changes to existing
roadway design.

T Policy 5.5: Encourage the pr ovision of showers,
changing rooms and an accessible and secure area for
bicycle storage at all new and existing developments
and public places.

Consistent. The Project would include eight bike racks
and a lunch patio located at the southern end of the
proposed warehouse.

T Policy 5.6: Require developers, whenever feasible, to provide facilities for pedestrian travel such as sidewalks and to design developments to provide pedestrian
access to the development on sidewalks and not require
that pedestrians use driveways to access the
development.

Consistent. The Project would include 6- foot-wide
sidewalks on-site to provide pedestrian access from
Excelsior Drive to the main entrance of the prop osed
building.

T Policy 6.4: For all future construction or modifications, drainage grates should be designated for a curb- face
inlet. If this design is not feasible, then the drainage grates should be designated with a honeycomb or short
angled slot pattern.

Consistent. The Project’s design must receive City staff approval; therefore, the drainage grates will align with the City’s requirements.

T Policy 7.I: Provide sufficient on- and off-street parking. Consistent. The Project would include 142 passenger car parking spaces including 111 standard stalls, 6 ADA
spaces, 4 electric vehicle charging stalls , 19 electric ready stalls, and 2 accessible electric vehicle stalls.

T Policy 7.3: Consolidate parking, where appropriate,
to eliminate the number of ingress and egress points onto arterials. Encourage the use of right-turn-in, right-turn-out type of driveways to reduce crossing conflicts on the
arterials.

Consistent. As described in the Project Description t he Project would only include ingress and egress driveways at existing driveway points onto Excelsior Drive and
Carmenita Road. Therefore, the Project would not result in conflict with arterials.

T Policy 8. 1: Provide primary truck routes on selected arterial streets to minimize the impacts of truck traffic on residential areas.

Consistent. The Project is close to I-5 and properly
zoned within an industrial area, so the traffic impact on residential areas would not be substantial. The Project would be required to utilize existing truck routes.

T Policy 8.3: Provide loading areas and access ways
that are located to avoid conflicts with non-truck traffic.

Consistent. The on-site parking for the passenger
vehicles would be located on the perimeter of the site to 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
62 Policy Consistency
provide distance between non -truck traffic and
warehouse operations.

LU Policy 1-16: Require projects to include adequate on- site parking and encourage joint use of existing private parking facilities for public use during off-hours together with joint development of public/private parking
facilities.

Consistent. The Project would include 142 passenger car parking spaces including 111 standard stalls, 6 ADA
spaces, 4 electric vehicle charging stalls, 19 electric ready stalls, and 2 accessible electric vehicle stalls, which would meet the Municipal Code’s parking requirements.

LU Policy 1-20: Require new developments to install all on-site utilities and connections to distribution systems underground.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.19, Utilities and Service System s, all necessary site utilities would be undergrounded as part of the Project.

LU Policy 1- 22: Promote water and wastewater
conservation practices to reduce the water and sewage
flows from existing and future developments.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, t he Project would include underground
infiltration basins that can store the 85th percentile storm water depth. Lands cape and plumbing water features
would also follow the CalGreen Plumbing Code for
efficient water use.

LU Policy 2 -2: Encourage developments to be well
located and functionally integrated with adjacent transit facilities.

Consistent. The Project is surrounded by other industrial facilities and is 1,073 feet away from the
Carmenita/Mapledale bus stop, which would encourage
transit use by Project employees.

LU Policy 2-3: Encourage the consolidation of abutting
commercial parcels into unified commercial development
projects or as separate projects that work and function together as a unit.

Consistent. As displayed in Table 2.4 -1 of Section 2,
Project Setting, the surrounding existing land use s are industrial facilities which are consistent with the proposed Project.

LU Policy 2- 7: Encourage the maintenance and
enhancement of areas important to the creation of a
positive image for Norwalk.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 3, Project Description, the Project would enhance the visual appeal of the
existing site with the inclusion of a consistent varied color scheme, blue glazing, and aluminum canopies. The
Project would also include well -manicured ornamental
landscaping. The building would also achieve LEED Gold
certification.

ILU Policy 1 -2: Encourage the provision of adequate
buffers between industrial and residential uses to
mitigate impacts from noise, light, view, traffic and
parking by the development of standards that require
mitigation between land uses.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 3, Project Description, the Project site is properly zoned for the proposed use and the closest residential area is about 1,386 feet
away from the site.

ILU Implementation Program 1: Require industrial
developments to incorporate adequate buffers for any
abutting residential uses which adequately protect
residential areas from adverse impacts due to noise,
light, visibility of and from industrial activity, vehicular traffic and parking, and risks to property.

C Policy 1-7: Encourage the use of alternative energy
sources, such as solar power.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5. 6, Energy, the
Project would have a less than significant consumption of energy and would maintain CalGreen compliance.

C Policy 1- 8: Encourage the use of drought- tolerant
plant materials in compliance with the State of California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act.

Consistent. As detailed in Section 3, Project Description, the proposed landscaping would include vegetation that
requires low water usage.

C Policy 1-9: Minimize the amount of paved surfaces in
new development to reduce the "urban heat island"
Consistent. Specified in Section 5.10, Hydrology and
Water Quality, the project would decrease the amount
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
63 Policy Consistency
effect, where temperatures in urban areas are increased due to reflection of heat.
of impervious surface from 9 9-percent to 93 -percent
thus, reducing the total amount of paved surface on-site.

OS Policy 4- 1: Require that developers contribute to
provide parks and recreational facilities to off -set
additional demands brought about by new
development, including use of Quimby Act, Parkland,
Park and Recreation Dedication and Fees.

Not Applicable. As discussed in Section 5.16, Recreation, the proposed industrial warehouse would not result in an influx of new residents and would not generate a
substantial population to require construction or
expansion of park facilities.

OS Policy 4- 4: Encourage the inclusion of private
outdoor and indoor recreation facilities in large
commercial industrial projects as a benefit for employees and as a means of reducing demand on public facilities.

OS Policy 5-2: Encourage coordination between private
development and public streetscape, including
landscaping, signage and lighting.

Not Applicable . The Project does not include street
frontage where collaboration with the public streetscape would be necessary. Aside from the driveway entrance,
the Project is not visible from public roads.

OS Policy 6- 1: Usable private and group open space
should be provided in adequate amounts and locations
to meet the needs of all on-site users.

Not Applicable. As discussed in Section 5.16, Recreation, the proposed warehouse would not directly increase the
residential population therefore the project would not
generate the additional need for parkland.

OS Policy 6- 2: Suitable amenities should be provided
within private and group open space areas to encourage
their use.

OS Policy 11-2: Require all new developments to install street trees in accordance with the streetscape Master
Plan.

Not applicable. The Project would not share a large
property line with an adjacent street . Therefore , the compliance with the streetscape Master Plan does not
apply.

N Policy 1-3: Discourage truck traffic from using local residential streets.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 3, Project Description, the Project site is properly zoned for the proposed use and the closest residential area is about 1,386 feet
away from the site. Project trucks would utilize existing truck routes in order to avoid local residential streets.

N Policy 1- 7: Ensure that proposed noise sources are
reduced below a level of significance and properly
muffled to prevent noise impacts on neighboring
properties.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.13, Noise, the
Project’s construction and operational noise would be
below thresholds and no noise impacts would occur.

S Policy 1 -3: Consider seismic requirements when
determining the location and design of critical, sensitive and high-occupancy facilities.

Not Applicable. As discussed in Section 5.7, Geology and Soils, the site is not located within a fault zone.

S Policy 1- 5: New development and other land use
entitlements should be reviewed by emergency response
agencies to ensure that public safety can be adequately provided.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.15, Public Services, the emergency response agencies responsible for the
proposed Project have been contacted and the Projects
impact would be less than significant.

CD Policy 1- 1: New residential, commercial, industrial, and public facility and right -of-way developments
should be reviewed to determine consistency and
compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, district, and the overall community.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 3, Project Description, the proposed Project consistent with the current zoning of the site and the neighboring land uses as it is surrounded by industrial uses.
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
64 Policy Consistency
U Policy 2- 3: Promote water conservation practices to
reduce the sewage flows from existing and future
developments.

Consistent. Landscape and plumbing water features
would also follow the CalGreen Plumbing Code for
efficient water use.

U Policy 2- 4: Promote the use of earthquake -resistant materials and construction design in all utility systems.

Consistent. As stated in Section 5.7, Geology and Soils, the Project would be built in compliance with CBC which includes specific requirements for seismic safety.

U Policy 3- 1: Promote water conservation in both City
operations and in private development to minimize the
need for the development of new water sources and
facilities.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would include on- site catch basins that can store the 85 th percentile storm water
depth. Landscape and plumbing water features would
also follow the CalGreen Plumbing Code for efficient
water use.

U Policy 3-3: Ensure the provision of adequate fire flow rates in all new development.

Consistent. As stated in Section 5.19 , Utilities and
Services Systems, the Project would install 540 linear feet of a 12-inch water line for fire water service on-site.

U Policy 6- 2: Encourage energy conservation in both
public and private buildings.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5. 6, Energy, the
Project would have a less than significant consumption of energy and would maintain CalGreen compliance.

U Policy 9-1: Comply with the provisions of AB 939 to
reduce solid waste.

Consistent. The Project would comply with the City’s
Municipal Code Section 8.48.630 that requires 75 -
percent of total construction and demolition debris to be reused or recycled. The Project would also comply with
AB 341 which requires diversion of a minimum of 75 -
percent of operational solid waste.

U Policy 9- 2: Encourage public and private recycling
programs.

Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The Project would be required to comply with the goals and policies of SCAG’s 2024 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). As shown in Table 5.11-2, the proposed Project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the plan. As such, no impact related to regional plan inconsistency would occur.

Table 5.11-2: RTP/SCS Consistency
RTP/SCS Policy Proposed Project Consistency
Complete Streets
Support implementation of Complete Streets
demonstrations (including those addressing curb space
management) to accommodate and optimize new
technologies and micromobility devices, first/last mile connections to transit and last-mile deliveries
Consistent. The Project does not currently propose any
roadway improvements. As discussed in Section 5.17,
Transportation, the proposed Project would install onsite sidewalks which would connect pedestrian access from
the building entrance to Excelsior Road. In addition, the Project would not conflict with Complete Streets policies as it would not result in any modifications to surrounding roadways. Support community -led Complete Streets plans and projects, including those that take into account how to mitigate or adapt to climate change impacts (e.g.,
extreme heat)
Transit and Multimodal Integration
Increase multimodal connectivity (e.g., first/last mile transit and airport connections), which includes planning Consistent. The Project does not currently propose any
roadway improvements. As discussed in Section 5. 17,
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
65 RTP/SCS Policy Proposed Project Consistency
for and developing mobility hubs throughout the SCAG
region
Transportation, the proposed Project would install onsite sidewalks which would connect pedestrian access to the
public right-of-way. In addition, the Project would install bike racks onsite to encourage the use of bikes. Expand the region’s networks of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This includes creating more low stress facilities, such as separated bikeways and bike paths, slow
streets, and open streets
Safety
Work with local, state and federal partners to advance
safer roadways, including reduced speeds to achieve
zero deaths and reduce GHGs

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.17, Transportation, the proposed Project would include driveways, internal
roadways, and onsite sidewalk construction that would
be built according to the CBC Guidelines would connect
pedestrian access to the public right-of-way in order to reduce single occupant vehicle use.

Sustainable Development
Research the availability of resources that can support the development of water and energy-efficient building
practices, including green infrastructure

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.6, Energy, the
proposed Project would comply with CALGreen/Title 24
requirements to implement energy conservation
measures and water efficient plumbing.

Air Quality
Coordinate with local, regional, state and federal
partners to meet federal and state ambient air-quality
standards and improve public health
Consistent. As described in Section 5. 3, Air Quality , particulate emissions would be below significance
thresholds. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with all relevant State, regional, and local
regulations and policies for reducing particulate
emissions.

Clean Transportation
Support the deployment of clean transit and
technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as
part of the CARB innovative clean technology (ICT) rule Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.6, Energy, the
proposed Project would comply with CALGreen/Title 24
requirements to implement energy conservation
measures and water efficient plumbing.

Natural and Agricultural Lands Preservation
Work with implementation agencies to support,
establish or supplement voluntary regional advance
mitigation programs (RAMP) for regionally significant
transportation projects to mitigate environmental
impacts, reduce per-capita VMT and provide mitigation
opportunities through the Intergovernmental Review
Process
Consistent. The proposed Project would install onsite
sidewalks which would connect pedestrian access to
public transit stops . As discussed in Section 5.17,
Transportation, the proposed facility would result in a less than significant VMT impact due to the low number
of trips accessing the site.

Continue efforts to support partners in identifying
priority conservation areas— including habitat, wildlife corridors, and natural and agricultural lands —for
permanent protection
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5. 4, Biological
Resources, the Project site is currently developed with two industrial buildings and does not contain any
landscaping or agricultural lands.

Support the integration of nature -based solutions into implementing agency plans to address urban heat,
organic waste reduction, protection of wetlands, habitat and wildlife corridor restoration, greenway connectivity and similar efforts

Consistent. As discussed in Section 5. 4, Biological
Resources, the Project site is currently developed with two industrial buildings and associated parking and is
not suitable habitat for any sensitive species and does not serve as a wildlife corridor.

Climate Resilience
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
66 RTP/SCS Policy Proposed Project Consistency
Develop partnerships and programs to support local
and regional climate adaptation, mitigation and
resilience initiatives
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed Project would be
required to implement the CalGreen Plumbing Code for
efficient use of water. Additionally, as discussed in
Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality,
development and construction of the Project site would
require preparation of and adherence to a SWPPP and
SUSMP. Therefore, development of the site would not
deplete or pollute groundwater resources.

Collaborate with partners to foster adoption of systems and technologies that can reduce water demand
and/or increase water supply, such as alternative
groundwater recharge technologies, stormwater
capture systems, urban cooling infrastructure and
greywater usage systems
Workforce Development
Provide technical assistance to help local jurisdictions realize their economic and workforce -development
goals

Consistent. As described in Section 5.16, Population and Housing, development of the proposed Project would
result in the need for 95 full time employees, which
would help promote the City’s jobs-housing balance. Encourage the growth of, and equitable access to, living-wage jobs throughout the region
Thus, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable zoning regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and impacts would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
There are no impact reducing Plans, Programs, or Policies related to land use and planning that are applicable to the Project.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to land use and planning are required.

Sources
City of Norwalk. (2023) Municipal Code (Accessed on 5/16/2024) at: https://ecode360.com/NO4978 City of Norwalk. (1996) General Plan (Accessed on 5/16/2024).From: chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.norwalk.org/home/showpublisheddo cument/20041/636561304601230000

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
67 5.12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
   
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
   
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The Project site is currently developed with two industrial buildings, and no active mining operations occur on -site. According to Figure 9.6, Mineral Resources, of the Conservation and Natural Resources Element of the Los Angeles County General Plan, the Project site is not designated as a mineral resource zone. Therefore, development of the site would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. No impact would occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. As described above, the Project site is not located within a region of known mineral significance nor does it support any existing mining operations. The site has a General Plan designation of Heavy Industrial and does not support mineral extraction activities onsite. In addition, the General Plan does not designate any area within the City fo r mineral resource recovery. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of locally important mineral resources, and impacts would not occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
There are no impact reducing Plans, Programs, or Policies related to mineral resources that are applicable to the Project.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to mineral resources are required.

Sources
Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning. (2014). General Plan 2035. Figure 9.6, Mineral Resources. From: https://planning.lacounty.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2022/11/9.1_Chapter9_Figures.pdf
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
68 5.13. NOISE
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?    
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
   
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
   
The discussion below is based on the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis prepared by Vista Environmental (Vista Environmental, 2024) included as Appendix K.

Construction Noise and Vibration Standards
Noise
The City of Norwalk Municipal Code Section 9.04.150, Particular Acts, contains the following specific acts relevant to noise and vibration which are declared to be unlawful:
• E. Construction or Repairing of Buildings. The erection (including excavation), demolition, alteration, construction or repair of any building other than between the hours of seven a.m. and six p.m. or sunset, whichever is later, except in the case of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety, and then only with a permit from the Director of Building and Safety, which permit may be granted for a period not to exceed three days while the emergency condition continues, and which permit may be renewed for periods of three days or less while the emergency continues; if the Director of Building and Safety should determine that public health, safety, comfort and convenience will not be impaired by the erection, demolition, alteration or repair of any building or the excavation of sites other than streets and highways within the hours of six p.m. or sunset, whichever is later, and seven a.m., or any part, and that substantial loss or inconvenience would result to any party in interest denied permission to do so, he or she may grant permission for such work, or any part, to be done, within the hours of six p.m. or sunset, whichever is later, and seven a.m., or any day, or at such times within such hours as he or she shall fix in accordance with such determination;
• F. Pile Drivers, Hammers, Etc. The operation between the hours of six p.m. or sunset, whichever is later, and seven a.m. of any pile driver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick hoist, or other appliances, the use of which is attended by loud or unusual noise, unless the Director of Building and Safety grants permission pursuant to the standards provided in subsection E of this section.

Because the City does not have construction noise level limits for activities that occur within the specified hours in Section 9.40.150, construction noise for the Project was assessed using criteria from the Federal Transit 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
69 Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA, 2018). Table 5.13-1 presents the FTA’s general assessment daytime and nighttime construction noise criteria.

Table 5.13-1: FTA Construction Noise Criteria
Land Use Day (dBA Leq(8-hour)) Night (dBA Leq(8-hour)) 30-day Average (dBA Ldn) Residential 80 70 75
Commercial 85 85 80(1)
Industrial 90 90 85(1)
Notes: (1) Use a 24-hour Leq (24 hour) instead of Ldn (30 day).

Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix K) Vibration
The City of Norwalk does not have construction vibration standards. As such, this analysis relies on vibration standards from the California Department of Transportation’s Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual . Thresholds are established for continuous (construction‐ related) and transient (transportation‐related) sources of vibration, which found that the human response becomes distinctly perceptible at 0.24 inch per second PPV for transient sources and 0.035 inch per second PPV for continuous sources. The Manual also fo und that vibration may potentially damage industrial buildings at 2.0 inch per second PPV and older residential structures at 0.5 inch per second PPV.

Operational Noise and Vibration Standards
The City of Norwalk Municipal Code establishes the following applicable standards related to noise and vibration during project operation.

Section 9.04.100 – Noise Prohibited
No person shall make, continue or cause to made or continued, any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise, or any noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of others within the limits of the City.

Section 9.04.120 – Ambient Noise Level
“Ambient noise” means the all -encompassing noise associated with a given environment being usually a composite of sounds with many sources near and far, without inclusion of intruding noises from isolated identifiable sources.

Unless sound-level meter readings determine the ambient noise level in a given environment to be higher, the allowable ambient noise levels in Norwalk are listed in Table 5.13-2.

Table 5.13-2: Permitted Noise Levels
Decibels Time Zone
45 dBA Night Residential
55 dBA Day Residential
60 dBA Anytime Commercial
65 dBA Anytime All other zones
Source: City of Norwalk Municipal Code, Section 9.04.120 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
70 Section 9.04.140 – General Noise Regulations
Use Restricted. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article and in addition to this article, it is unlawful for any person to willfully make or continue, or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area.

Prima Facie Violation. An average noise level reading measured pursuant to Section 9.04.130 which exceeds the ambient noise level at the property line of any residential land (or if a condominium or apartment house, within any adjoining apartment) by more than five decibels shall be deemed to be prima facie evidence of a violation of the provisions of this article.

Section 9.04.150 – Particular Acts
In addition to the provisions of Section 9.04.140, the following specific acts are declared to be unlawful:

D. Exhausts. The discharge into the open air of the exhaust of any steam engine, stationary internal combustion engine, motor boat or motor vehicle, except through a muffler or other device which effectively prevents loud or explosive noises.

Existing Ambient Noise Levels
Noise measurements were taken in order to document existing baseline levels in the area. Noise level measurements were collected on Tuesday, February 13, 2024, at three locations between 11:01 a.m. and 11:58 a.m. (Vista, 2024). Measurement locations are shown in Table 5.13-3.

Table 5.13-3: Existing (Ambient) Nosie Measurement Results Site No. Description Primary
Noise Source
Start Time of
Measurement
Measured
Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
Measured
Noise Level
(dBA Lmax)
1 Located near the northwest corner of the
Project site.

Air
compressor
11:01a.m. 55.1 65.8
2 Located northwest of Project site, in front
of nearest home at 14527 Carmenita
Road.

Vehicles on
Carmenita
Road
11:21 a.m. 73.2 83.8
3 Located west of the Project site, near
southeast corner of Ramona Park.

Vehicles on
alley behind
Lowe’s
11:43 a.m. 58.2 75.0
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix K Sensitive Receptor Locations
The City’s General Plan aims to protect areas of the City that are noise sensitive such as residences, schools and hospitals. The closest noise sensitive receptor to the Project site is a home on the northwest corner of the intersection of Carmenita Road and Mapledale Street that is located approximately 980 feet northwest of the Project site. The nearest school is the Ramona Preschool that is located as near as 1,500 feet west of the Project site. Although not considered a sensitive receptor, there are existing industrial buildings that are adjacent to the south property line of the Project site. 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
71 a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact.

Construction
Noise generated by construction equipment would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. Construction is expected to occur in the following stages: demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. Construction of the proposed Project would occur over a 14 -month period. The Project would not include pile driving, which typically results in the highest construction noise volumes.

The Project construction noise would be temporary in nature as the operation of each piece of construction equipment would not be constant throughout the construction day, and equipment would be turned off when not in use. The typical operating cycle for a piece of construction equipment involves one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings.

Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed P roject would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment have the potential to range from approximately 73 dBA to 90 dBA, as shown on Table 5.13-4. Temporary construction noise impacts would vary because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. As shown in Table 5.13-5, the construction noise levels are expected to range from 43 to 74 dBA at the three nearby sensitive and non-sensitive receptor locations.

Table 5.13-4: Construction Equipment Noise Emissions and Usage Factors Equipment
Description
Number of
Equipment
Acoustical Use
Equipment
Spec 721.560 Lmax
at 50 feet2 (dBA,
slow3)
Actual Measured
Lmax at 50 feet4
(dBA, slow3)
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial
Saw
1 20 90 90
Excavator 3 40 85 81
Rubber Tired Dozer 2 40 85 83
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 40 85 82
Crawler Tractors 4 40 84 N/A
Building Construction
Crane 1 16 85 81
Forklift (Gradall) 3 40 85 83
Generator 1 20 90 90
Tractor 1 40 84 N/A
Front End Loder 1 40 80 79
Backhoe 1 40 80 78
Welder 1 40 73 74
Paving
Pavers 2 50 85 77
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
72 Equipment
Description
Number of
Equipment
Acoustical Use
Equipment
Spec 721.560 Lmax
at 50 feet2 (dBA,
slow3)
Actual Measured
Lmax at 50 feet4
(dBA, slow3)
Paving Equipment 2 50 85 77
Rollers 2 20 85 80
Architectural Coating
Air Compressor 1 40 80 78
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix K Table 5.13-5: Construction Noise Levels at the Nearby Receptors Construction Phase
Construction Noise Level (dBA Leq) at:

Nearest Home to
Northwest1
Nearest School to
West2
Nearest Industrial
Building to South3
Demolition 58 55 73
Site Preparation 59 57 74
Grading 59 56 74
Building Construction 58 56 74
Paving 53 56 74
Architectural Coatings 45 43 60
FTA Construction Noise Threshold3 80 80 90
Exceed Thresholds? No No No
Notes:
1 The nearest home to the northwest is located as near as 1,380 feet from the center of the Project site. 2 The nearest school to the west is located as near as 1,800 feet from the center of the Project site. 2 The nearest industrial building to the south is located as near as 235 feet from the center of the Project site. 3 The FTA Construction noise thresholds are detailed above in Table 5.13-1.

Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix K As shown in Table 5.13-5, the greatest construction noise levels would occur during the site preparation phase with a noise level as high as 59 dBA Leq at the nearest home to the northwest, as high as 57 dBA Leq at the nearest school to the west, and as high as 74 dBA Leq at the nearest industrial building to the south.

As shown the noise levels are within the construction noise standards of 80 dBA for nearby sensitive receptors and 90 dBA for nearby industrial uses. These predicted noise levels would only occur when all construction equipment is operating simultaneously; and therefore, are assumed to be rather conservative. While construction-related short-term noise levels have the potential to be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the Project area under e xisting conditions, the noise impacts would be temporary and would no longer occur once the Project construction is completed.

In addition, Section 09.04.150(E) of the Norwalk Municipal Code, states that construction related activities are exempt from noise regulations provided the activities take place during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or sunset whichever is later, which the Project would comply with and is included as PPP N-1. Therefore, Project construction would be compliant with the City’s noise related standards and impacts would be less than significant.
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
73 Operation
Onsite Noise Impacts
The operation of the proposed warehouse building may create an increase in onsite noise levels from onsite truck travel and truck loading area activities, rooftop mechanical equipment, forklift activities, a backup generator, and automobile parking lot activities.

Section 9.04.140(B) of the Municipal Code limits noise to residential properties to the ambient noise level plus 5 dBA. Section 9.04.120(B) of the Municipal Code defines ambient noise level as the higher of either sound-level meter readings or 45 dBA during the night and 55 dBA during the day at residential properties, 60 dBA at commercial properties, and 65 dBA at all other zones. Although the noise limits provided in Section

9.04.140(B) of the Municipal Code only apply to residential properties, this analysis has also applied these noise limits to the nearest school and warehouse, in order to provide a conservative analysis.

As shown in Table 5.13-6, the Project’s worst-case operational noise from simultaneous operation of all noise sources on the Project site would result in noise levels of 34 dBA at the nearest home, 32 dBA at the nearest school, and 66 dBA at the nearest industrial building. A s shown, all noise levels would be within the City’s noise standard of ambient plus 5 dBA as set forth in Section 9.04.140(B) of the Municipal Code. Therefore, onsite operational noise impacts would be less than significant.

Table 5.13-6: Operational Noise Levels at the Nearby Receptors Noise Source
At Home to Northwest At School to West At Industrial to South Distance -
Source to
Receiver
(feet)
Noise Level1
(dBA Leq)
Distance -
Source to
Receiver
(feet)
Noise Level1
(dBA Leq)
Distance -
Source to
Receiver
(feet)
Noise Level1
(dBA Leq)
Rooftop Equipment2 1,020 20 1,510 17 190 35
Auto Parking Lot3 1,230 15 1,520 13 8 59
Onsite Truck Travel and
Loading Area4 1,240 21 1,510 20 30 54
Forklift5 1,240 33 1,510 31 30 65
Generator6 1,540 28 1,930 26 170 47
Combined Noise Levels 34

32 66
City Noise Standard7 78.2 65 70
Exceed City Noise Standard? No No No
Notes:
1 The noise levels were calculated through use of standard geometric spreading of noise from a point source with a drop-off rate of 6.0 dB for each doubling of the distance between the source and receiver. Does not account for noise reduction features, such as buildings located between noise source and receptor. 2 The rooftop equipment is based on a reference noise measurement of 65.1 dBA Leq at 6 feet. 3 The auto parking lot based on a reference noise measurement of 63.1 dBA Leq at 5 feet. 4 The onsite truck travel and loading area based on a reference noise measurement of 63.3 dBA Leq at 10 feet. 5 The forklift based on a reference noise measurement of 74.4 dBA Leq at 10 feet. 6 The generator is based on the CAT specification sheets of 81.1 dBA at one meter. 7 City Noise Standard obtained from Section 9.04.140(B) of the Municipal Code of Ambient plus 5 dBA.

Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis, Appendix K Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts
Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust and tires . The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the number 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
74 of trucks in the flow of traffic. The proposed Project would be located in an industrial area that is surrounded by other warehouses on a site that is currently used for industrial purposes. As such, the vehicle mix of automobiles and trucks generated by the proposed warehouse would be anticipated to be similar to the existing vehicle mix on the nearby roads. In addition, the proposed P roject would not alter the speed limit on any existing roadway so the proposed Project’s potential offsite noise impacts have been focused on the noise impacts associated with the change of volume of traffic that would occur with development of the proposed Project.

Neither the General Plan nor the Municipal Code defines what constitutes a “substantial permanent increase to ambient noise levels .” As such, this impact analysis has utilized guidance from the FTA for a moderate impact that shows that an acceptable project contribution to the noise environment can range between 0 and 7 dB, which is dependent on the existing roadway noise levels . Based on the noise measurement at 14527 Carmenita Road of 73.2 dBA Leq (see Table 5.13-3, above), the allowable vehicle noise increase threshold would be plus 1 dBA.

According to the Carmenita Norwalk Warehouse Project Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis (Traffic Analysis) prepared for the project , the RV Storage Depot that is currently operating on the Project site generates 154 average daily trips (ADT) and the proposed warehouse would generate 338 ADT, which would result in a net increase of 184 ADT (EPD Solutions, Inc., 2024). According to the Traffic Impact Study Bridge Univar Industrial Warehouse 13900 Carmenita Road, prepared by Crown City Engineers, Inc., October 14, 2019, Carmenita Road north of Interstate 5 had 35,300 ADT for year 2021 conditions. The proposed Project would contribute up to 0.52 percent of the ADT on Carmenita Road.

In order for Project-generated vehicular traffic to increase the noise level on any of the nearby roadways by 3 dBA, the ADT would have to double, or by 1.5 dB A, the ADT would have to increase by 50 percent .

As such, the proposed P roject’s roadway noise impacts would be well below the FTA’s allowable noise increase threshold of plus 1 dBA detailed above. Therefore, operational roadway noise impacts would be less than significant.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

Construction
The construction activities for the proposed P roject would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and application of architectural coatings. Vibration impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed Project would typically be created by the operation of heavy off - road equipment. The nearest offsite structures are the industrial buildings that are adjacent to the south property line.

Since the City does not provide any limits to the vibration levels that may be created from construction activities, the vibration thresholds provided in Caltrans Guidance Manual have been utilized and include a damage to the nearby industrial building threshold of 2.0 inch per second PPV and a human annoyance vibration threshold from transient sources of 0.24 inch per second PPV.

The primary source of vibration during construction would be from the operation of a bulldozer. As shown in Table 5.13-7, a large bulldozer would create a vibration level of 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet.

The nearest structures to the Project site are the industrial buildings that are adjacent to the south property line, where the closest potential distance a dozer could operate next to these buildings is around 3 feet .

Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest structure would be approximately

0.92 inch per second PPV. The vibration level at the nearest structure would be within the Caltrans building damage threshold of 2.0 inch per second PPV, however it would exceed the Caltrans human annoyance threshold of 0.24 inch per second PPV . Therefore, vibration related to the operation of heavy machinery within proximity to offsite structures is potentially significant. 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
75 Therefore, Mitigation Measure N-1 is included to require that the Applicant restrict the use of a large dozer or any other large earthmoving equipment within 15 feet of any offsite structure . For all grading activities that occur within 15 feet of any offsite structure, the Applicant shall require the use of a small dozer or other type of equipment that is less than 150 horsepower. As shown in Table 5.13-7below a small bulldozer would create a vibration level of 0.003 inch-per-second PPV at 25 feet. Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest structure would be 0.031 inch per second PPV, which would be below the 0.24 inch per second PPV human annoyance threshold detailed above. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1, impacts related to construction vibration would be less than significant.

Table 5.13-7: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
(inches/second)
Approximate Vibration Level
(Lv)at 25 feet
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Operation
The proposed Project would include the development of a warehouse building. The proposed Project would result in trucks operating on the P roject site and on surrounding roadways, which are a known source of vibration. Caltrans has done extensive research on vibration level created along freeways and state routes and their vibration measurements of roads have never exceeded 0.08 inches per second PPV at 15 feet from the center of the nearest lane, with the worst combinations of heavy trucks. Truck activities on the Project site would occur onsite as near as 30 feet from the nearest offsite struct ure to the south. Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest offsite structure would be 0.04 inch per second PPV.

Therefore, vibration resulting from operation of the proposed Project would be below the human annoyance threshold from transient sources of 0.24 inch per second PPV detailed above and impacts would be less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. There are no airports within two miles of the Project site. The closest airport is the Fullerton Municipal Airport, which is about 3.70 miles southeast of the Project site. The Project site is not located within any land use compatibility zone, nor is it within an airport safety zone. Similarly, the Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels related to an airstrip. No impacts related to airport or airstrip noise would occur from implementation of the Project.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP N-1: Construction Hours: Section 09.04.150(E) of the Norwalk Municipal Code states that construction- type devices may be utilized between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or sunset whichever is later. 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
76 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure N-1: Construction Vibration. The Project Applicant shall require that all construction contractors restrict the operation of any large bulldozers that is powered by a greater than 150 horsepower engine from operating within 15 feet of any off-site structure. The P roject Applicant shall require the use of a small bulldozer (i.e., D1, D2, or D3 dozers) or other type of equipment that is less than 150 horsepower to perform all demolition and grading activities that are located within 15 feet of any off-site structure.

Sources
Vista Environmental. (2024). Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis. (See Appendix K.) 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
77 5.14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
   
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
   
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not involve the construction of any homes, businesses, or other uses that would result in direct population growth. In addition, the proposed Project does not include the extension of roads or other infrastructure. The Project would be served by the existing adjacent roadway system, and utilities would be provided by the existing infrastructure that is located with the adjacent roadways. Therefore, the proposed Project would not extend roads or other infrastructure that could indirectly induce unplanned population growth.

The Project proposes to redevelop an existing industrial site , currently developed with two multi -tenant industrial warehouse buildings totaling 89,870 SF, with a new 138,966 SF warehouse building. Development of the Project would be consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site, which are used by both local and regional agencies to determine anticipated growth. The Project would result in a FAR of approximately 0.45; however, the City of Norwalk General Plan Land Use designation of Heavy Industrial does not have a maximum allowed FAR.

The Project may result in indirect population growth to staff the proposed warehouse. Using SCAG employment density factors within the County of Los Angeles (1 employee per 1,518 SF of warehouse uses), operation of the Project would result in approximately 92 employees. The employees that would fill these roles are anticipated to come from the region . Within the City of Norwalk and the County of Los Angeles , the manufacturing industry accounts for approximately 14.7 percent and 8.5 percent of employment , respectively. The unemployment rate of Los Angeles County in January 2024 was 5.9 percent, the City of Norwalk was 5.7 percent, and the City of Cerritos was 4.9 percent (BLS, 2024a; BLS, 2024b; BLS, 2024c).

Due to these levels of unemployment, it is anticipated that new employees at the Project site would already reside within commuting distance and would not generate a substantial need for housing.

Similarly, during construction, workers are anticipated to come from the local region and travel from job site to job site, and do not typically relocate. As described in the Project Description, construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to occur over 14 months. The temporary need for construction workers on the P roject site would not induce substantial unplanned population area in the Norwalk area. Overall, the Project would result in less than significant impacts to direct or indirect substantial unplanned population growth. 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
78 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project site is currently developed with two industrial use buildings and does not contain any housing. The Project would redevelop the site to construct a new industrial warehouse building. No housing would be displaced by implementation of the proposed Project, and no impact would occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
There are no impact reducing Plans, Programs, or Policies related to population and housing that are applicable to the Project.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to population and housing are required.

Sources
BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). (March 2024a). BLS Data Viewer – Unemployment Rate: Cerritos city, CA (U). Retrieved March 21, 2024, from
https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/LAUCT061255200000003 BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). (March 2024b). BLS Data Viewer – Unemployment Rate: Los Angeles County, CA (U). Retrieved March 21, 2024, from
https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/LAUCN060370000000003 BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). (March 2024c). BLS Data Viewer – Unemployment Rate: Norwalk city, CA (U). Retrieved March 21, 2024, from
https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/LAUCT065252600000003 SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). (October 2001). Employment Density Study Summary Report. Retrieved March 21, 2024, from
https://www.mwcog.org/file.aspx?A=QTTlTR24POOOUIw5mPNzK8F4d8djdJe4LF9Exj6lXOU%3 D

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
79 5.15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause signif icant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Fire protection?    
Police protection?    
Schools?    
Parks?    
Other public facilities?    
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, resp onse times or other performance objectives for:
i. Fire Protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Norwalk contracts with the LACoFD to provide fire protection services to the City. LACoFD provides services to the resident community and business population in an area of approximately 9.35 square miles. The LACoFD provides services including fire prevention and suppression, emergency medical services, technical rescue, and hazardous materials response. The LACoFD has two fire stations located in the City of Norwalk. The closest fire station is Fire Station 20, located at 12110 E. Adoree St. , Norwalk, CA 90605, which is approximately 2.5 roadway miles northwest of the Project site.

Operation of the proposed warehouse may result in an incremental increase in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services as a result . However, the Project would include new fire prevention infrastructure pursuant to current code requirements. The City has adopted the California Fire Code in Chapter 15.08 of the City Municipal Code, which regulates new structures related to safety provisions, emergency planning, fire -resistant construction, fire protection system, and appropriate emergency access throughout the site.

The main driver for an increase in the demand of public services is an increase in population. The Project does not propose any residential units , would be served by an existing fire station, and would be constructed pursuant to existing California Fire Code regulations; therefore, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire department facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts. Additionally, the Project would pay any required development impact fees, as specified in Title 32 Appendix QQ of the Los Angeles County Fire Code, and have plans approved by the LACoFD. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to fire protection services.
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
80 ii. Police Protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The Los Angeles County Sheriff Department provides policing services for the City of Norwalk under contract. The closest sheriff station is located at 12335 Civic Center Drive , approximately 2.6 roadway miles northwest of the Project site. Crime and safety issues during Project construction may include theft of building materials and construction equipment, malicious mischief, graffiti, and vandalism. During operation, the Project is anticipated to generate a typical range of police service calls, such as vehicle break -ins and vandalism. Security concerns would be addressed by providing low-intensity security lighting. Also, pursuant to the City’s existing plan check and permitting process, the Sherrif Department would review the Project’s site plan and photometric plan to ensure that design measures are incorporated appropriately to provide a safe environment.

Additionally, as discussed in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, Project operation would not directly increase the City’s population. Therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial change to existing demand for sheriff services and the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered sheriff protection facilities. Impacts related to sheriff protection services would be less than significant. iii. Schools?
Less than Significant Impact. As described previously, the Project is not anticipated to generate a new population as it does not propose the construction of residential units. Thus, the Project would not directly generate students. During construction of the P roject, workers are anticipated to come from the local region and travel from job site to job site. Construction of the P roject is anticipated to occur over 14 months. Due to the temporary nature of construction, construction workers and their student-aged children are not anticipated to move to the P roject area. Thus, substantial in-migration of employees that could generate new students is not anticipated to occur.

As required by all P rojects within the City, the proposed P roject is required to pay School Mitigation Impact fees, as included by PPP PS -1. Additionally, pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq., the need for additional school facilities is addressed through compliance with school impact fee assessment. SB 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) sets forth a state school facilities const ruction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s ability to condition a project on mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in the Government Code. The Project would be required to contribute fees to the Norwalk La Mirada Unified School District in accordance with the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (Senate Bill 50). Pursuant to Senate Bill 50, payment of school impact fees constitutes complete mitigation under CEQA for Project ‐related impacts to school services. Overall, impacts related to schools would be less than significant. iv. Parks?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would develop a new industrial warehouse building and does not include development of park facilities. In addition, as described previously, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in an influx of new residents, as the employees needed to operate the proposed buildings are primarily anticipated to come from the unemployed labor force in the region.

Thus, the proposed Project would not generate a substantial population that would require construction or expansion of park facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. v. Other Public Facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. Refer to the previous responses. The proposed Project would not result in an increased resident population or a significant increase in the local workforce. Based on these factors, the proposed Project would not result in any long-term impacts to other public facilities. 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
81 Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP PS-1: School Fees: Prior to the issuance of either a certificate of occupancy or prior to building permit final inspection, the Applicant shall provide payment of the appropriate fees set forth by the applicable school districts related to the funding of school facilities pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to public services are required.

Sources
City of Norwalk. (2023). Municipal Code From: https://ecode360.com/NO4978 County of Los Angeles. (2023) Fire Department. From
https://locator.lacounty.gov/fire/Location/3298550/los-angeles-county-fire-department--- station-20
County of Los Angeles. (2023). Sheriff Department. From https://lasd.org/norwalk/

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
82 5.16. RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
   
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
   
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact. The City of Norwalk maintains the local parks and provides recreational services for the Project area. The closest park to the Project site is Ramona Park, 0.17-mile northwest. The Project would not include any residential facilities and would not cause a direct increase in residential population. As previously discussed, the Project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth.

Therefore, the Project would not increase the use of existing recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Overall, impacts related to physical deterioration of a recreation facilities would be less than significant. b) Include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. The Project would construct a warehouse on a site that is currently developed with an industrial facility and would not directly increase the residential population of the City. T he Project does not propose the construction or expansion of recreational facilities or parks. Thus, no impacts would occur from the construction of new or expanded recreational facilities.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
There are no impact reducing Plans, Programs, or Policies related to recreation that are applicable to the Project.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to recreation are required.

Sources
None.
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
83 5.17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
   
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
   
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?    
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?    
The discussion below is based on the Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis , prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc. (EPD 20 24) (Appendix L). The report was modeled on a previous site plan with a larger building square footage and represents a conservative analysis of Project impacts. a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact.

Construction
Construction activities associated with the Project would generate vehicular trips from construction workers traveling to and from the Project site, delivery of construction supplies and import materials to, and export of debris from, the Project site. However, these activities would only occur for a n estimated time period of 14 months. The increase of trips during construction activities would be limited and is not anticipated to exceed the number of operational trips described below. The short -term vehicle trips from construction of the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
As detailed in the P roject Description, the Project site is currently developed with two multi-tenant existing industrial warehouse buildings totaling 89,870 SF. The Project would redevelop the existing site with a new speculative industrial building totaling 138,966 SF, or an increase of 49,096 SF beyond the existing square footage.1 Approximately 20 percent of the building would be speculatively used for cold storage.

Table 5.17-1 shows the trips generated by the existing manufacturing and warehouse land uses and forecasts the net new trip generation of the P roject. As shown in Table 5.17-1, the Project would result in

1 The trip generation prepared for the Project was prepared based off a previous site plan showing a building area of 144,901 SF, which provides a conservative analysis of potential trips resulting from the Project. 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
84 approximately 185 new daily trips, 26 new AM peak hour, and 23 new PM peak hour trips compared to the existing uses onsite.

Table 5.17-1: Project Trip Generation

Source: VMT Screening Memo, Appendix K
In addition, the Project area is currently served with transit service from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) and Norwalk Transit System (NTS). The Project site is served by the LA Metro Bus line 460. There is a bus stop at the intersection of Carmenita Road and Mapledale Street, north of the Project site. Operation of the Project would not affect the operation of the bus routes. Thus, no impacts would occur.

Land Use Units Daily In Ou t Total In Out Total
Trip Rates
150 - Warehousing1
TSF 1.71 0 .13 0.04 0.17 0.05 0.13 0.18
110 - General Light Industrial 2
TSF 4.87 0 .65 0.09 0.74 0.09 0.56 0.65
Existing Project Trip Generation
Existing Warehousing1 89.870 TSF 1 54 12 4 16 5 12 17
Vehicle Mix 3 Percent
Passenger Vehicles 72.50% 112 9 3 1 2 4 8 12
2-Axle Trucks 4.60% 7 1 0 1 0 1 1
3-Axle Trucks 5.70% 9 1 0 1 0 1 1
4+-Axle Trucks 17.20% 26 2 1 3 1 2 3
100% 154 13 4 1 7 5 12 17
Proposed Project Trip Generation
Total Building Square footage 144.901
Proposed General Light Industrial 2

28.9802 TSF 1 41 19 3 22 3 16 19
Vehicle Mix3
Percent
Passenger Vehicles 72.50% 102 14 2 1 6 2 12 14
2-Axle Trucks 4.60% 6 1 0 1 0 1 1
3-Axle Trucks 5.70% 8 1 0 1 1 0 1
4+-Axle Trucks 17.20% 24 3 1 4 0 3 3

1.0 140 19 3 22 3 16 19
Proposed Warehousing1 115.921 TSF 1 98 15 5 20 6 15 21
Vehicle Mix 4 Percent
Passenger Vehicles 55.30% 109 8 3 1 1 4 8 12
2-Axle Trucks 15.50% 31 2 1 3 1 2 3
3-Axle Trucks 4.90% 10 1 0 1 0 1 1
4+-Axle Trucks 24.30% 48 4 1 5 1 4 5
100% 198 15 5 2 0 6 15 21
Total New Trip Generation 339 34 8 42 9 31 40
T
otal New Passenger Trip Generation 211 22 5 27 6 20 26
Net New Passenger Trip Generation 99 13 2 15 2 12 14
Net New Trip Generation 185 22 4 26 4 19 23
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
PCE = Passenger Car Equivalent
1 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual,11th Edition, 2021 . Land Use Code 150 - W
arehousing.
2 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual,11th Edition, 2021 . Land Use Code 110 - General L
ight Industrial.
3 Vehicle Mix from the Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage, July 17, 2014. Without Cold Storage 4 Vehicle Mix from the Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage, July 17, 2014. With Cold Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
85 There are no existing bicycle lanes along Excelsior Drive and the adjacent portion of Carmenita Road.

Implementation of the Project would therefore not alter any bicycle lanes. There are no existing sidewalks since the property does not have a street frontage aside from the driveway . As a result, operation of the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b) discusses the use of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the impact analysis. The City of Norwalk has not adopted VMT guidelines, so the County of Los Angeles guidelines were utilized to analyze potential VMT impacts. For non-retail projects, the guidelines state projects that generate fewer than 110 net daily passenger trips are generally exempt from preparing a Transportation Impact Analysis to analyze VMT. As shown in Table 5.17-1, t he Project would generate 99 net daily passenger trips. Therefore, the Project would meet the screening guideline set forth in Section 3.1.2.3 of the Los Angeles County guidelines. Therefore, the Project would screen out of a VMT analysis, and impacts can be presumed to be less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would develop and operate a new warehouse building onsite that is compatible with the zoning and land use. The Project ’s design would be reviewed by the City during the plan check and permitting process; thus, the geometric design features of the Project site would not result in increased hazards. Access to the Project site would be via a 35-foot driveway on Excelsior Drive and a 31- foot road which provides reciprocal access through the adjacent property to the west of the site. The driveways would be designed in compliance with the City’s design standards to provide for adequate turning for passenger cars, fire trucks, and delivery trucks.

Additionally, the Project site does not include any visual obstructions that would block sight distance at the driveways or that would prohibit full access in, and out of, the Project area. Thus, motorists entering and exiting the Project site would be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. As such, Project access and circulation would be adequate, and Project impacts related to hazardous design features would be less than significant.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would develop and operate a new industrial warehouse building that would be permitted and approved in compliance with existing safety regulations, such as the California Building Code and Fire Code (as integrated into the City’s Municipal Code) to ensure that it would not result in inadequate emergency access.

The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the P roject site or adjacent areas.

During construction, Excelsior Drive and Carmenita Road would remain open to ensure adequate emergency access to the Project area and vicinity. Thus, impacts related to inadequate emergency access during construction activities would not occur.

As described above, operation of the proposed Project would also not result in inadequate emergency access. Direct access to the P roject site would be provided from Excelsior Drive and Carmenita Road. The driveway and onsite circulation constructed by the Project would be evaluated through the City’s permitting procedures to meet the City’s design standards that provides adequate turning space for passenger cars, fire trucks, and delivery trucks. The Project is also required to provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers). The Norwalk Fire Department has reviewed and approved the development plans as part 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
86 of the plan check and permitting procedures to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9).

As a result, impacts related to inadequate emergency access would not occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
There are no impact reducing Plans, Programs, or Policies related to transportation that are applicable to the Project.

Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures related to transportation are required.

Sources
City of Norwalk. (N.D.). Norwalk Transit Systems. Fares and Schedules. From: https://www.norwalk.org/city- hall/departments/norwalk-transit-system-nts/fares-schedules Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro). Maps & Timetables. Metro Local Line 62. Available at: https://media.metro.net/documents/4e3d8753-426a-4447-8d5e- e12952103ea5.pdf
EPD Solutions, Inc. (2024). Trip Generation Analysis and VMT Screening Analysis. (Appendix L)

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
87 5.18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
   
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe?
   
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014 (Assembly Bill [AB] 52), requires that Lead Agencies evaluate a project’s potential to impact “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include “[s]ites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources.” AB 52 also gives lead agencies the discretion to determine, supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.” Also, per AB 52 (specifically PRC 21080.3.1), Native American consultation is required upon request by a California Native American tribe that has previously requested that the City provide it with notice of such projects.

An archaeological records search was completed in order to identify any previously recorded archaeological sites within the Project boundary or in the immediate vicinity. According to the records search, 29 resources were identified within a one-half mile radius, none are located on the Project site and all are historic and primarily built environment resources . Additionally, Brian F. Smith and Associates requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search from the Native American Heritage Commission. T he NAHC responded that the SLF search yielded negative results for known tribal cultural resources or sacred lands within a one-mile radius of the Project site.

Pursuant to the requirements of AB 52, the City sent informational letters about the proposed Project and requests for consultation to each tribe on the City’s list of tribes requesting consultation on February 5, 2024.

These tribes include the following: Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. No responses were received from contacted tribes.

As described above in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, the Project does not contain any historic structures. In addition, the entire parcel has been disturbed from previous development activity. However, as described 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
88 previously, Mitigation Measure CUL -1, as outlined in Section 5. 5, Cultural Resources, has been included to provide procedures to be followed in the event that archaeological resources are discovered during grading, excavation, or construction activities. As detailed previously, if the discovered resource(s) appears Native American in origin, a Native American Monitor shall be contacted to evaluate any potential tribal cultura l resource(s) and shall have the opportunity to consult on appropriate treatment and curation of these resources. Thus, impacts related to California Native American tribes would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed above, impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1. No information has been provided to the Lead Agency indicating any likelihood of uncovering tribal cultural resources on the Project site, there are no known tribal cultural resources on or adjacent to the Project site, and no potentially significant impacts are anticipated.

Additionally, as described previously, California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in the Project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.

Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP CUL-1: Human Remains. Listed previously in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Incidental Discoveries. Listed previously in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources.

Sources
BFSA Environmental Services. (2024). Cultural Resources Study . (See Appendix E).

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Supplement to General Plan Guidelines. November 14, 2005. Available at: http://nahc.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2019/04/SB-18-Tribal-Consultation-Guidelines.pdf

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
89 5.19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?    
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
   
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
   
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
   
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?    

a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact.

Water Infrastructure
The City’s Water Division of the Public Works Department supplies potable water for residents and businesses. The proposed Project is within an urbanized, developed area of Norwalk and would redevelop a site currently utilized for industrial uses . Carmenita Road contains 6-inch and 12 -inch water lines and Excelsior Drive contains a 6 -inch water line. The Project would connect to the existing 6 -inch water line in Excelsior Drive and would use the existing infrastructure throughout the site. In addition, the Project would install 590 linear feet of a 12-inch water line from the street connection in Carmenita Road through the adjacent property to the west of the Project site to the site property line for fire water service. The analysis of the construction activities related to the proposed water service line is included as a part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this MND. For example, analysis of construction emissions resulting from the installation of the water infrastructure is included in Sections 5.3, Air Quality, and 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which were determined to result in less than significant impacts. Therefore, potential impacts related to the construction of the on -site water service line would be less than significant.
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
90 Wastewater Treatment
The Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LASD) treats wastewater from the City. Local sewer lines are owned and maintained by the City, while the LASD owns, operates, and maintains the large trunk sewers of the regional wastewater conveyance system. The proposed Project would connect to an existing 6-inch on- site sewer service line, which conveys wastewater to the 8-inch sewer main within Excelsior Drive. The existing sewer lines would accommodate development of the Project site and would not require expansion to serve the Project. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater treatment would be less than significant.

Stormwater Drainage
As discussed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, operation of the Project would meet treatment guidelines needed for a 25-year, 24-hour storm event (Appendix M ). The proposed on -site underground infiltration basin would result in lower post -developed runoff rates compared to existing runoff rates for a 25-year storm event (Appendix M). Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the construction of new off-site storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing off-site facilities.

The Project proposes to install several inlets and on-site drainage pipes to convey site runoff to two proposed underground infiltration basins, located at the southern and northeastern portion of the site. The existing drainage pattern would be maintained in the proposed plan such that runoff from the northern portion of the site would be discharged to Spring Avenue, while runoff from the southern portion would be discharged to Excelsior Drive. Construction activities related to the proposed on -site stormwater improvements are included as a part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this MND. For example, analysis of construction emissions resulting from the installation of the water infrastructure is included in Sections 5.3, Air Quality, and 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, which were determined to result in less than significant impacts. Therefore, potential impacts related to the construction of the on-site stormwater infrastructure would be less than significant.

Electric Power
Electricity is provided to the City of Norwalk by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE provides electric power to more than 15 million persons within its 50,000 square mile service area. Based on SCE’s 2021 Power Content Label Mix, SCE derives electricity from varied energy resources including: natural gas, solar power generation, wind farms, nuclear power plants, hydroelectric generators, and geothermal power plants. SCE also purchases power from open market transactions, which do not have identifiable sources (California Energy Commission, 2024). The proposed Project would connect to existing electric power therefore the impact would be less than significant.

Natural Gas
The City of Norwalk is within the service area of the Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas). The proposed Project would connect to existing natural gas lines in the surrounding roadways; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Telecommunications
The City of Norwalk is within the service area of Charter Spectrum, DirecTV, Dish Network, and Frontier Communications. Existing communication lines are present in the roadways surrounding the Project site. The Project would connect to lines within the surrounding roadways. Therefore, impacts related to dry utilities would be less than significant.
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
91 b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the City of Norwalk 2020 UWMP, the City receives its water from several sources, groundwater from the Central Groundwater Basin (Basin), imported water from CBMWD, City of Santa Fe Springs, and City of Cerritos. The City also receives recycled water from CBMWD.

The City provides potable drinking water to its customers via three groundwater wells and imported water.

Recycled water supply is delivered through CBMWD’s recycled water. The City has prepared the 2020 UWMP in order to assess long-term water supply sources, demands, reliability, and conservation strategies.

Table 5.19-1 shows the projected water supply characterization for the City, taking into account increased supply as a result of passive water savings from conservation requirements.

Table 5.19-1: City of Norwalk Water Supply Projections (acre-feet) Source 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Central Groundwater Basin 2,273 2,273 2,273 2,273 2,273 Imported/Purchased 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331 1,331
Recycled water 90 90 90 90 90
Total 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694 3,694
Source: Norwalk 2020 UWMP.

Water use projections are estimated in part on expected land use development. The Project buildout is consistent with the existing H eavy Industrial General Plan land use designation; thus, water usage of the Project has been accounted for within the 2020 UWMP. In addition, the Project would include redevelopment of a site with a current water demand of the same land use and would not result in a substantial increase in water demand over existing conditions. The Water Service Reliability and Drought Risk Assessment section of the UWMP concludes that supply and demand are forecasted to be balanced through 2045, under normal years, single-dry years, and multiple-dry year scenarios. Therefore, impacts related to water supplies from the Project would be less than significant.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site receives wastewater treatment service from LACSD. Two wastewater treatment plants handle wastewater flow from the City of Norwalk: A.K. Warren Water Resource Facility in Carson and Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant in Cerritos. The two facilities combined have the design capacity to treat 437.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and combined they treat an average of 297.5 mgd of wastewater (LACSD , 2024). In total this leaves an existing capacity of 140 mgd of wastewater between the two facilities.

The Los Angeles County General Plan Draft EIR uses an estimated wastewater generation rate of 76 gallons per capita per day (from Table 5.17-2 of the General Plan Draft EIR). Based on this factor, and an estimated employee generation of 95 persons, the Project would generate approximately 7,220 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater or 0.0072 mgd. Therefore, the Project’s wastewater generation would be within the current capacity for the LACSD and no new or expanded offsite facilities are required. Impacts related to wastewater generation would be less than significant.
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
92 d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impact. The landfills that serve the City of Norwalk include Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill in Rialto, the Savage Canyon Landfill in Whittier, and the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine. The County of San Bernardino Solid Waste Management Department, the City of Whittier, and the County of Orange Waste and Recycling own and operate these landfills. Solid waste is collected and managed in the City by Athens Services. Information regarding these landfills is detailed on Table 5.19-2 below. Based on the average disposal tonnage, the landfills have a combined total daily disposal availability of 11,497 tons per day (tpd).

Table 5.19-2: Landfill Capacity
Name Max Daily
Permitted (tpd)
Average Daily
Tonnage (tpd)
Available Daily
Disposal (tpd)
Closure Date
Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill 7,500 3,442 4,058 4/1/2045 Savage Canyon Landfill 3,350 288 3,062 12/31/2079
Frank R. Bowerman Landfill 11,500 7,123 4,377 12/31/2053 Source: CalRecycle
Construction
The Project would generate solid waste from construction and demolition debris during the short -term construction period. The demolition phase of construction involves removal of asphalt and the existing buildings. Based on the area of paved land and the average thickness and mass of hardscape, demolition would result in approximately 33,110 tons of debris. Solid waste would be disposed of in accordance with local solid waste disposal requirements. Additionally, Section 5.408.1 of the existing CalGreen Building Standards Code requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. Thus, the demolition and construction solid waste that would be disposed of at the landfill would be approximately 35 percent of the waste generated, or 11,182.50 tons of debris. As described in the Air Quality Analysis (Appendix A), demolition is expected to take 20 days. As such, this would equate to approximately 559.13 tpd of solid waste. The three landfills have a combined total daily disposal availability of 11,497 tpd, which would meet the construction-related landfill needs.

Operation
The CalEEMod solid waste generation rate for general light industrial land use is 1.24 tons per year per 1,000 square feet. Thus, the proposed warehouse would generate approximately 172.32 tons of solid waste per year. However, at least 75 percent of the solid waste would be required to be recycled pursuant to AB 341, which would reduce the volume of landfilled solid waste to approximately 43.08 tons per year or 0.83 tons per week.

As described above, the supporting landfill facilities have an additional capacity of approximately 11,497 tpd. Thus, the landfills would be able to accommodate the addition of 0. 83 tons of waste per week from operation of the Project. Therefore, impacts related to the construction and operation of the Project on landfill capacity would be less than significant.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
93 No Impact. The Project would result in redevelopment of the Project site that would generate an increased amount of solid waste. Pursuant to Section 5.408.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code, all construction would be required to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. AB 341 requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste.

Implementation of the Project would be required to be consistent with all mandatory federal, state and City regulations related to solid waste. SB 1383 establishes methane emission reduction targets in a statewide effort to reduce emissions of short -lived climate pollutants. A 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste was established by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025.

CalRecycle is the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that not less than 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025. As required in Municipal Code Section 8.48.630 (PPP UT -1), prior to the construction of the Project , a Waste Management Plan Compliance Official documentation would be submitted to assure diversion of 65 percent of total construction debris via reuse and recycle. Additionally, landscaping maintenance would utilize organic waste collection bins for landscape trimmings. Thus, impacts related to compliance with solid waste regulations would not occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
PPP UT-1: Solid Waste. As required by Municipal Code Section 8.48.630, prior to construction of the Project, the Applicant shall submit to the Waste Management Plan Compliance Official documentation that the diversion requirement has been met. The diversion requirement shall be that the Applicant has diverted at least 65 percent of the total construction and demolition debris generated by the P roject via reuse or recycling.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to utilities and service systems are required.

Sources
California Energy Commission. (2022) Power Content Southern California Edison. Retrieved at:
https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/custom-
files/PDF_Files/SCE_2022_Power_Content_Label_B%26W.pdf.

CalRecycle. (N.D.) Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Retrieved at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates CalRecycle. (N.D.) Solid Waste Information System Facility/Site Search. Retrieved at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/.

CalRecycle. (N.D.) Local Government Information Center. Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility. Retrieved at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility City of Norwalk. (2020) Urban Water Management Plan. Retrieved at:
https://www.norwalk.org/home/showpublisheddocument/27151/637947047386700000 DRC Engineering. (2023) Preliminary Hydrology Study. (See Appendix M).

Los Angeles County. (2014) General Plan Draft EIR. Accessed at: https://planning.lacounty.gov/wp- content/uploads/2022/11/gp_2035_deir.pdf

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
94 5.20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
   
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
   
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
   
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
   
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. According to Figure 12.5, Fire Hazard Severity Zones Policy Map , of the Los Angeles County General Plan, the City of Norwalk is not within or adjacent to a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, 2021). Furthermore, according to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City does not have a Community Wildfire Protection Plan, as the City is not at risk for wildfires (City of Norwalk, 2022). Therefore, potential impacts related to an emergency response or evacuation would not occur.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. As described in the previous response, the City of Norwalk is not susceptible to wildfire hazards, nor is the City adjacent to any Fire Hazard Severity Zones ( Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, 2021). The areas within the Project’s vicinity also do not contain hillsides or other factors that could exacerbate wildfire risks. In addition, implementation of the Project would be required to adhere to the California Fire Code, as adopted in Chapter 15.08 of the Norwalk Municipal Code . Development plans would be reviewed by the City’s Building and Safety Divisions during the permitting process to ensure that the Project plans meet fire protection requirements. Therefore, no impact would occur. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. As described in the previous responses, the Project site is not within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

The Project does not involve any new infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
95 power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risks or result in other impacts to the environment.

Therefore, no impacts would occur.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. As described in the previous responses, the Project site is not within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

Adjacent areas to the Project site are relatively flat urban sites and do not contain hillsides or other factors that would expose people or structures to flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes. In addition, the Project would not generate large slopes and would install on-site drainage facilities to retain stormwater runoff. Thus, the P roject would not result in risks related to wildfires or risks related to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides after wildfires. The refore, impacts would not occur.

Existing Plans, Programs, or Policies
There are no impact reducing Plans, Programs, or Policies related to wildfires that are applicable to the Project.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to wildfires are required.

Sources
Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning (October 2021). Hazard Severity Zones Policy Map Retrieved March 21, 2024, From: https://planning.lacounty.gov/wp- content/uploads/2022/11/12.2_Chapter12_Figures.pdf.

City of Norwalk. (February 2022). Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Retrieved March 21, 2024, From:
https://www.norwalk.org/home/showpublisheddocument/26724/637849437930330000

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
96 5.21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
   
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the ef fects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
   
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
   
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, the Project site is currently developed with 89,870 SF of industrial uses. The site does not contain any landscaping or vegetation. Therefore, the Project would not have the potential to result in potential impacts to sensitive biological resources.

As discussed in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, no historic resources exist on the Project site. In addition, due to the developed nature of the Project site, there is low potential that the Project could result in impacts to previously unknown archaeological resources. However, Mitigation Measure CUL -1 has been included to provide procedures to be followed in the event that archaeological resources are discovered during grading, excavation, or construction activities. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, impacts related to important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory would be less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effec ts of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project would redevelop an existing industrial site with a new warehouse building , consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations of the Project site. The cumulative effect of the proposed P roject taken into consideration with other development 14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
97 projects in the area would be limited, because the Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Municipal C ode and would not result in substantial effects to any environmental resource topic, as described th roughout this document. Further, the City of Norwalk General Plan EIR analyzed potential cumulative impacts related to the development of industrial uses within Heavy Industrial designated sites within the City. As such, areawide cumulative impacts related to industrial development in the City, including cumulative impacts related to the Project, were thoroughly analyzed in the City of Norwalk General Plan EIR, and an additional cumulative analysis would not be required as part of the MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(d).

As discussed in Section 5. 3, Air Quality, SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook methodology describes that any projects that result in daily emissions that exceed any SCAQMD thresholds would have both an individually (project-level) and cumulatively significant air quality impact. If estimated emissions are less than thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant. As shown in Table 5.3 -2, CalEEMod results indicate that construction emissions generated by the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project were modeled using CalEEMod and are presented in Tables 5.3-3 and 5.3-5. As shown, emissions of criteria pollutants would be below SCAQMD’s applicable thresholds and would not result in a considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant impacts. As such, cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant. In addition, as discussed in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions , GHG emissions would be below SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, cumulative GHG impacts would be less than significant. Thus, impacts to environmental resources or issue areas would not be cumulatively considerable; and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project consists of redevelopment of an existing developed site. The P roject would not consist of any use or any activities that would result in a substantial negative effect on any persons in the vicinity. All resource topics associated with the P roject have been analyzed in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and were found to pose no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation, as previously detailed. Consequently, the Project would not result in any environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings directly or indirectly, with implementation of the mitigation measures that have been previously detailed.
14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
98 This page intentionally left blank.

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
99 6. DOCUMENT PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
Lead Agency
City of Norwalk
12700 Norwalk Blvd
Norwalk, CA 90650
CEQA Document Preparer
EPD Solutions, Inc.
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612

Konnie Dobreva, JD, Vice President of Environmental Planning Meaghan Truman, Associate Environmental Planner III
Tiffany Dang, Assistant Environmental Planner
Lauren Battle, Environmental Project Coordinator

14830 Carmenita Road Warehouse Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
100
This page intentionally left blank.

Prepared by:

Environmental Consulting Services
Statement of Qualifications for

CITY OF GARDENA
Prepared for:

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 1
Section 1. Cover Letter
October 30, 2025
Jo-Anne Burns, Assistant Director of Community Development City of Gardena
1122 Acacia Parkway
Gardena, CA 92840
RE: Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) for Environmental Consulting Services Dear Ms. Burns and Members of the Selection Committee:

The City of Gardena (City) is looking for qualified consultants that offer local knowledge, hands-on experience, and a depth of resources necessary to provide environmental services for private developments in the City. Kimley-Horn has substantial experience assisting local municipalities with all aspects of environmental review, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, technical studies, planning and design, and project implementation. We are confident our team can serve you for the following reasons:

Established, Successful Relationship with the City. The Kimley-Horn team has partnered with the City on a variety of projects over the years, including the Normandie Crossing Specific Plan Project, the 1450 Artesia Boulevard Specific Plan Project, and the recent Terreno Industrial Project. We have collaborated with the City and its stakeholders and built a solid working relationship with many of your staff. Because of this, the City will benefit from our team’s familiarity with the region and our current experience in the City and surrounding cities. As a result, there will be no learning curve and we will hit the ground running.

Kimley-Horn looks forward to the opportunity to continue providing support to the City.

Strong, Committed Project Management. Rita Garcia will lead the Kimley-Horn team as principal-in- charge, maintain communications with the City, and facilitate compliance with project scopes, budgets, and schedules. Additionally, James Thomas, CEP-IT will serve as project manager for projects under this contract. We offer the City the local knowledge and responsiveness of a small organization, backed by the depth of resources only a national firm can offer.

Experienced Staff and Team Members. Our in-house staff and qualified consultant resources can meet the challenges of this environmental consulting services contract, drawing on more than nearly 100 environmental and planning staff throughout California. Kimley-Horn’s environmental team has years of experience working on all types of environmental projects and is supported by planning and engineering specialists for peer review of technical studies. To complement our in-house team of technical specialists, we have partnered with Iwasa Consulting for geotechnical services and Rocks Biological Consulting for biological resources services. Together, we offer the City a comprehensive team to serve you on any project that arises from this contract.

1100 W Town & Country Road
Suite 700
Orange, CA 92868
TEL: 714.939.1030

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 2
Emphasis on Quality. Since our founding, Kimley-Horn has been deeply committed to delivering quality in every task, deliverable, and service we provide. Understanding the critical role of quality control, we developed a comprehensive Quality Control (QC)/Quality Assurance (QA) manual that all project and task managers are required to know and follow. Our goal is to ensure that our procedures enable us to consistently deliver high-quality services that meet our clients’ needs. As a result, the Kimley-Horn team is fully prepared, with no learning curve when it comes to maintaining quality.

We believe that you will not find a more qualified team to meet your environmental service needs in a collaborative, yet expeditious and legally sound, manner. Most importantly, we have a record of providing responsive service and timely delivery of critical project documents. We work effectively with local agencies to successfully complete numerous environmental projects and on-call assignments.

We look forward to hearing from you and are eager to demonstrate our dedication to partnering with the City. If you have any questions or need any additional information regarding our team, please reach out to James Thomas, CEP-IT at 619.798.5658 or [email protected], Rita Garcia at 714.786.6116 or rita.garcia@kimley-horn, or at the address listed on the previous page.

Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

James Thomas, CEP-IT
Project Manager
Rita Garcia
Principal-in-Charge
Jason Melchor, PE*
Associate

*Jason Melchor, PE is authorized to bind Kimley-Horn and execute agreements on behalf of the firm.

Contract Exceptions
After reviewing the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Sample Agreement, Kimley-Horn requests the following proposed modifications, consistent with previously executed agreements with the City:

16. Use of Materials.

A. City shall make available to Consultant such materials from its files as may be required by Consultant to perform Services under this Agreement. Such materials shall remain the property of City while in Consultant’s possession. Upon termination of this Agreement and payment of outstanding invoices of Consultant, or completion of work under this Agreement, Consultant shall return to City any property of City in its possession and any calculations, notes, reports, electronic files, or other materials prepared by Consultant in the course of performance of this Agreement.

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 3

23. Indemnity.

C. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, hold free and harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, agents, employees and volunteers, at Consultant’s sole expense, from and against any and all claims, actions, suits or other legal proceedings brought against the City, its elected officials, officers, agents, employees and volunteers to the extent arising out of the negligent performance of the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, of the work undertaken pursuant to this Agreement. The defense obligation provided for hereunder shall apply without any advance showing of negligence or wrongdoing by the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, but shall be required whenever any claim, action, complaint, or suit asserts as its basis the negligence, errors, omissions or misconduct of the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors, and/or whenever any claim, action, complaint or suit asserts liability against the City, its elected officials, officers, agents, employees and volunteers based upon the work performed by the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors under this Agreement, whether or not the Consultant, its employees, and/or authorized subcontractors are specifically named or otherwise asserted to be liable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Consultant shall not be liable for the defense or indemnification of the City for claims, actions, complaints or suits arising out of the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

This provision shall supersede and replace all other indemnity provisions contained either in the City’s specifications or Consultant’s Proposal, which shall be of no force and effect.

Section 2. Table of Contents
Section 1. Cover Letter ........................................................................................................................ 1 Section 2. Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... 3 Section 3. Scope of Services .............................................................................................................. 4 Section 4. Related Experience ............................................................................................................ 9 Section 5. Sub-Consultants .............................................................................................................. 23 Section 6. Qualifications and Capabilities ....................................................................................... 24 Section 7. Fees/Cost .......................................................................................................................... 40 Section 8. Additional Information ..................................................................................................... 41 Appendix: Peer Review Sample .......................................................................................................A-1

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 4
Section 3. Scope of Services
The City is looking for qualified consulting firms to provide environmental consulting services for private development projects in the City. Such projects may require preparation of technical studies/analysis, documents and/or reports to ensure compliance with CEQA, and may include, but not be limited to Initial Studies, Negative Declarations, MNDs, or EIRs. In preparation for this RFQ, we carefully reviewed the City’s preliminary scope of services needed for environmental services. We feel strongly that the team assembled for this contract is the right and best team to assist the City in successfully completing your goals. The City will need a team that is not only multidisciplined—providing a diverse set of skills and services—but also, and more importantly, that understands the key components of project delivery.

Task Order Scoping
Our approach to each task order will be tailored to the specific services requested by the City. At project initiation, the project manager and CEQA lead will coordinate with City staff to understand the project’s needs and engage key team members to develop a scope, budget, schedule, and staffing plan for City review. A key role of the project manager is to collaborate with internal partners and the City to assemble the right team, ensuring both technical expertise and staff availability. Before developing a project approach, we spend time with our clients to listen so that we understand program goals, constraints, and key considerations. We build a project- specific approach to deliver the program in line with these program-specific measures of success. We deliver our work in a highly responsive manner with high-quality deliverables.

Each task will be managed by a project manager and task order manager, with environmental and technical staff added as needed based on the nature of the document or peer review required. Whether preparing or reviewing environmental documents, our goal is to help the City develop legally defensible CEQA or NEPA documents within the defined schedule and budget. Once authorized to proceed, the team will promptly schedule a kick-off meeting, gather available technical studies and data, identify any gaps, and collaborate with the assigned City planner on deliverables.

Kimley-Horn acknowledges the City’s required 10-day turnaround for task order proposal submittals and confirms our ability to meet this schedule.

Approach to Environmental Services
Through comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the City’s environmental processes, requirements, and guidelines, the Kimley-Horn team is committed and qualified to continue to provide the City with the environmental experience required to manage projects under this contract. Our team has the experience and understands the tasks, processes, and guidelines which are required to successfully complete environmental clearances under the service areas outlined in the RFQ. Our team’s relevant services are provided on the table below, with a complete breakdown of our qualifications on the following pages.

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 5
Our capabilities within the City’s preliminary scope of services for which our team is qualified to perform include:

CEQA and NEPA Environmental Analysis
Kimley-Horn has a proven record of success in preparing legally defensible environmental documents that comply with CEQA and NEPA. In addition, our staff has provided public agencies with on-call planning and environmental assistance, environmental justice, public outreach and public involvement support, and review of development proposals. Our client-focused approach results in the clear presentation of potential impacts and key findings to decision-makers for project determination and certification. Our approach includes:
■ Facilitating open communication and developing an understanding of project needs with our client to guide the overall approach and successful issue resolution ■ Conducting a critical initial project screening to enable project modifications, identify potentially significant issues, and assist with document preparation (scope, level of review, and type) ■ Carefully scoping and pricing commensurate with the level of review and technical evaluation ■ Using the latest and most defensible industry standards, technology, and models ■ Including substantial evidence to support assumptions and conclusions ■ Using adopted thresholds and standards, and the current CEQA guidelines and statutes ■ Identifying the project’s direct and indirect, short- and long-term, cumulative, growth-inducing, and unavoidable impacts as well as the extent/magnitude of such impacts ■ Developing mitigation that includes key elements (who, what, when, where), is effective, and enforceable
■ Assigning a project manager committed to continuously monitoring the status of project costs, cost- control effectiveness, and schedule

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 6
Preparation of CEQA and NEPA Documentation
Kimley-Horn provides a full range of environmental services for land development and public works projects throughout California. Our environmental compliance managers have worked on numerous complex multidisciplinary projects requiring technical experience, creative solutions for design modifications or mitigation, and a thorough understanding of local, state, and federal regulations. Our environmental professionals also receive regular training on changes in CEQA and NEPA, and applicable case law affecting the interpretation of current statutes.

Kimley-Horn produces environmental documents that are sensitive to the public’s concern for resource protection and community impacts as well as to the real-world issues associated with the cost and feasibility of implementing mitigation programs. Our staff has an excellent track record of preparing thorough CEQA documents capable of withstanding stakeholder scrutiny and legal challenge.

Kimley-Horn staff members have been responsible for preparing all types of documents from Initial Studies (IS), MNDs, and Categorical Exemptions (CEs) to comprehensive EIRs. Kimley-Horn routinely prepares CEQA Addendums, CEs, and documents under SB 375 CEQA streamlining provisions, such as Sustainable Communities Project Exemptions (SCPEs) and Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessments (SCEAs). Our team works closely with City staff to evaluate when CEQA streamlining tools may apply and prepares legally defensible documentation to support their use.

In addition to our extensive CEQA experience, Kimley-Horn has expertise providing environmental documentation services in support of NEPA review. Our staff bring recent, relevant experience preparing Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), Environmental Assessments (EAs), and categorical exclusions (CatExs), including the required technical studies, for a wide array of project types including housing developments, public service campuses (e.g., hospitals, educational facilities), infrastructure and public works projects, and transit facilities. Federal agencies include the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and others. Kimley-Horn has also worked extensively for Caltrans, and on projects receiving federally funds from the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME fund), and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). Kimley-Horn understands the process and methodologies of the Federal agencies the City is likely to collaborate with during this on-call. We also understand where efficiencies can be achieved when a project is subject to CEQA and NEPA.

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 7
Peer Reviews for CEQA and NEPA Documents
Upon request for peer review services, we will provide a task order response with a scope of work, schedule, and budget based on review of available information and discussion with City staff. Each peer review assignment will be overseen by the project manager and a task manager, with technical staff brought in depending on the nature and extent of peer review. The peer review goal is to assist the City in developing a legally defensible CEQA document within the schedule and budget provided.

Our peer review scope will include a kick-off meeting/call with the assigned City planning staff and/or applicant, identification of key issues or context. The peer review process will be summarized by a cover letter summarizing high-level concerns, global comments, and general comments. We will also attach a copy of our detailed comments on the CEQA/NEPA work product, either in the form of comment bubbles on a PDF file, or as redlines and comment bubbles in a Microsoft Word file.

Following submittal of our peer review, Kimley-Horn will be available for questions from City staff or the applicant, including reviewing any revised documents from the applicant’s team. If the City desires, Kimley-Horn can review final CEQA/NEPA document work products (i.e., Final EIR Addenda, Final IS/MND, Final EIR, MMRP, Findings), review or prepare associated staff reports and resolutions, assist in coordinating City department COAs, and present and/or attend public meetings or hearings.

A sample of a recent peer review conducted for the City on the Terreno Industrial Project has been provided in the Appendix of this SOQ.

Technical Studies to Support NEPA and CEQA Documents
Kimley-Horn’s environmental team includes in-house specialists who prepare technical studies to support CEQA documentation. Our team is equipped to provide each of the technical studies listed below. During project scoping, Kimley-Horn would review each project for characteristics that typically require quantitative analyses, technical research, or agency consultations to substantiate our environmental impact determinations, based on the experience of our qualified staff, and propose only those technical studies that are necessary for the individual project. ■ Air Quality/Climate Analyses and Health Risk Assessments: Use CalEEMod, AERMOD, and EMFAC to assess construction and operational emissions with appropriate mitigation. ■ GHG Emissions Analyses: Case law-compliant evaluations of project-level GHG impacts. ■ Cultural Resources, Historic Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources: Coordination with tribal representatives and preparation of cultural and historic resources reports, consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18
■ Hazardous Materials Evaluations: Phase I and II ESAs and hazardous materials assessments based on current and historical land uses
■ Hydrology and Water Quality Analyses: Evaluate surface water, drainage, flooding, and water quality impacts
■ Noise and Vibration Studies: Use of FHWA modeling tools such as the Roadway Highway Noise Prediction Model, and field surveys, to assess construction and operational noise impacts

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 8
■ Transportation Impact Studies: CEQA transportation analyses consistent with current vehicle miles traveled (VMT) methodologies and local thresholds, including SB 743-compliant VMT analyses; calculation of trip generation rates; and/or level of service (LOS) analyses.

In addition, we have partnered with Rocks Biological Consulting to provide biological resources services and Iwasa Consulting to provide geotechnical services.

Techniques to Simplify and Expedite the CEQA Process
Through our experience in CEQA and NEPA documentation and compliance, we have developed various techniques to simplify and expedite the compliance process. These include:
■ Designation of a project manager to establish Kimley-Horn as an extension of your staff; maintain continuous, responsive, and open communication; and provide the highest level of document quality and schedule/budget compliance
■ Documentation of site visits and field reconnaissance to maximize data recordation and identification, minimizing potential data errors
■ Early disclosure of the nature and degree of potential environmental impacts, allowing for early development of environmental solutions
■ Online participation in monthly case law updates as provided by our CEQA-recognized legal community and partners
■ Retention of strong and ongoing relationships with state and regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over natural resources
Staying Informed of CEQA Issues and Legal Decisions
CEQA is a dynamic legislative requirement that is constantly changing. Interpretation of intent and process are regularly challenged in the courts. Maintaining legal adequacy and technical accuracy requires diligence and professional collaboration on many fronts. Kimley-Horn staff are active in the California Chapter of the American Planning Association (APA) and the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). Our engagement through board participation, CEQA Advanced Workshops, and monitoring legal and technical reviews helps to make sure that we are current in all things CEQA.

Local Staff Working with Local Governments
Kimley-Horn prides itself on being a successful consultant for local government. We have served cities and counties for many years and are currently serving numerous cities and counties throughout Southern California. We consider ourselves to be an extension of City staff and are committed to the success of the City’s projects as if they are our own projects. We are accessible for staff meetings and work sessions on short notice, and we can offer knowledge of local conditions because we are a local team. Our team’s combined experience in design, environmental, and construction phase services gives us the specific understanding of how to work with local governments and other regulatory agencies, elected officials, various stakeholders, and the local community to negotiate support and buy- in, and also effectively achieve your objectives.

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 9
Section 4. Related Experience
City of Gardena Experience
Kimley-Horn has been successfully partnering with the City for many years and has prepared multiple peer review Technical Studies, Specific Plans, and CEQA environmental documents, including EIRs, IS/MNDs, addenda, Categorical Exemptions (CEs), Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessments (SCEAs), and Sustainable Communities Project Exemptions (SCPEs). We have provided an overview of our project experience with the City below.

Terreno Industrial Project Categorical Exemption
The Kimley-Horn team prepared a Categorical Exemption (CE), supporting technical studies, and peer reviewed the geotechnical report for this project. The project proposed to demolish the existing approximately 231,000 square foot single-tenant building and replace it with three multi-tenant buildings totaling 228,000 square feet. Kimley-Horn identified in the scoping process that the project would qualify for a Class 2 Categorical Exemption, saving substantial time and cost compared to an Initial Study or EIR. Furthermore, Kimley-Horn finished under budget.

Normandie Crossing Specific Plan and EIR
This project proposed a Specific Plan for a multi-family residential development on a 5.3-acre property occupied by approximately 115,424 square feet of industrial/food plant uses. Two at-grade railroad crossings are near/adjacent to the project site requiring significant strategizing and coordination with California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). The project proposed to remove all existing onsite structures and construct up to 328 apartment units in a single building and up to 75 townhomes in nine buildings. Key environmental resource areas studied include site access, potential transportation-related hazards associated with railroad crossing, land use, and hazards and hazardous materials. In light of community feedback, a reduced density alternative was considered and ultimately approved, reducing the number of apartments from 328 apartment units to 258 apartment units.
1450 Artesia Boulevard Specific Plan
The project redeveloped an existing blighted site with a mixed-use development with a total building area of 268,000 square feet and an approximate height of 75 feet, including a self-storage use (three levels totaling 186,000 gross square feet with 1,480 storage units), an industrial warehouse use (one level totaling 72,000 gross square feet with ten loading docks), and an office/retail use (a mezzanine totaling 10,000 gross square feet). The project’s proposed 72,000 gross square feet of warehouse use includes 10,000 gross square feet of potential future floor area to account for the potential future acquisition of a 0.23-acre parcel currently occupied by a single residential dwelling unit. Under the Specific Plan, the parking lot area would be used periodically for City-sponsored outdoor events outside of the project’s warehouse/industrial component operating hours.

Additional City of Gardena Projects
In addition to the above representative projects, Kimley-Horn has prepared CEQA analyses and technical studies for the following 12 projects in the City:

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 10

1. Gardena Transit Oriented Development
Project (GTOD) EIR

2. 14600 Western Avenue SCEA

3. 13126 Western Avenue SCPE

4. 2545 Marine Avenue CE

5. Western SRO Apartments CE

6. Normandie Place CE

7. Rosecrans Place IS/MND

8. Rosecrans Place Phase II CE

9. Gardner Marine Avenue Project CE

10. Melia Avenue/178th Street Townhome
Project IS/MND

11. Normandie Courtyards Project CE

12. KB Home Stonefield Project IS/MND
We Know What It Means to Be “On-Call”
Kimley-Horn knows how to partner with a city as a trusted advisor. We have an extensive history of completing on-call projects successfully by quickly mobilizing and committing necessary resources, taking ownership of the project, maintaining the project schedule, obtaining team consensus, developing accurate cost estimates, and delivering quality technical submittals. The City needs a consultant with the experience and commitment to deliver highly responsive service—Kimley-Horn has been doing just that for our on-call clients for 58 years.

Kimley-Horn has provided on-call services to many Southern California agencies through environmental, planning, transportation, traffic, aviation, and general engineering on-call contracts. A comprehensive map listing our current on-call contracts is provided below.

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 11
On-call contracts require a different approach from typical project-specific contracts. Each project assigned under an on-call contract will need an individualized approach that includes the various disciplines necessary to complete the assignment as efficiently and effectively as possible.

One of the many advantages Kimley-Horn offers is our ability to assemble the right team and assign the right staff to each project. Because we have ample resources in our local offices, we can draw from a multitude of disciplines and specialists to complete each assignment—whether the project is straightforward and requiring only a few people in a single discipline, or complex and requiring numerous people and multiple disciplines. Our approach to on-call contracts is based on developing a team-oriented approach to the project review process. Key characteristics that distinguish Kimley-Horn include:
■ Rapid mobilization of staff for each agency request, including immediate identification of key personnel and sub-consultants needed for each project. The availability of in-house environmental and engineering staff provides efficiency and consistent quality of the technical analyses. ■ Ongoing communication and consultation to address issues that arise during the project review process. The collaborative process maintains project progress and results in user-friendly planning documents and legally defensible environmental documents. ■ Commitment of senior level management to the project to provide close coordination with the City for technical accuracy and careful monitoring of budget and schedule compliance. ■ Responsive to issues of concern raised by responsible and regulatory agencies and the public. ■ Flexibility to tailor our approach to meet the specific needs of each project and client.

Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA)
Kimley-Horn aggressively pursues its commitment
to quality for every task, deliverable, and service
provided by the firm. Our procedures will provide
high-quality services that satisfy your needs.

There will be no learning curve relative to quality
for our team. Our program is based on the
philosophy that:
■ Quality Is Achieved by adequate planning,
coordination, supervision, and technical
direction; proper definition of project
requirements and procedures; understanding
the scope of services; and the use of
appropriately skilled personnel performing
work functions carefully.
■ Quality Is Secured through the careful
surveillance of work activities by individuals
who are not directly responsible for performing
the initial efforts.
■ Quality Is Controlled by assigning a manager to evaluate all work and procedures followed while providing the services.
■ Quality Is Verified through independent reviews by a qualified staff member of the processes, procedures, documentation, supervision, technical direction, and staffing associated with the project development.

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 12
Cost Control
The Kimley-Horn team has an excellent track record of completing projects within or very close to established budgets. The ability to control project costs throughout the progress of work is the result of a strong commitment to do so, a thorough understanding of the project, and incorporation of this understanding into project design drawings. The ability to control costs requires many of the same actions and attitudes. Strong communications and use of experienced personnel are two effective cost control mechanisms. Other critical elements play a key role in meeting schedules and controlling costs:
■ It is essential to develop a clear understanding of the project scope early in the process. A project budget is only as good as the clarity of the underlying scope. ■ The project team must be well organized and exhibit good teamwork. Good communication is essential. A breakdown in communication can easily result in a failure in project control.

These fundamental principles apply to the entire project team and the design team’s internal work effort. Our approximately 90% repeat client rate is the strongest proof of Kimley-Horn’s ability to meet schedules and manage project costs.

Schedule Control
Effective and ongoing communication between the City, Kimley-Horn project managers, and technical team members, along with regular schedule updates and the use of project management tracking tools, helps keep projects on course and provides a forum to discuss progress and any unanticipated issues and their impacts on cost and schedule.

Kimley-Horn has a proven record of performing on time and within budget. The key to our success is managing the right resources at the right time. We emphasize project management using bi-monthly effort reports that give our project managers up-to-date staffing and expense information related to their projects. This information enables them to continuously monitor the status of project cost, cost control effectiveness, and schedule. In addition, Kimley-Horn often schedules bi-monthly telephone progress meetings with our clients to communicate progress to date and the next steps to be taken.

As this proposal is for an on-call contract, there is no specific schedule. Each project is unique and presents different challenges and timelines. Kimley-Horn is committed to developing project-specific schedules which fit the City’s priorities. Early in the project life cycle, Kimley-Horn works with its clients in developing a mutually agreed upon project schedule to keep the project on track.

Team Capacity and Availability for On-Call Work
Kimley-Horn is available to dedicate time, personnel, and resources to this effort. We understand that the basis of a successful project is founded on responsiveness and adequate staffing. Our single-profit center structure enables us to share and balance our workload as well as shift personnel to various projects successfully across multiple offices nationwide. This structure means you get the same responsive and timely service you deserve for the project—no matter which Kimley-Horn office is supporting you. Our team has the capacity to meet yours and the project’s needs.

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 13
To monitor our staff workload, Kimley-Horn employs an intensive forecasting technique known as our castaheads process. This effort involves assessing our project milestones and staff loading on a weekly, monthly, and six-month basis, drilling down to the project team level. Individual staff member loading is assessed to the person level in the one-week and one-month time frames and the operating unit level in the six-month time frame. A database is used to track all project commitments/milestones and staff commitments firmwide. Using this intensive process, we can identify overloads and shortfalls many months in advance and develop strategies to overcome them. By having a clear picture of staff workload at all times, Kimley-Horn will be optimally positioned to meet the County’s expectations for all projects stemming from this on-call contract.

Once an individual project gets underway, our project manager, James Thomas, CEP-IT and the proposed task order manager will meet on a regular basis to establish task lists for staff and to check that staff resources are properly allocated for the upcoming week. In addition, James and our task order managers have the authority to mobilize Kimley-Horn’s 10,000+ professionals at any given time to meet the City’s needs on the project.

Sub-Consultant Management
From the beginning of our first teaming discussions, Kimley-Horn strives to ensure consistent, timely delivery of services and submittals from all sub-consultants so that their important deliverables are received in a timely fashion and fully integrated into relevant project documents. We do this by carefully selecting the right firms to join our team. In addition to requiring top-notch skills in their respective fields and relevant local experience, we also require each sub-consultant to share our firm’s commitment to quality and timeliness. Through our consistent communication and follow-up, we stay on top of our sub-consultants’ work, so the City does not have to. Kimley-Horn’s principal in charge, Rita Garcia, and project manager, James Thomas, CEPT-IT will be the primary points of contact and will provide regular oversight of activities undertaken by our sub-consultants. Rita and James will ensure each team member is making active and productive strides towards project success— delivering a timely and cost-efficient project.

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 14
Relevant On-Call CEQA Experience
Kimley-Horn has an extensive history of completing environmental consulting services projects by successfully committing resources as needed, taking ownership of the project, maintaining the project schedule, obtaining team consensus, and delivering quality technical submittals. We have developed a thorough understanding of the issues involved in environmental consulting services projects through our previous environmental consulting services contracts with various cities, counties, and state agencies.

We are proud of our working relationships with our clients, and much of our success over the last 58 years is directly related to our efforts to provide consistent, high-quality, and timely services. We have provided several projects below that received similar services from Kimley-Horn. We invite you to contact our clients directly for comment on the quality of Kimley-Horn’s services.

City of Newport Beach
Multiple Housing Project (2018 to 2024)
Kimley-Horn has prepared CEQA documents for
housing projects including the Residences at 4400
Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan EIR,
Residences at 1300 Bristol Addendum, Residences
at 1400 Bristol Addendum, Koll Center Residences
EIR, and Ford Road Residential IS/MND. For these
various projects, Kimley-Horn prepared the CEQA
document and technical studies including air quality,
greenhouse gas, energy, noise, traffic, and parking;
preparation of notices; Native American tribal consultation coordination; and scoping meeting and hearing presentations. CEQA documents have also been prepared for non-residential developments including medical office and mixed-use projects. Kimley-Horn also has an on-call contract with the City of Newport Beach for the preparation of traffic and transportation improvement projects.

City of Newport Beach General Plan Housing Implementation Program EIR Kimley-Horn prepared the City’s 6th Cycle adopted Housing Element and the City of Newport Beach General Plan Housing Implementation Program EIR. The EIR evaluates the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and a buffer to address future “no net loss” to preclude the need to identify replacement sites. Therefore, the Program EIR conservatively analyzes a total development capacity of 9,914 units. Discretionary actions include a General Plan Amendment to change goals and policies; Municipal Code amendments to adopt Housing Overlays; Local Coastal Program amendments; and approval of a ballot measure for a major amendment to the General Plan. Kimley-Horn is preparing the EIR and the air quality, GHG, energy, and noise studies; organization of the scoping meeting; preparation of notices, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Final EIR was certified in July 2024.

City of Newport Beach Contact: Ben Zdeba, AICP, Planning Manager Phone: 949.644.3253
Address: 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 15
City of Anaheim
Kimley-Horn is an on-call consultant to the City of Anaheim Planning Department to prepare and peer review CEQA environmental documents, including EIRs, IS/MNDs, Addenda, Categorical Exemptions, and technical studies. Outside of the on-call, Kimley-Horn has also been tasked to assist the City with other projects, including the Victory Baptist Church and Townhomes IS/MND, the Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard Improvements Project Addendum to the Platinum Triangle EIR and the City of Anaheim 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. Dana Privitt and Rita Garcia have served as project managers for several task orders. Since the start of the contract in 2020, Kimley-Horn has prepared task orders for the City, including the following projects.

City Ventures Harbor Townhomes Infill Exemption
Project manager Dana Privitt, AICP and the Kimley-Horn team performed Categorical Exemption including air quality, GHG, and noise analyses. The project required the demolition of the three existing commercial buildings and associated surface parking lots to allow for the construction of 31 multi-family townhomes with attached two-car garages, site amenities, and surface guest parking. The site has a zoning designation of General Commercial, which is not consistent with the General Plan Residential Low-Medium Density land use designation. Under the Housing Accountability Act, if the zoning standards and criteria are inconsistent with applicable, objective General Plan standards but the proposed project is consistent with the applicable objective General Plan standards for the site, then the housing development project cannot be found inconsistent with the standards and criteria of the zoning. This project was completed in 2022.

Townes at Broadway IS/MND
The project involves the redevelopment of the project site with a residential development on the former private high school site. Residential development includes 112 dwelling units within three-story townhomes at a density of 17.25 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The townhomes would be in 22 buildings, each with between four and six dwelling units. Entitlements include a general plan amendment, zone change, tentative parcel map, and a conditional use permit. Project manager Rita Garcia and the Kimley Horn team prepared the IS/MND and the following technical studies: air quality, construction health risk assessment, GHG emissions, and noise study. Kimley-Horn provided responses to comments and participated in public hearings. The project was completed in 2021 and is currently under construction.

KB Home Lincoln and Sunkist Townhomes Section 15183.3 CEQA Peer Review On behalf of the City of Anaheim, project manager Dana Privitt, AICP and the Kimley-Horn team conducted a peer review of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3 document and of the air quality, greenhouse gas, energy, and noise technical studies. KB Homes proposed to demolish two vacant office buildings totaling 56,274 square feet and, in its place, construct 83 three-story multi-family attached townhomes. The project site is identified as Housing Opportunity Sites #154 and 155 in Subsequent EIR (SEIR) No. 346, which was approved in 2013. SEIR No. 346 provided environmental CEQA clearance for zoning actions to implement the City’s 2006-2014 Housing Element. As a result, environmental impacts associated with project implementation would have been previously analyzed in SEIR No. 346. Kimley-Horn reviewed the CEQA documentation including technical studies as well as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The project was completed in 2022.

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 16

City of Anaheim Contact: Heather Allen, AICP, Planning and Building Department Director Phone: 714.765.4958
Address: 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
City of Santa Ana
Kimley-Horn has been an on-call environmental and planning services consultant to the City since 2015. In addition to the representative projects noted below and prepared both under contract to the City and private development clients, additional efforts include the Santa Ana Off-Premises Commercial Advertising Signs Ordinance an d IS/MND, Calvary Church Master Plan IS/MND, 4th and Mortimer Mixed Use Project (air quality and noise technical studies), Mater Dei Performing Arts Center (civil engineering), Warner Avenue Scenic Enhancements (landscape architecture), Santa Ana Zoo Walkway Improvements (landscape architecture), and multiple complete streets/bikeway improvement projects.

Related Bristol Specific Plan Project
Kimley-Horn provided CEQA peer review for the
developer, and prepared the Specific Plan, and
the air quality, health risk, greenhouse gas,
energy, and noise technical studies to support the
City’s CEQA documentation for a mixed-use
development with retail, entertainment,
residential, and senior living uses. The project
proposes 3,750 multi-family residential units, a
250-room hotel, 350,000 square feet of
commercial uses, and a 200-room continuum of care facility on approximately 42 acres. Parking would be provided in subterranean garages, above ground structures, and limited on-street parking. Approximately 14 acres of parks and open space would be provided. The project was approved at public hearing in 2025.

MainPlace Transformation Specific
Plan Project
Kimley-Horn prepared the CEQA strategy,
project description, and technical studies to
support the City’s CEQA documentation for
the reuse of the existing MainPlace Mall in
Santa Ana as a mixed-use development with
retail, entertainment, residential, and office
uses. Technical studies prepared by our firm
included air quality, greenhouse gas
emissions, noise and vibration, heath risk assessment, traffic, parking, hydrology/drainage, water quality, and water supply assessment. The project was approved in 2019 and is under phased construction. Kimley-Horn continues to provide civil engineering and permitting services for the project.

City of Santa Ana Contact: Ali Pezeshkpour, AICP, Planning Manager Phone: 714.667.5882
Address: 20 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, CA 92701

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 17
City of Fullerton
600 W. Commonwealth Avenue Mixed-Use
Development Specific Plan and IS/MND
Kimley‐Horn prepared the IS/MND and Specific Plan
for the mixed‐use infill development in downtown
Fullerton. The project required a General Plan
Amendment and zone change (specific plan), and
Major Site Plan approval to allow for the 4.79‐acre
site automotive and industrial site to be redeveloped
with 295 multi‐family residential units, structured
parking, and ground‐level retail uses. Kimley‐Horn
prepared the CEQA documentation and Specific Plan; made presentations to the Planning Commission and City Council. Issues of concern included land use compatibility and massing, parking, and traffic.

This controversial project was approved in 2017; construction was completed in 2021.

The Pines at Sunset Village IS/MND
Kimley‐Horn prepared the IS/MND and associated technical studies for the residential in-fill development in the City of Fullerton. The project would demolish an existing commercial retail plaza and, in its place, develop 49 single family detached condominiums and 64 attached townhome units, for a total of 113 units. In addition, the project would construct new commercial retail buildings totaling 19,000 square feet. The project required a General Plan Revision, Zoning Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, Major Site Plan, Development Agreement, and adoption of the MND. Kimley‐Horn prepared the CEQA documentation, technical studies, and subsequent environmental consistency analysis’. Issues of concern included land use compatibility, loss of commercial retail, parking, noise, and traffic. This controversial project was approved in January 2023. Lennar purchased the residential portion of the project and is under construction at the time of writing.

City of Fullerton Contact: Matt Foulkes, currently Community and Economic Development Director at the City of Buena Park
Phone: 714.562.3636
Address: 303 W. Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton CA, 92832 City of Long Beach
Cherry Avenue Industrial Project EIR
The Cherry Avenue Industrial Project would demolish the existing industrial uses and construct a single 304,000-square-foot concrete, tilt-up industrial warehouse building. The project was originally exempt from CEQA; however, the City’s Planning Commission decision was appealed to the City Council. The applicant withdrew the project prior to the City Council Hearing and decided to pursue an EIR. Kimley- Horn prepared the Draft EIR and CEQA notices for the project, participated and presented at the public scoping meeting, peer reviewed the applicant-provided studies (air quality, health risk, GHG emissions, noise, traffic, and VMT), and prepared the other technical analyses to support the EIR (cultural resources assessment, hydrology/hydraulic study, and utilities analysis). The public review period for the Draft EIR concluded on April 29, 2024, and the project is at final hearings for adoption.

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 18
City of Long Beach Contact: Amy L. Harbin, AICP, Planner Phone: 562.570.6872
Address: 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802 City of Culver City
The Kimley-Horn team has environmental consulting services contracts for Professional Planning, Environmental Review Pursuant to CEQA, and Landscape Architecture, Plan Check and Inspection Services and has worked on various development projects within the City of Culver City for over eight years. Key project highlights are presented below.
8960 Washington Boulevard Offices
Project Categorical Exemption
Kimley-Horn managed and prepared the Class 32
Categorical Exemption for the development of a
partial three- and four-story office building with
subterranean parking. Kimley-Horn prepared air
quality and noise technical studies to support the
Class 32 Categorical Exemption. Kimley-Horn
also provided technical peer review of the
Transportation Impact Analysis, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, and Historic Resource Evaluation Report. The project was approved in September 2023.

Culver Theatre Residences Mixed-Use
Development Categorical Exemption
Kimley-Horn managed and prepared the Class 32
Categorical Exemption for the development of a
mixed-use project including 34 residential
apartments, six of which would be affordable
units, and up to 4,000 square feet of ground-floor
commercial uses. Kimley-Horn prepared air
quality, noise, and hydrology and water quality
technical studies to support the Class 32
Categorical Exemption. The project was approved in September 2022.

City of Culver City Contact: Emily Stadnicki, currently Planning Manager at the City of Culver City Phone: 310.253.5710
Address: 9770 Culver Boulevard, Culver City, CA 90232
City of Los Angeles
Kimley-Horn is on a prequalified list of preferred environmental consultants for the City of Los Angeles, for which project applicants are required to hire from when preparing environmental content pursuant to CEQA for development projects. Prior to the initiation of the prequalified list in 2020, Kimley-Horn has

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 19
prepared environmental analysis on over 30 projects in the City of Los Angeles, ranging from Categorical Exemptions to EIRs. Key project highlights are presented below. 1151 N. Las Palmas Avenue Project
IS/MND
Kimley-Horn prepared the IS/MND that involved
the demolition of the existing 45,000-square foot
parking lot and construction a three-story creative
office building with a three-level subterranean
garage. The project would also renovate the
existing building, change its existing use to office,
and construct an approximately 695 square foot
retail and office addition on the ground floor. The
project would retain the four existing buildings on-site, with some minor interior renovations. Kimley- Horn prepared the air quality, energy, GHG emissions, health risk assessment, hydrology and water quality, noise, and transportation studies to support the IS/MND. The project was approved in August 2023 and completed in 2024.
1111 S. Hill Street SCEA
Kimley-Horn prepared the SCEA to comply with the CEQA requirements for this proposed transit priority project. The project included hotel, housing, and retail uses. The mixed-use project was located near transit and shared amenities with the residential and hotel uses. The project was completed on time and within budget parameters. The project was approved in 2021.

City of Los Angeles Contact: Valentina Knox-Jones, City Planner Phone: 213.978.1741
Address: 200 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
City of San Gabriel
Kimley-Horn has provided environmental consulting services through its on-call contract since 2017.

We have continued to work with the City of San Gabriel on various task orders. Key project highlights are presented below.

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 20
Del Mar Vantage Mixed-Use Development
Class 32 Infill Exemption
The approximately 0.94-acre project site is located
at 1975-1985 South Del Mar Avenue and 116
Glendon Way in the City of San Gabriel. Project
implementation would demolish the existing
automotive uses and develop a 94-unit mixed-use
community with 6,000 square feet of commercial
retail uses and four live/work units totaling 7,107
square feet. The project applied for a 22 percent
density bonus to allow for 17 additional units in
exchange for the provision of 8 very low-income
affordable units. In total, the project proposes 94 dwelling units, of which 86 would be market rate and 8 would be designated for very low-income. Kimley-Horn provided CEQA documentation to support a Class 32 Infill Exemption, including technical studies ranging from air quality, greenhouse gas, and health risk assessment. The project was approved in September 2023.

Rubio Village Mixed-Use Project CEQA Consistency
Kimley-Horn was retained to evaluate the Rubio Village Project with respect to CEQA compliance. The City of San Gabriel City Council approved the original project and certified the Final EIR in April 2007.

In February 2015 and May 2016, two addenda were prepared by the City to address changes to the development program. In 2022, Kimley-Horn was retained to prepare a CEQA Consistency Memorandum to address the changes to the project and to document that the project would be exempt from additional review under CEQA. The project proposed to develop a four-story mixed-use building consisting of 170 residential condominium dwelling units, approximately 14,000 square feet of retail/restaurant space, and two levels of subterranean parking. As part of the Memorandum, Kimley- Horn reviewed the project’s impacts on air quality, energy, GHG emissions, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. Due to changes in the economic market, applicant-driven revisions, and based on feedback from the City, Kimley-Horn was retained to prepare an IS/MND for the Rubio Village Project. The Rubio Village Mixed-Use Project proposed to develop three buildings consisting of 225 multi-family residential units and approximately 13,500 square feet of commercial (retail/restaurant) uses within five spaces. As part of this project, Kimley-Horn prepared an air quality technical analysis, GHG emissions assessment, noise and vibration analysis, and traffic impact study. Kimley-Horn also provided tribal consultation support to the City. The project was approved in January 2024.

City of San Gabriel Contact: Christine Song, Senior Planner Phone: 626.308.2806
Address: 425 South Mission Drive, San Gabriel, CA 91776

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 21
City of Agoura Hills
City CEQA Consultant and On-Call Engineering CEQA Support Kimley-Horn has been providing on-call services to the City of Agoura Hills since 2003. Kimley-Horn staff provide general on-call traffic engineering services, project management, staff augmentation, and engineering services for a variety of infrastructure and capital improvement projects and city programs/services. Under this contract, project manager Rita Garcia and members of the proposed Kimley-Horn team provided CEQA support services for the following projects:

Agoura Village Specific Plan Update Project Recirculated IS/MND Kimley-Horn provided environmental consulting services for the Agoura Village Specific Plan Update (AVSPU) Project. Kimley-Horn revised the IS/MND that Kimley-Horn prepared for the Kanan Road/Agoura Road Ultimate Intersection Improvements Project and then modified and recirculated to include the changes to the intersection and amendments to the Agoura Village Specific Plan and General Plan. The AVSPU Project ISMND was completed in May 2024. The AVSPU Project was comprised of multiple actions: 1) a request to amend and restate the AVSP to address the 15 AVSPU Planning Principles approved by the City Council; and 2) a request to amend General Plan Chapter 3:

Infrastructure and Community Services to incorporate explicit language to define semi-rural arterial roadway and amend Figure M-2 General Plan Typical Roadway Classification Cross Section to graphically depict the semi-rural arterial roadway. Kimley-Horn developed Street Frontage Objective Design Standards Checklist and reviewed the AVSP updates to regulations and guidelines. The IS/MND was adopted, and the project approved in May 2024.

Ladyface Vista Professional Center Project IS/MND
This project consisted of a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Site Plan/Architectural Review to allow the construction of five, single-story office buildings totaling 20,279 square feet proposed on a hillside lot; a request for an Oak Tree Permit to encroach into the protected zone of two on-site oak trees; a Sign Permit to allow for a sign program; and a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a single parcel into five condominium units plus one common lot. Key environmental issues analyzed included biological resources, archaeological resources, geology/soils, paleontological resources, and tribal cultural resources. This project was completed in November 2022.

Bicycle Master Plan Draft CEQA Compliance Memo/Notice of Exemption This project involved the City of Agoura Hills Bicycle Master Plan (BMP), which was intended to provide safer streets for residents who are dependent on bicycling for transportation. The planned bikeways/ bikeway improvements totaled approximately 33.6 and included: Class I (Bike Path), approximately 3.4 miles of multi-use paths; Class II (Bike Lane), approximately 3.4 miles of bike lanes and approximately

4.9 miles of enhancements to existing Class II bike lanes; Class III (Bike Route), approximately 18.9 miles of bike routes; and Class IV (Separated Bike Lane), approximately 3.0 miles of separated bike lanes (existing Class II). To implement the BMP and ensure consistency with the City’s General Plan, this project would also amend General Plan Chapter 3: Infrastructure and Community Services Element. This project included an in-depth analysis of the proposed BMP changes and past proposed improvements to determine the appropriate CEQA clearance document. This project, adopted in 2023, is currently ongoing.

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 22
Bicycle Master Plan Revisions Draft CEQA Compliance Strategy Research and Matrix
This project involved preparing a matrix summarizing the CEQA compliance analysis for the three Class I bicycle facilities. This included review of previous IS/MNDs (Trails and Pathways Master Plan (TPMP) and Linear Park Project (LPP)) to determine the degree/type of environmental analyses, assumed facility improvements, and assumed facility types. The proposed BMP facilities were then compared to the TPMP and LPP facilities concerning type, alignment, and width, to determine if any CEQA clearance was provided. These findings were summarized in a matrix. This project was adopted in 2023 and is currently ongoing.

City of Agoura Hills Contact: Denice Thomas, AICP, Community Development Director Phone: 818.597.7311
Address: 30001 Ladyface Court, Agoura Hills, CA 91301

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 23
Section 5. Sub-Consultants
To provide the full depth of resources necessary to seamlessly deliver services, Kimley-Horn has teamed with skilled sub-consultants to complement our in-house team. We have selected these firms not only because they are talented from a technical standpoint, but because they also understand the local environment and have strong working relationships with members of the Kimley-Horn team and/or the City. Kimley-Horn’s approach to managing sub-consultants and confirm quality control and coordination is provided on page 13. Resumes for our sub-consultants are provided on pages 36-37 in Section 6. Qualifications and Capabilities.

Rocks Biological Consulting
Rock Biological Consulting has served as a sub -consultant on 15 as- needed services contracts, including: five Engineering and Capital Projects as-needed contracts; two Public Utilities Department as -needed contracts; three Stormwater Department as-needed contracts; three Planning Department as -needed contracts; and two Park s and Recreation Department as-needed contracts. Their biologists, aquatic resources specialists, and project managers have provided a wide variety of services under these on-call contracts, including biological and aquatic technical reporting and peer reviews; constraints analyses; permitting; construction monitoring and environmental compliance; habitat restoration plans and monitoring; and CEQA and NEPA documentation.

Rocks Biological Consulting has a highly valued and trusted relationship with Kimley -Horn and Associates, which has proven to be highly productive. For more than 15 years, Rocks Biological Consulting and Kimley -Horn and Associates have teamed together to serve a variety of clients with a proven track record on over 100 projects, including, but not limited to, small and large infill development projects and new construction commercial, industrial, and residential projects such as the U-Haul Placentia Project, Santa Ana Redevelopment Project, and the UC Irvine North Irvine Housing Project in Orange County, Rubio Village in the City of San Gabriel, and the Kanan Road/Agoura Road Intersection Improvements Project in the City of Agoura Hills.

Iwasa Consulting
Iwasa Consulting is small geotechnical consulting firm that provides a wide range of geotechnical expertise and experience to support their client’s projects.

Iwasa Consulting provides geotechnical services ranging for subsurface explorations and investigations, design recommendations, and consultation services for a variety of projects, including commercial and residential structures, laboratories, and warehouses; energy and industrial facilities; shoreline and marina developments ; slope stability assessme nts and stabilization; seismic upgrades and repair of existing buildings, including churches and historic buildings; litigation matters; and projects that require dewatering evaluations, such as deep excavations for new structures.

Iwasa Consulting has provided geotechnical services for numerous Kimley-Horn projects and has worked directly with Kimley -Horn key personnel, Rita Garcia and James Thomas, CEPT -IT. More specifically, Iwasa Consulting provided geotechnical peer review services as part of a Kimley -Horn CEQA team on the following Gardena projects: Stoneridge 63 Condominiums (Lady Luck Property) at 1017 West 141st Street, Normandie Apartments Project at 16911 Normandie, and Terreno Industrial Park Project.

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 24
Section 6. Qualifications and Capabilities
Firm Profile
Kimley-Horn is a full-service environmental, planning,
and engineering consulting firm providing services to
public agencies nationwide. Since our founding in 1967, Kimley-Horn has grown from a small group of traffic
engineers and transportation planners to a firm of more than 10,000 employees with 145 offices across the US. Our 15 California offices, including local offices in Orange, Long Beach, and Los Angeles, have more than 850 planners,
designers, engineers, and technicians—affording us the depth of resources necessary to staff and execute this assignment. We offer clients the local knowledge and responsiveness of a small organization, backed by the extensive resources only a national firm can offer.

Our staff is experienced in the preparation and processing of all types of environmental documents under CEQA and NEPA and has extensive knowledge of environmental document requirements. Our environmental professionals not only have years of experience in developing CEQA documents that support specific plans, general plan elements, transportation, site development, and public works projects, but also receive regular training on changes in CEQA, NEPA, and applicable case law affecting the interpretation of current statutes. We have a tremendous amount of experience writing CEQA/NEPA documents and providing regulatory compliance assistance.

Combining national experience with a local sensibility, Kimley-Horn’s professionals provide comprehensive solutions to the planning, analysis, and design of public and private spaces. Our team draws upon years of experience with public agencies and private development to develop user-friendly documents—creating project designs that minimize impacts to the natural environment and community.

On all our projects, we work extensively with our internal partners, agency staff, and clients to create the appropriate technical approach for the document and scope of related technical studies.

Project Team
Kimley-Horn understands that when you choose a consulting ﬁrm, you are really choosing the people who will bring you technical expertise, hands-on experience with similar projects, and a commitment to timely, high-quality deliverables and client service. Our team will be led by Rita Garcia and James Thomas, CEP-IT who have prepared environmental analysis on 16 projects in the City, demonstrating our familiarity with the City, local development trends, and environmental issues.

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 25
Organizational Chart
Our team members are passionate about their work and have the appropriate levels of environmental and technical experience to address any tasks needed by the City. They are seasoned planning, design, and engineering professionals with a successful track record delivering a variety of project types. Our project team and their relationships to the proposed project activities are shown in the organization chart below. We have provided full resumes for our key personnel and sub-consultants detailing their qualifications (education and experience) on the following pages.

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 26
Key Personnel Resumes
Rita Garcia
Principal-in-Charge
With more than 35 years of experience,
Rita has provided environmental and
planning consulting services to a broad
range of public- and private-sector clients. She specializes in managing and contributing to CEQA and NEPA compliance
documentation, including various general plan updates, housing element updates, large-scale multi-component specific plans, facility/infrastructure projects, and in-fill developments, including transit-oriented. She has been involved with varied development and redevelopment projects in sensitive environments with substantial public involvement and controversy. Rita has extensive experience managing environmental analyses for complex programmatic/policy studies, as well as project-level studies. Having served in various capacities as applicant, city staff, and consultant, she contributes unique perspectives and approaches to navigating challenging planning and regulatory environments.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
■ City of Gardena, City CEQA Consultant 2018-Present, Gardena, CA  Terreno Industrial Project – Principal in Charge
 1610 West Artesia Boulevard SCEA – Project Manager
 14600 South Western Avenue SCPE – Project Manager
 Gardena Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan EIR – Project Manager  Normandie Crossing Specific Plan EIR – Project Manager  1450 West Artesia Boulevard Specific Plan and Technical Studies – Principal-in-Charge  Gardner Marine Avenue Mixed-Use Project IS/MND – Project Manager  Normandie Courtyard Project CEQA Compliance Memo/NOE – Project Manager  Multiple and Various Additional Project Technical Studies, CEs, and IS/MNDs – Project Manager  Rosecrans Place Project Revised Site Plan IS/MND – Project Manager  Rosecrans Place Phase II Project CEQA Memo and CE – Project Manager ■ City of Irvine, On-Call for Environmental Services, Irvine, CA – Project Manager ■ City of Anaheim, On-Call for Environmental Consulting Services, Anaheim, CA – Project Manager ■ Various Cities, 5th and 6th Cycle Housing Element EIRs, IS/MNDs, and CEQA Compliance Memos/NOEs (e.g., Costa Mesa, Encinitas, Huntington Beach, Chino, Pico Rivera, Del Mar), CA – Project Manager
■ City of Agoura Hills, City CEQA Consultant 2020-2025, Agoura Hills, CA – Project Manager ■ City of El Segundo, Senate Bill (SB) 743/VMT Implementation Guidelines, TREDLite Tool, and Notice of Exemption/CEQA Compliance Memorandum, El Segundo, CA – Project Manager ■ City of El Segundo, Chargers Headquarters and Training Facility Addendum EIR, El Segundo, CA – Project Manager

EDUCATION
■ Bachelor of Science,
Urban and Regional
Planning, California
State Polytechnic
University, Pomona

AFFILIATIONS
■ National Association of
Environmental Planners
(AEP), Member

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 27
James Thomas, CEP-IT
Project Manager
James’ experience includes infill
developments for public and private clients—
primarily residential and mixed-use
developments as well as infrastructure projects. James currently works on the on-call environmental team for two other cities in Los Angeles County, so he is experienced with analyzing projects on behalf of other local cities. James previously worked in the planning department of a nearby City. His primary focus is preparing CEQA documents, including CEs, MNDs, EIRs, and SCEAs.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
■ City of Gardena, City CEQA Consultant 2018-Present, Gardena, CA  Terreno Industrial Project – Project Manager
 TOD Specific Plan EIR – Task Manager
 1450 West Artesia Boulevard Specific Plan and Technical Studies – Project Manager  Normandie Crossing Specific Plan EIR – Task Manager
 Rosecrans Place Project IS/MND – Analyst
 Normandie Courtyard Project CEQA Compliance Memo/NOE – Task Manager  Melia Avenue/178th Street Townhome Project – Analyst
■ Various Cities, 6th Cycle Housing Element EIRs, IS/MNDs, and CEQA Compliance Memos/NOEs (e.g., Del Mar, Orange, Pico Rivera), CA – Task Manager ■ Various municipal and utility service projects, i.e., sewer lift stations and new wastewater treatment facilities (City of Wildomar, Lake Elsinore, Malibu, Agoura Hills, Laguna Hills), CA – Task Manager ■ City of El Segundo, Project Ollie Data Center, El Segundo, CA – Task Manager ■ BNSF, Barstow International Gateway Project, Barstow, CA – Task Manager ■ Various Cities, Self-Storage New Development Sites Program (San Bernardino, Palm Springs, unincorporated LA County, Yucca Valley), CA – Task Manager ■ Confidential Client, Airport Expansion Project – Task Manager ■ K2A Architects, Stowell Ranch Wetland Restoration Project, unincorporated Los Angeles County – Project Manager
■ University of California, Irvine, Campus Medical Complex Supplemental EIR, Irvine, CA – Analyst

EDUCATION
■ Bachelors,
Environmental Studies,
California State
University, San Marcos

CREDENTIALS
■ Certified Environmental
Professional in Training
(CEP-IT) #47132219

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 28
Dana Privitt, AICP
Project Director
Dana is an urban planner with over 40 years
of public-sector and private-sector
experience focused on environmental
analysis, project management, and planning documentation for multi-issue development and infrastructure projects. Her projects include preparation of CEQA documentation for large- and small– scale urban infill and greenfield developments, public
infrastructure, and policy programs; planning and environmental entitlement strategy, project management, and staff support services. Dana has lectured at Chapman University on CEQA.

Dana has managed and prepared several EIRs that were prepared under the threat of litigation.

Throughout her career, she has continued to work and collaborate with a diverse group of public and private planners, developers, and local governments on entitlement and environmental issues.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
■ Cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Moreno Valley, Orange, Pico Rivera, San Clemente, San Gabriel, Santa Ana, and Simi Valley; Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino; University of California, Irvine, On-Call for Environmental and Planning Services, CA – Project Manager
■ City of Santa Anna, Related Bristol Specific Plan Project, Santa Ana, CA – Technical Team Coordinator and CEQA Peer Review
■ City of Newport Beach, Newport Beach Housing Implementation Program EIR, Newport Beach, CA – Project Manager
■ City of Anaheim, Townes at Orange IS/MND, Anaheim, CA – Project Director ■ City of Anaheim, Townes at Broadway IS/MND, Anaheim, CA – Project Director ■ Gardena Transit Oriented Development Specific Plan EIR, Gardena, CA – QC/QA Manager ■ County of Orange, Fairlynn Townhomes IS/MND, County of Orange, CA – Deputy Project Manager ■ City of Newport Beach, Residences at 1300 Bristol Addendum, Newport Beach, CA – Deputy Project Manager
■ City of Newport Beach, Residences at 1400 Bristol Addendum, Newport Beach, CA – Deputy Project Manager
■ City of Newport Beach Koll Center Residences Mixed-Use Development EIR, Newport Beach, CA – Project Manager
■ City of Newport Beach, Ford Road Residential IS/MND, Newport Beach, CA – Project Manager ■ University of California, Irvine, Campus Medical Complex (ICMC) EIR, Irvine, CA – QA/QC ■ City of Santa Ana, MainPlace Transformation Specific Plan Project, Santa Ana, CA – Technical Studies Coordinator and CEQA Analysis
■ City of Fullerton, IS/MND for Mixed-Use Residential Development (600 W Commonwealth Avenue and 628 Williamson Avenue), Fullerton, CA – Project Manager

EDUCATION
■ Bachelor of Science,
Social Ecology,
University of California,
Irvine

CREDENTIALS
■ American Institute of
Certified Planners
#9036

AFFILIATIONS
■ American Planning
Association (APA),
Board Member

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 29
Ryan Chiene
Air Quality/GHG Assessments/
Noise/Health Risk Assessments
Ryan has more than 12 years of experience
as an environmental analyst with a specialty
in acoustics, air quality, and climate change.

Ryan is responsible for preparing and managing environmental and planning studies for public and private sector clients, under CEQA and NEPA for a variety of environmental planning projects involving redevelopment, infrastructure, residential, mixed use, institutional, industrial, and commercial uses. He also has experience preparing Visual Impact Assessments and Hazardous Materials analyses for various environmental planning projects.

Ryan is experienced in applying full analysis methodology per EPA, CARB, Air Pollution Control District/Air Quality Management District, and Caltrans/FHWA guidelines. His experience in Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Assessments includes technical modeling experience using various state and federally approved programs including the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), AERMOD, CALINE4, EMFAC, and RCEM. He also provides a full range of noise impact analyses for public and private sector clients. Ryan utilizes his experience with noise monitoring using Type I rated instruments as well as sophisticated noise modeling using FHWA-RD-77-108, Traffic Noise Model 2.5, and SoundPLAN to develop noise attenuation recommendations where necessary.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
■ University of California, Irvine, Center for Child Health Project, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Assessments, Irvine, CA – Technical Studies Manager ■ City of Irvine, Braun 2206 Alton Parkway Expansion Project, Acoustical Assessment, Irvine, CA - Technical Specialist
■ City of Santa Ana, 4th and Mortimer Mixed-Use Project Air Quality Assessment and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, Santa Ana, CA – Air Quality and Noise Technical Studies Manager ■ County of San Bernardino, Speedway Commerce Center II Specific Plan Project, Acoustical Assessment, San Bernardino County, CA – Air Quality and Noise Technical Studies Manager ■ City of South Ontario, South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan, Air Quality Assessment, Health Risk Assessment and Acoustical Assessment, Ontario, CA – Air Quality and Noise Technical Studies Manager
■ City of Ontario, Bon View Avenue Warehouse, Health Risk Assessment, Ontario, CA – Air Quality and Noise Technical Studies Manager
■ City of Pasadena, 995 South Fair Oaks Residential Care Facility Project, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Assessments, Pasadena, California – Technical Studies Manager ■ Sobrato Residential Development Project, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health Risk, Energy, and Noise Assessments, Fontana, CA, – Technical Studies Manager ■ City of Bellflower, Bellflower Convenience Center Project, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Assessments, Bellflower, CA, – Technical Studies Manager *Prior to joining Kimley-Horn

EDUCATION
■ Bachelors, City and
Regional Planning,
California Polytechnic
State University, San
Luis Obispo

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 30
Olivia Chan
Air Quality/GHG Assessments/
Noise/Health Risk Assessments
Olivia specializes in air quality, GHG
emissions, energy, and noise. With nearly
two decades of experience, she brings an in-
depth knowledge to our clients through her work on a variety of complex projects that rely on her proficiency with various State and federally approved models including CalEEMod, the FHWA Traffic Noise Model and Roadway Construction Noise Model, and the AERMOD modeling system. Olivia also has experience in research, preparation, and analysis for a variety of environmental planning projects consistent with CEQA and NEPA guidelines.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
■ City of Ontario, Euclid Mixed-Use Specific Plan, Ontario, CA – Technical Lead ■ City of Carson, The Districts Specific Plan Project, Carson, CA – Technical Analyst* ■ Pacific Plaza Premier Development Group, Monterey Park Mixed-Use Project Class 32 CE, Monterey Park, CA – Air Quality and Noise Technical Lead ■ City of San Gabriel, Rubio Village Mixed-Use Project IS/MND, San Gabriel, CA – Air Quality, GHG, Energy, and Noise Technical Lead
■ City of Temple City, 6119 10-Unit Residential Project Condo Class 32 CE Peer Review, Temple City, CA – Air Quality, GHG, and Noise Peer Reviewer
■ City of Temple City, Pacific Las Tunas Mixed-Use Project Class 32 CE, Temple City, CA – Air Quality and Noise Technical Lead
■ City of South Pasadena, Fairview Court Project Class 32 CE, South Pasadena, CA – Air Quality and Noise Technical Lead
■ Lindblade Media Center Owner, LLC, 8960 Washington Boulevard Project Categorical Exemption, Culver City, CA – Air Quality and Noise Technical Lead
■ CIM Group Acquisition, LLC, 10510 Culver Boulevard Project Categorical Exemption, Culver City, CA – Air Quality and Noise Technical Lead
■ REthink Development, Culver Theatre Residences Mixed-Use Development Categorical Exemption, Culver City, CA – Air Quality and Noise Technical Lead ■ Sierra Distribution Facility Project, Fontana, CA – Air Quality, GHG, Energy, and Noise Technical Lead ■ Whittwood Town Center Project, Whittier, CA – Air Quality, GHG, Energy, and Noise Technical Lead ■ City of San Gabriel, Pacific Square San Gabriel Mixed-Use Project EIR, San Gabriel, CA – Air Quality, GHG, Energy, and Noise Technical Lead*

*Prior to joining Kimley-Horn

EDUCATION
■ Master, Urban and
Regional Planning,
University of California,
Irvine
■ Bachelor of Arts,
Environmental Design,
University of California,
Irvine

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 31
Heidi Rous, CPP
Climate Action Plans
Heidi has over 35 years of experience
providing comprehensive planning services
specializing in climate, sustainability,
resiliency, and risk assessment. Heidi is highly skilled in quantifying, modeling, and mitigating air pollutants and GHG emissions from stationary and mobile sources and has provided these services for a diverse range of clients, including municipal, educational, industrial, transportation, utility, and energy facilities.

In addition, she has prepared numerous Environmental Justice analyses and developed EJ elements, plans, and policies at the municipality, agency, and program level.

She is up to date with current applicable modeling tools and is highly fluent with relevant guidance, policies, and regulations related to GHG inventories, air pollutant and health effects modeling, adaptive planning, and climate vulnerability. Heidi has led numerous GHG and climate change projects including community- and agency-wide CAPs, CAAPs, and other project- and program-level GHG reduction plans and adaptation studies. Throughout her career, Heidi has prepared, managed, and provided peer review of comprehensive environmental documents to meet the requirements of CEQA, NEPA, and similar state environmental review laws for projects.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
■ City of Anaheim, Community Climate Action Plan (CAP) and General Plan Update, Anaheim, CA – Project Manager
■ City of Irvine, On-Call Sustainability and Environmental Services, Irvine, CA – Project Manager ■ City of El Monte, Climate Action Plan, El Monte, CA – Project Manager ■ Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Climate Adaptability and Sustainability Plan, Orange County, CA – Project Manager
■ City of Carson, Specific Plan Amendment for the 157-Acre Carson Marketplace Project EIR, Carson, CA – Project Director and Technical Lead for Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Energy, and Noise Impact Assessments
■ Seaport Village Redevelopment Project, Net Zero GHG Plan, San Diego, CA – Project Manager ■ City of Oakley, Climate Action and Sustainability Plam, Oakley, CA – Technical Lead ■ Confidential Industrial Client, Net Zero GHG Plan, Southern California – Technical Lead ■ City of Hemet, Safety Element Update, Climate Vulnerability Assessment, and Environmental Justice Element, Hemet, CA – Technical Lead
■ City of Burbank, San Fernando Bikeway Project, Environmental Assessment, Burbank, CA – Task Manager
■ City of Menifee, Climate Vulnerability Assessment and Environmental Justice Policies, Menifee, CA – Task Manager
*Prior to joining Kimley-Horn

EDUCATION
■ Bachelor of Science,
Physics, California
Polytechnic State
University, Pomona

CREDENTIALS
■ GPRO Certified, Urban
Green Council
■
■ Certified Permitting
Professional (CPP)
registered with South
Coast Air Quality
Management District

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 32
Cassie Bretschger,
ENV SP
Environmental Site Assessments
(Hazardous Materials); Planning
Support
Cassie has more than 10 years of experience providing
environmental services for land use development involving acquisition, forward planning and remedial engineering. She has managed efforts in a wide range of disciplines including regulatory compliance and inspections, due diligence, Phase I and II ESAs, policy planning, entitlement strategy, processing and
implementation of Master Plan Developments including Specific Plans, Community Plans and Transit-oriented Development (TOD) Plans, and public outreach. Oversight on long term remediation and mining Sites at local, state and federal levels for aerospace, rail, retail service stations, and other industrial facilities.

Additionally, she has coordinated with multiple Cities for land redevelopment with ongoing environmental cases while
processing or implementing entitlements. Cassie utilizes her technical background within soil science and remedial engineering to implement policy documentation and outreach, in addition to GIS mapping, technical writing and project management.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
■ Class I Railroad
 Due Diligence Phase I/II ESA Investigations of Multiple Properties (>100), San Bernardino and Barstow, CA – Project Manager*
 Former Vehicle Maintenance Facility DTSC Restrictive Covenant compliance (DTSC), Vernon, CA – Analyst*
 Low Threat Closure Compliance (RWQCB/ADEQ), Barstow, CA and Winslow, AZ – Deputy Project Manager*
■ Confidential Private Client, Phase I ESAs for 7 Community Solar and BESS Projects, San Bernardino County, CA – Project Manager
■ CalCompact Landfill Redevelopment, Carson, CA – Analyst* ■ HomeFed Village III Master, LLC (SD-RWQCB), Soil Vapor Mapping and Assessments, Chula Vista, CA – Analyst*
■ Chevron Site Cleanup Portfolio (RWQCB/LEA), multiple sites throughout California – Deputy Project Manager*
■ Northrup Grumman, Former TRW Facility Remediation, San Clemente, CA – Deputy Project Manager*
*Prior to joining Kimley-Horn

EDUCATION
■ Master of Science,
Geographic Information
Systems and
Environmental Science,
University of Arizona
■ Bachelor of Science,
Environmental Science
(focus in Soil Science),
University of Arizona

CREDENTIALS
■ Envision Sustainability
Professional #40071
■ Urban Land Institute –
Orange County/Inland
Empire Chapter, Young
Leaders Group
Executive Committee
■ OSHA 40-Hour
Hazardous Waste
Health and Safety
Training, 29 CFR
1910.120, 2015
■ OSHA 8-Hour
Refresher Safety
Training, 29 CFR
1910.120 and CCR Title
8, Section 5192

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 33
Jessica Mauck, MA,
RPA
Cultural and Paleontological
Resources Management; Tribal
Outreach
Jessica has over 15 years of experience in archaeology and historic preservation, and meets SOI Professional Qualifications for Archaeology, History, and Architectural History. Her background includes long-term contracting for Federal land management agencies (USFS, NPS, DoD, BLM, etc.),
overseeing Cultural Resources Management programming within Tribal government, and serving on several historic preservation advisory groups for State and Federal agencies. She has extensive experience conducting all phases of fieldwork, analysis, and reporting under applicable state and federal law, such as the NHPA, NEPA, and CEQA. She also has many years of experience managing process for inadvertent discoveries of human remains and the inventory/repatriation of existing archaeological collections subject to State and Federal law, such as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and California Health & Safety Code (Section 7050.5).

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
■ City of Gardena, 1610 Artesia Boulevard Project, Cultural Resources Assessment (Archaeology), Gardena, CA – Principal Investigator
■ City of Norwalk, Lowes Norwalk Relocation Project, Cultural Resources Assessment (Archaeology), Norwalk, CA – Principal Investigator
■ City of Santa Ana, Park 55 Project, Cultural Resources Assessment (Archaeology and Historic Built Environment), Santa Ana, CA – Principal Investigator/Architectural Historian ■ San Juan Plaza Project, Cultural Resources Assessment (Archaeology and Historic Built Environment), EPA/San Juan Capistrano, CA – Principal Investigator/Architectural Historian ■ Avenida Cordoba/Via Avila Storm Drain Improvements Project, Historic Property Inventory (Archaeology and Historic Built Environment), EPA/San Clemente, CA – Principal Investigator/Architectural Historian
■ Recycled Water Improvement Project, Historic Property Inventory (Archaeology and Historic Built Environment), EPA/San Clemente, CA – Principal Investigator/Architectural Historian ■ City of Beverly Hills, 450 North Roxbury Project, Beverly Hills, CA – Archaeological Resources Assessment Principal Investigator
■ City of Los Angeles, 3800 S. Figueroa Project, Los Angeles, CA – Archaeological Resources Assessment and Paleontological Resources Assessment Principal Investigator ■ US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)/City of Burbank, 2244 N. Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA – Principal Investigator
■ 956 Seward Project, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Assessments (Archaeology and Paleontology), Los Angeles, CA – Principal Investigator

EDUCATION
■ Master of Arts,
Historical Archaeology,
University of Leicester,
England
■ Bachelor of Arts,
Anthropology,
University of California,
Los Angeles

CREDENTIALS
■ Register of Professional
Archaeologists
#37243944

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 34
Jason Marechal, PE,

LEED AP
Drainage Utilities
Jason has 25 years of experience in civil
engineering design and management,
primarily focused on public and private land development projects. His technical experience includes all civil design aspects of land development projects including grading, drainage, and utility design, along with extensive knowledge of hydrology and hydraulics, and water quality standards. His innovative approach to drainage and water quality design includes experience with low-impact development (LID), hydromodification, green streets, and large watershed studies. He has worked extensively in all counties in Southern California and has successfully completed the design of several projects ranging from one acre to over 1,000 acres in size.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
■ Centennial Real Estate, MainPlace Mall Redevelopment, Santa Ana, CA – Project Manager ■ University of California, Irvine (UC Irvine), Environmental Consulting Services for Various Capital Improvement Projects, Irvine, CA – Hydrology/Water Quality ■ MainPlace Transformation Specific Plan Project, Santa Ana, CA – Civil Engineering Manager ■ Shea Properties, Cypress City Center, Cypress, CA – Project Manager ■ Legacy Partners, Sunflower Santa Ana, Santa Ana, CA – Project Manager ■ Sunflower Apartments, Santa Ana, CA – Principal-in-Charge ■ Regency Centers, Village at Tustin Legacy, Tustin, CA – Project Manager ■ Shea Properties, Festival Hills, Anaheim, CA – Project Manager ■ Shapell Properties, The Vineyards at Porter Ranch, Porter Ranch, CA C ■ Shea Properties, Symmetry Apartments, Northridge, CA – Project Manager ■ Moreno Valley Holdings, Moreno Valley Mall Entitlement, Moreno Valley, CA – Project Manager ■ Kimco Realty, Whittwood Town Center Entitlement, Whittier, CA – Project Manager ■ Southbay Social Districts, Southbay Galleria Mall Redevelopment, Redondo Beach, CA – Project Manager
■ Orbis Financial, LLC, The Merge Eastvale, Eastvale, CA – Project Manager ■ The Newhall Land & Farming Co., Valencia Commerce Center, Valencia, CA – Project Manager ■ Lewis Companies, Serrano Commerce Center, Corona, CA – Project Manager ■ Highland Fairview, World Logistics Center, Moreno Valley, CA – Project Manager ■ Orbis Financial, LLC, Eastvale Homestead 52 CDs, Eastvale, CA – Project Manager ■ Los Angeles County, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center Master Plan Implementation, Los Angeles, CA Project Engineer

EDUCATION
■ Bachelor of Science,
Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University
of California, Berkeley

CREDENTIALS
■ Professional Engineer
in California #63164
■ Leadership in Energy
and Environmental
Design Accredited
Professional (LEED AP)

AFFILIATIONS
■ American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE),
Member
■ U.S. Green Building
Council-National Capital
Region, Member

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 35
Tim Tidwell, PWS
Regulatory Permitting
Tim has over 12 years of experience
assisting in the preparation of environmental
and planning studies for public-sector and
private-sector clients. He is extensively involved with Section 404, 401, and 1602 permit processing through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife respectively. He also routinely coordinates with the California Coastal Commission for those projects within the Coastal Zone. As a Professional Wetland Scientist, Tim also leads field delineations of jurisdictional waters and wetlands, and he provides
environmental analysis in accordance with CEQA and NEPA.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
■ BNSF Railway, High Desert Operational Efficiency Project, Hesperia and San Bernardino Counties, CA – Regulatory
Permitting Specialist
■ BNSF Railway, Barstow International Gateway (BIG) Project, Barstow, CA – Regulatory Permitting Specialist
■ Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency (Metrolink), Canyon Siding Extension Project, Santa Clarita, CA – Regulatory Permitting Specialist
■ Orange County Public Works, Regulatory Permitting Staffing, Orange County, CA – Regulatory Specialist*
■ Orange County Public Works, Regional General Permit Mapping/Long Term Maintenance, Orange County, CA – Regulatory Specialist*
■ Harbor Island Community Association, Harbor Island Bridge Retrofit Project, Newport Beach, CA – Regulatory Specialist/Task Lead*
■ Orange County Parks, Aliso and Woods Canyon Wilderness Park Trail Repairs Project, Laguna Beach, CA – Regulatory Specialist*
■ City of Irvine, University Drive Widening Project, Irvine and Newport Beach, CA – Environmental Associate*
■ University California Irvine (UCI), Hydrogen Station Project, Irvine, CA – Regulatory Specialist* ■ UCI, UCI Medical Center, Irvine, CA – Regulatory Specialist* ■ City of Victorville Public Works Department, Citywide Environmental Maintenance Permits for Ephemeral Washes Project, Victorville, CA – Regulatory Specialist/Project Manager* ■ Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Lockheed Martin Plant 10 Specific Plan, Palmdale, CA – Regulatory Specialist*

*Prior to joining Kimley-Horn

EDUCATION
■ Master of Science,
Geographic Information
Systems, California
State University, San
Diego
■ Bachelor of Arts,
Geographic Information
Science, California
State University, San
Diego

CREDENTIALS
■ Federal Aviation
Administration Part 107
Small Unmanned
Aircraft System (sUAS)
Pilot
■ Professional Wetland
Scientist (PWS) #3464,
■ Society of Wetland
Scientists Professional
Certification Program
■ CRAM for Riverine
Wetlands-Certified
Practitioner, California,
2016

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 36
Corey Cameron, PLA
Visual Simulations, Renderings,
Shade/Shadow Lighting

Corey has more than 10 years of landscape
architecture experience and prior to
discovering his passion for landscape
architecture, Corey worked in construction and landscape construction positions. This well-rounded experience has provided a foundational understanding and curiosity of the built environment. Corey’s natural creativity and passion for design, along with his critical thinking, technical aptitude, and tenacity, position him well to tackle any project and provide visualizations and comprehension. Corey is well versed in many software programs and hand graphics that provide the right style and rendering to aid in community understanding and project visualization.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
■ AMERCO Real Estate, U-Haul, Gardena, CA – Shadow Study ■ City of Moreno Valley, Bark Park Project, Moreno Valley – Visual Simulations, Renderings, Shade/Shadow Lighting, Landscape Architecture
■ City of Chula Vista, Millenia Park, Chula Vista – Visual Simulations, Renderings, Shade/Shadow Lighting, Landscape Architecture
■ Ocean View School District, Marine View Middle School Modernization, Huntington Beach, CA – Visual Simulations, Renderings, Shade/Shadow Lighting, Landscape Architecture ■ City of Rocklin, Crest Drive Roundabout, Rocklin, CA – Visual Simulations, Renderings, Shade/Shadow Lighting, Landscape Architecture
■ City of Roseville, Washington and All America City Boulevard Roundabout, Roseville, CA – Visual Simulations, Renderings, Shade/Shadow Lighting, Landscape Architecture ■ Ocean View School District, Marine View Middle School Modernization, Huntington Beach, CA – Visual Simulations, Renderings, Shade/Shadow Lighting, Landscape Architecture ■ Mar Vista Academy, Sweetwater Union High School District, National City, CA – Visual Simulations, Renderings, Shade/Shadow Lighting, Landscape Architecture ■ Rancho Cucamonga Library Relocation, City Rancho Cucamonga, CA – Landscape Architect/Project Manager
■ El Monte Union High School District, El Monte High School, El Monte CA – Landscape Architect/Project Manager
■ Torrance Unified School District, Sport Field Assessments (Various K-8 Campuses), Torrance CA – Landscape Architect/Project Manager
■ Ocean View School District, Star View Elementary Modernization, Midway City, CA – Landscape Architect/Project Manager
■ Ocean View School District, Vista View Middle School Modernization, Fountain Valley, CA – Landscape Architect/Project Manager

EDUCATION
■ Bachelor of Science,
Landscape Architecture,
California State
Polytechnic University,
Pomona
■ Associate of Arts,
General Education, Mira
Costa College,
Oceanside

CREDENTIALS
■ Professional Landscape
Architect in California
#6625

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 37
Jim Rocks
Biological Resources
Jim Rocks holds a Master of Science degree
in biological sciences and has over 25 years
of experience in biological resources in
California. Jim holds a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10(a) recovery permit for Quino checkerspot butterfly, coastal California gnatcatcher, and all California fairy shrimps. Jim has extensive experience performing sensitive plant and wildlife species surveys, wetland delineations, and biological impact analyses. He has authored a variety of technical reports, including biological technical reports, restoration and monitoring plans, biological assessments, and biological resource sections for EIRs. He has provided biological consulting services for a variety of clients including utility companies, developers, and federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. Jim also serves as habitat manager for the San Diego Habitat Conservancy and is a department
associate with the San Diego Natural History Museum Botany Department where he has taught several botanical classes.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
■ Spring Street Pedestrian Improvements Project NESMI (Caltrans), San Diego, CA – Project Manager (Biological Resources)
■ Alta La Jolla Drive Drainage Repair Project, Phase 2, San Diego, CA – Biological Technical Report Preparation
■ Olivenhain Trunk Sewer Project, Encinitas, CA – Protocol Surveys ■ Sunset Avenue Grade Separation PEAR and NESMI (Caltrans), Riverside, CA – Project Manager (Biological Resources)
■ Fashion Valley Road River Crossing Emergency Repair Project, San Diego, CA – Principal Biologist
■ Upper San Diego River Restoration Project, San Diego, CA – Lead Biologist ■ I-215 and Van Buren Avenue Widening Project (Caltrans), Riverside, CA – Lead Biologist ■ SR-91 and Beach Boulevard On-Ramp Widening Project (Caltrans), Orange, CA – Lead Biologist ■ California Gnatcatcher Surveys, San Diego, CA – Surveys ■ Pure Water San Diego Project, San Diego, CA – Protocol surveys for vernal pool branchiopods, vegetation mapping, and rare plant surveys
■ Meridian Business Park Project, Riverside, CA – Protocol Surveys ■ Rialto Airport Burrowing Owl Monitoring, San Bernardino, CA – Wildlife Biologist

EDUCATION
■ Master of Science,
Biological Sciences,
Southern Illinois
University

CREDENTIALS
■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Recovery/ Permit
No. (TE-063230-6)
 Coastal California
gnatcatcher
 Vernal pool
branchiopods
 Quino checkerspot
butterfly

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 38
Dean H. Iwasa, PE, GE
Geotechnical
Dean provides geotechnical investigation,
design, and consultation services for a variety of
projects, including commercial and residential
structures, laboratories, and warehouses; energy and industrial facilities; shoreline and marina developments; slope stability assessments and stabilization; seismic upgrades and repair of existing buildings, including churches and historic buildings; and projects that require dewatering for deep excavations. He has participated in geotechnical investigations and technical studies for mid- to high-rise buildings, tilt-up structures, schools, churches, residences, roadways, major utilities, landslides, landfills, and sites that are impacted by chemical contaminants.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
■ Geotechnical Peer Review Support for CEQA, Lady Luck Property, Stoneridge 63 Condominiums, 1017 West 141st Street, Gardena, CA
■ Geotechnical Peer Review Support for CEQA, Normandie Apartments, 16911 Normandie, Gardena, CA
■ Geotechnical Peer Review Support for CEQA, Terreno 139th Street Project, Gardena, CA ■ Dewatering Evaluation, LACSD, Gardena Pumping Plant Facility, Gardena, CA ■ Los Angeles Federal Courthouse, Los Angeles, CA^^ LACMTA Purple Line Maintenance Building, Los Angeles, CA
■ KORE Pilot Plant Project, Los Angeles, CA
■ UTC Warner Park Plaza, 6633 Canoga Avenue, Canoga Park, CA ■ Audi CODA, Beverly Hills, CA
■ Audi CODA, 1275 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, CA
■ Dewatering Evaluation, Orange County Sanitation District, Gisler and Red Hill Interceptor Access Pit Project, Costa Mesa, CA
■ Northrop Woodland Hills Environmental Remediation, Woodland Hills, CA ■ Vulcan Reliance-Azusa Quarry, Azusa, CA
■ Vulcan Materials Company, Corona Hard Rock Stability Study, Corona, CA ■ Goodyear Carson Blimp Hanger Geotechnical Services, Carson, CA ■ Geotechnical Consultation, Railroad Lofts, 512 W. Figueroa Street, Santa Barbara, CA ■ Los Angeles Federal Courthouse, Los Angeles, CA
■ LACMTA Purple Line Maintenance Building, Los Angeles, CA

EDUCATION
■ Bachelor of Science,
Social Ecology,
University of California,
Irvine

CREDENTIALS
■ American Institute of
Certified Planners
#9036

AFFILIATIONS
■ American Planning
Association (APA),
Board Member

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 39
Peer Review Sample
A sample of a recent peer review conducted by Iwasa Consulting and Kimley-Horn for the City on the Terreno Industrial project has been provided in the Appendix of this SOQ.

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 40
Section 7. Fees/Cost
Kimley-Horn has provided our billing rates in a separate document.

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 41
Section 8. Additional Information
Kimley-Horn’s certificate of insurance has been provided on the following page.

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE

THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.

INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURER F :

INSURER E :

INSURER D :

INSURER C :

INSURER B :

INSURER A :

NAIC #
NAME:

CONTACT
(A/C, No):

FAX
E-MAIL
ADDRESS:

PRODUCER
(A/C, No, Ext):

PHONE

INSURED
REVISION NUMBER:CERTIFICATE NUMBER:COVERAGES
IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.

If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

OTHER:
(Per accident)
(Ea accident)
$
$
N / A
SUBR
WVD
ADDL
INSD

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. $ $
$
$PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY (Per accident)
BODILY INJURY (Per person)

COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT

AUTOS ONLY

AUTOSAUTOS ONLY

NON-OWNED

SCHEDULEDOWNED

ANY AUTO

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
Y / N

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
(Mandatory in NH)
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
If yes, describe under

ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
$
$
$
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
ER
OTH-

STATUTE
PER

LIMITS(MM/DD/YYYY)

POLICY EXP
(MM/DD/YYYY)

POLICY EFF

POLICY NUMBERTYPE OF INSURANCELTR
INSR
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)

EXCESS LIAB
UMBRELLA LIAB $EACH OCCURRENCE
$AGGREGATE
$
OCCUR

CLAIMS-MADE
DED RETENTION $
$PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG
$GENERAL AGGREGATE
$PERSONAL & ADV INJURY
$MED EXP (Any one person)
$EACH OCCURRENCE

DAMAGE TO RENTED
$PREMISES (Ea occurrence)

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY

CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:

POLICY PRO-

JECT LOC

CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE

DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)

CANCELLATION

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
ACORD 25 (2016/03)
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

CERTIFICATE HOLDER
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
HIRED

AUTOS ONLY
3/20/2025
Edgewood Partners Insurance Agency
3780 Mansell Rd. Suite 370
Alpharetta GA 30022
Jerry Noyola
7702207699
[email protected]
National Union Fire Ins Co of Pittsburg
19445

KIMLASS
Allied World Assurance Co (U.S.) Inc.
19489
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600
Raleigh, NC 27601
New Hampshire Insurance Company
23841
Lloyd's of London
85202
370182796
A
X
2,000,000
X
1,000,000
X
Contractual Liab
25,000
2,000,000
4,000,000
X
X
GL5268169
4/1/2025
4/1/2026
4,000,000
A
A
2,000,000
X
X
X
CA4489663
CA2970071
4/1/2025
4/1/2025
4/1/2026
4/1/2026
B
X
X
5,000,000
X
03127930
4/1/2025
4/1/2026
5,000,000
X
10,000
C
C
X
N
WC067961230
WC013711885
4/1/2025
4/1/2025
4/1/2026
4/1/2026
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
D
Professional Liability
B0146LDUSA2504949
4/1/2025
4/1/2026
Per Claim
Aggregate
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
Evidence of Coverage
Sample Certificate

City of Gardena | EVCAORNG011467.2025 A-1
Appendix: Peer Review Sample
131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 www.lgcgeotechnical.com

May 16, 2025 Project No. 25057-01

Mr. Hayes Graham
Terreno 139
th LLC
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94104

Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation, Proposed “Terreno Gardena” Industrial Re-development, 1855 West 139th Street, Gardena, California

In accordance with your request, LGC Geotechnical, Inc. has performed a preliminary g eotechnical subsurface evaluation for the proposed “Terreno Gardena” industrial re-development located at 1855 West 139
th Street, in the City of Gardena, California. This report summarizes the results of our background review, subsurface exploration, and geotechnical analyses of the data collected, and presents our findings, conclusions, and preliminary recommendations for the proposed development.

If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service.

Respectfully,

LGC Geotechnical, Inc.

Dennis Boratynec, GE 2770 Barry Graham, CEG 2749
President Senior Engineering Geologist

Branden Petersen, EIT
Project Engineer

DJB/BPG/BPP/amm

Distribution: (1) Addressee (electronic copy)

Project No. 25057-01 Page i May 16, 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services ............................................................................................. 1

1.2 Existing Site Conditions and Background......................................................................... 1

1.3 Proposed Improvements ....................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Subsurface Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 2

1.5 Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................................. 3

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 5

2.1 Regional Geology ....................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Site Geology and Generalized Subsurface Conditions .................................................. 5

2.3 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................... 5

2.4 Faulting and Seismic Hazards ............................................................................................... 6

2.4.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement ............................................................... 6

2.4.2 Lateral Spreading ....................................................................................................... 7

2.6 Seismic Design Criteria ........................................................................................................... 7

2.7 Expansion Potential ................................................................................................................. 9

3.0 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................... 10

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 12

4.1 Site Earthwork .........................................................................................................................12

4.1.1 Site Preparation .........................................................................................................13

4.1.2 Removal and Recompaction Depths and Limits ............................................13

4.1.3 Temporary Excavations .........................................................................................14

4.1.4 Subgrade Preparation .............................................................................................15

4.1.5 Material for Fill ..........................................................................................................16

4.1.6 Placement and Compaction of Fills ....................................................................16

4.1.7 Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill and Compaction ...................................17

4.1.8 Shrinkage and Subsidence ....................................................................................18

4.2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations ................................................................. 18

4.2.1 Slap Design and Construction .............................................................................19

4.2.2 Foundation Design Parameters ..........................................................................20

4.2.3 Lateral Load Resistance .........................................................................................21

4.2.4 Deep Foundation Recommendations ................................................................21

4.2.5 Aggregate Piers .........................................................................................................22

4.2.6 CIDH Pier Construciton ...........................................................................................23

4.3 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls ................................................................23

4.4 Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal ...................................................................................24

4.5 Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections ....................................................25

4.6 Preliminary Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Sections ...................................26

4.7 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork ....................................................................................27

4.8 Subsurface Water Infiltration .............................................................................................28 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d)
Project No. 25057-01 Page ii May 16, 2025

4.9 Surface Drainage and Landscaping .................................................................................28

4.9.1 General .........................................................................................................................29

4.9.2 Precise Grading .........................................................................................................29

4.9.3 Landscaping ...............................................................................................................29

4.10 Geotechnical Plan Review ....................................................................................................30

4.11 Geotechnical Observation and Testing ............................................................................30

5.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 32

LIST OF TABLES, ILLUSTRATIONS, & APPENDICES

Tables

Table 1 – Summary of Infiltration Testing (Page 8)
Table 2 – Estimated Shrinkage (Page 18)
Table 3 – Allowable Soil Bearing Pressures (Page 20)
Table 4 – Lateral Earth Pressures Import Sandy Backfill (Page 24) Table 5 – Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections (Page 26) Table 6 – Preliminary PCC Pavement Sections (Page 27)

Figures

Figure 1 – Site Location Map (Page 4)
Figure 2 – Boring Location Map (Rear of Text)
Figure 3 – Retaining Wall Backfill Detail (Rear of Text)

Appendices

Appendix A – References
Appendix B – Exploration Logs
Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading

Project No. 25057-01 Page 1 May 16, 2025

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services

This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed industrial re-development located at 1855 West 139th Street in the City of Gardena, California. (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). The purpose of our work was to collect subsurface data, perform laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis in order to prepare a geotechnical report providing preliminary recommendations for design and construction of the proposed project. Our scope of services included:

• Review of pertinent readily available geotechnical information, geologic maps and previous geotechnical report (Appendix A).
• Subsurface investigation including excavation, sampling, and logging of 7 small-diameter hollow stem borings and 4 Cone Penetrometer Tests (CPTs). • Laboratory testing of representative samples obtained during our subsurface evaluation (Appendix C).
• Geotechnical analysis and evaluation of the data obtained. • Preparation of this report presenting our preliminary findings, conclusions , and recommendations with respect to the proposed site development.

1.2 Existing Site Conditions and Background

The approximately 11.2-acre site is bound to the north by an industrial development and 137th Street, to the west by an industrial development, to the south by 139th Street, and to the east by an industrial development and Western Avenue. The site currently consists of two existing industrial buildings, on grade parking, and landscape features among other improvements. Review of historic aerial photographs (Historical Aerials, 2025) suggests the following:

1952 and Prior Photos: At this time , the subject site consists of a small airport and associated infrastructure.

1963 Aerial Photo: By 1963, the site consisted of a racing track with an associated parking lot. A building from the previous airport development was in the southwest corner of the site.

1972 Aerial Photo: By 1972, an industrial building had been built in the northern portion of the site with an associated parking lot in the west and landscape area in the south.

1985 Aerial Photo: By 1985, the building in the southwest portion of the site was demolished and the parking lot in the southeast portion of the site was constructed.

2004 Aerial Photo: By 2004, the southern industrial building had been constructed along with the associated drive aisles and parking spots south of the building. The site has essentially remained the same since this time.

Project No. 25057-01 Page 2 May 16, 2025
AES performed a geotechnical evaluation of the site in 20 24 (AES, 2024). The field evaluation consisted of the excavation of seven (7) hollow -stem auger borings ranging in depth from approximately 10 to 3 0 feet below existing grade and f our (4) hand dug infiltration test pits ranging in depth from approximately 5 to 6.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 24 feet below existing grade. Laboratory testing included in-situ dry density and moisture content, direct shear and consolidation. The boring logs and laboratory data by others is presented in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively.

1.3 Proposed Improvements

Based on the preliminary site plan (Delawie, 2025), five industrial buildings are proposed that range from approximately 25,000 to 65,000 square feet, totaling approximately 205,000 square feet. The building footprints for Buildings A-1 and A-2 will extend to be on the western property line. Supporting improvements include parking areas, truck loading docks, walls and fences. Based on the conceptual grading plan, proposed design cuts and fills are anticipated to be on the order of approximately 3 and 5 feet, respectively (DRC Engineering, Inc., 2025). The proposed industrial building is anticipated to be a concrete tilt-up structure with estimated maximum column and wall loads of approximately 150 kips and 10 kips per linear foot, respectively. Please note no structural loads were provided to us at the time of this report.

The recommendations provided herein are based upon the estimated structural loading and layout information above. We understand that the project plans are currently being developed at this time; LGC Geotechnical should be provided with updated project plan s and any changes to the assumed structural loads when they become available, in order to either confirm or modify the recommendations provided herein. Additional field work and/or laboratory testing may be necessary.

1.4 Subsurface Evaluation

LGC Geotechnical performed a recent subsurface geotechnical evaluation of the site consisting of the excavation of seven hollow-stem auger borings and 4 Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs).

The seven hollow-stem borings (HS-1 through HS-7) were drilled to a depth of approximately

14.5 feet below existing grade. An LGC Geotechnical geologist observed the drilling operations, logged the borings, and collected soil samples for laboratory testing. The borings were excavated using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with a 8-inch-diameter hollow-stem auger. Driven soil samples were collected by means of the Modified California Drive (MCD) sampler generally obtained at 2.5 to 5 -foot vertical increments. The MCD is a split -barrel sampler with a tapered cutting tip and lined with a series of 1 -inch-tall brass rings. The MCD sampler was driven using a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches to advance the sampler a total depth of 18 inches. The raw blow counts for each 6-inch increment of penetration were recorded on the boring logs. Bulk samples were also co llected and logged at select depths for laboratory testing. At the completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled, tamped, and capped with cold patch asphalt.

Some settlement of the backfill soils may occur over time.

Project No. 25057-01 Page 3 May 16, 2025
Four Cone Penetration Test (CPT) soundings were performed by Kehoe Testing and Engineering under subcontract with LGC Geotechnical. The CPT probes were pushed to depths of approximately 50 feet below grade at each location in general accordance with the current ASTM standards (ASTM D5778 and ASTM D3441). The CPT equipment consists of a cone penetrometer assembly mounted at the end of series of hollow sounding rods. The interior of the cone penetrometer is instrumented with strain gauges that allow the simultane ous measurement of cone tip and friction sleeve resistance during penetration. The cone penetration assembly is continuously pushed into the soil by a set of hydraulic rams at a standard rate of 0.8 -inch per second while the cone tip resistance and sleeve friction resistance are recorded at approximately every 1 inch and stored in digital form. A specially designed all -wheel drive 25 -ton truck provides the required reaction weight for pushing the cone assembly. The CPT soundings were backfilled with Portland cement as the probe was retracted.

The approximate locations of borings and CPTs are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2).

Boring and CPT logs are presented in Appendix B.

1.5 Laboratory Testing

Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples obtained from our subsurface evaluation. Laboratory testing included in-situ moisture and density tests, Atterberg Limits, expansion index, maximum density, direct shear, consolidation and corrosion (sulfate, chloride content, pH, and minimum resistivity).

The following is a summary of the recent laboratory test results.

• Dry density of the samples colle cted ranged from approximately 95 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) to 129 pcf, with an average of approximately 113 pcf. Field moisture contents ranged from approximately 8 percent to 27 percent, with an average of 16 percent. • One Expansion Index (EI) test was performed. Results were an EI value of 29, corresponding to “Low” expansion potential.
• One Atterberg Limit (liquid limit and plastic limit) test was performed. Results indicate a Plasticity Index value of 42. The plot is provided in Appendix C. • One direct shear test was performed. The plot is provided in Appendix C. • One consolidation test was performed. The stress vs. deformation plot is provided in Appendix C.
• Laboratory compaction of a near -surface bulk sample resulted in a maximum dry density of 130.5 pcf at an optimum moisture content of 10.0 percent. • Corrosion testing indicated soluble sulfate contents of approximately 0.01 percent, chloride content of 27 parts per million (ppm), pH value of 8.1, and minimum resistivity value of 2,114 ohm-cm.

A summary of the results is presented in Appendix C. The moisture and dry density test results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix B.

Site Location
FIGURE 1Site Location MapMay 2025 DATE ENG. / GEOL. PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME SCALEDJB / BPGNot to ScaleFocus Real Estate - Gardena25057-01

Project No. 25057-01 Page 5 May 16, 2025

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

2.1 Regional Geology

The subject site is generally located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, specifically within the coastal plain that forms the gently sloping flatlands to north of the uplifted Palos Verdes Peninsula. The coastal plain consists of Quaternary alluvium interpreted to be Holocene and middle to late Pleistocene in age (Saucedo et al, 2016).

No known faults cross the site, and the only complex regional geologic feature near the site is an inferred anticline, as shown on the regional geologic map to pass about six miles to the south (Saucedo et al, 2016). The feature corresponds to the inferred location of the Compton Blind Thrust Fault. Segments of the Newport Inglewood right lateral strike slip fault pass less than 2 miles northeast of the site.

2.2 Site Geology and Generalized Subsurface Conditions

Based on review of available geologic maps (Saucedo et al , 2016), the primary geologic unit underlying the site is Quaternary young alluvium. Throughout the site the native young alluvial deposits are overlain by undocumented artificial fill that was placed presumably during the grading of the existing development. The depth of this undocumented artificial fill was observed to range from approximately 4 to 10 feet below existing grade during our evaluation and corroborated from previous evaluations. Since no borings were performed within the footprints of the existing buildings, additional undocumented artificial fills may be found during construction at potentially deeper depths than indicated on Figure 2.

As encountered during our evaluation , undocumented fill soils generally consisted of medium stiff to hard clays to sandy clay. Native alluvium was generally observed to be predominately very stiff to hard sandy clays and medium dense to dense silty/clayey sands to the maximum explored depth of approximately 50 feet below existing grade (see Appendix B for Boring and CPT Logs). Because of their relatively unknown nature and invariability, all undocumented fills are to be temporarily removed until suitable native materials are encountered and replaced as engineered compacted fill.

It should be noted that borings are only representative of the location and time where/when they are performed, and varying subsurface conditions may exist outside of the performed location. In addition, subsurface conditions can change over time. The soil descriptions provided above should not be construed to mean that the subsurface profile is uniform, and that soil is homogeneous within the project area. For details on the stratigraphy at the exploration locations, refer to Appendix B.

2.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 24 feet below existing grade during the previous evaluation by others. Historic high groundwater is mapped at approximately 25 feet

Project No. 25057-01 Page 6 May 16, 2025
below current grade based on the seismic hazard zone report for the Inglewood quadrangle (CGS, 1998).

In general, groundwater levels fluctuate with the seasons and local zones of perched groundwater may be present within the near -surface deposits due to local seepage or during rainy seasons.

Groundwater conditions below the site may be variable, depending on numerous factors including seasonal rainfall, local irrigation and groundwater pumping, among others.

2.4 Faulting and Seismic Hazards

Prompted by damaging earthquakes in Northern and Southern California, State legislation and policies concerning the classification and land -use criteria associated with faults have been developed. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was implemented in 1972 to prevent the construction of urban developments across the trace of active faults. California Geologic Survey Special Publication 42 was created to provide guidance for following and implementing the law requirements. Special Publication 42 was most recently revised in 2018 (CGS, 2018). According to the State Geologist, an “active” fault is defined as one which has had surface displacement within Holocene time (roughly the last 11,700 years). Regulatory Earthquake Fault Zones have been delineated to encompass traces of known, Hol ocene-active faults to address hazards associated with surface fault rupture within California. Where developments for human occupation are proposed within these zones, the state requires detailed fault evaluations be p erformed so that engineering-geologists can identify the locations of active faults and recommend setbacks from locations of possible surface fault rupture.

The subject site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (i.e., Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Act Zone) and no active faults are known to cross the site (C GS, 2018).

The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the site.

Secondary effects of seismic shaking resulting from large earthquakes on the major faults in the Southern California region, which may affect the site, include ground lurching, shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction and dynamic settlement. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are a possibility throughout the Southern California region and are dependent on the distance between the site and causative fault and the onsite geology. Some of the major active nearby faults that could produce these seconda ry effects include the Newport-Inglewood, Compton blind thrust, Palos Verdes, among others (CGS, 2018). A discussion of these secondary effects is provided in the following sections.

2.4.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement

Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high -intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions coexist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density non - cohesive (granular) soils; and 3) high -intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose near-surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction

Project No. 25057-01 Page 7 May 16, 2025
potential. In general, cohesive soils are not considered susceptible to liquefaction, depending on their plasticity and moisture content ( Bray & Sancio, 2006). Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. Dynamic settlement of dry loose sands can also occur as the sand particles tend to settle and densify as a result of a seismic event.

Based on our review of the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction potential (CDMG, 1999), the site is not located within a liquefaction hazard zone. Historic high groundwater is mapped at a depth of approximately 2 5 feet below existing grade (CDMG, 1998). Based on our evaluation, site soils are generally not susceptible to liquefaction due to the fine -grained nature and dense coarse -grained on-site soils.

Therefore, liquefaction potential is considered low.

2.4.2 Lateral Spreading

Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures.

Due to the lack of nearby “free face” conditions and low liquefaction potential, the potential for lateral spreading is considered very low.

2.6 Seismic Design Criteria

The site seismic characteristics were evaluated per the guidelines set forth in Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and applicable portions of ASCE 7-16 which has been adopted by the CBC. Please note that the following seismic parameters are only applicable for code -based acceleration response spectra and are not applicable for where site -specific ground motion procedures are required by ASCE 7 -16. Representative s ite coordinates of latitude 33.907304 degrees north and longitude -118.310266 degrees west were utilized in our analyses. The maximum considered earthquake (MCE) spectral response accelerations (SMS and SM1) and adjusted design spectral response acceleration parameters (SDS and SD1) for Site Class D are provided in Table 1 on the following page. Since site soils are Site Class D, additional adjustments are required to code acceleration response spectrums as outlined below and provided in ASCE 7 -16. The structural designer should contact the geotechnical consultant if structural conditions (e.g., number of stories, seismically isolated structures, etc.) require site - specific ground motions.

A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 2,475-year average return period (MCE) indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 6. 7 at a distance of approximately 7.4 km from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion (USGS, 2014).

Project No. 25057-01 Page 8 May 16, 2025
Section 1803.5.12 of the 2022 CBC (per Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7) states that the maximum considered earthquake geometric mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) should be used for liquefaction potential. The PGAM for the site is equal to 0.872g (SEAOC, 2024). The design PGA is equal to 0.581g (2/3 of PGAM).

TABLE 1

Seismic Design Parameters

Selected Parameters from 2022 CBC,
Section 1613 - Earthquake Loads
Seismic
Design
Values
Notes/Exceptions
Distance to applicable faults classifies the site as a
“Near-Fault” site. Section 11.4.1 of ASCE 7
Site Class D* Chapter 20 of ASCE 7
Ss (Risk-Targeted Spectral Acceleration
for Short Periods) 1.831g From SEAOC, 2025
S1 (Risk-Targeted Spectral
Accelerations for 1-Second Periods) 0.647g From SEAOC, 2025 Fa (per Table 1613.2.3(1)) 1.000
For Simplified Design Procedure
of Section 12.14 of ASCE 7, Fa
shall be taken as 1.4 (Section

12.14.8.1)
Fv (per Table 1613.2.3(2)) 1.700
Value is only applicable per
requirements/exceptions per
Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7
SMS for Site Class D
[Note: SMS = FaSS] 1.831g -
SM1 for Site Class D
[Note: SM1 = FvS1] 1.100g
Value is only applicable per
requirements/exceptions per
Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7
SDS for Site Class D
[Note: SDS = (2/3)SMS] 1.221g -
SD1 for Site Class D
[Note: SD1 = (2/3)SM1] 0.733g
Value is only applicable per
requirements/exceptions per
Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7
CRS (Mapped Risk Coefficient at 0.2 sec) 0.904 ASCE 7 Chapter 22 CR1 (Mapped Risk Coefficient at 1 sec) 0.901 ASCE 7 Chapter 22 *Since site soils are Site Class D and S 1 is greater than or equal to 0.2, the seismic response coefficient Cs is determined by Eq. 12.8-2 for values of T ≤ 1.5Ts and taken equal to 1.5 times the value calculated in accordance with either Eq. 12.8-3 for TL ≥ T > Ts, or Eq. 12.8-4 for T > TL. Refer to ASCE 7-16.

P
roject No. 25057-01 Page 9 May 16, 2025

2.7 Expansion Potential
B
ased on observations during our evaluation and the laboratory testing results, site soils are anticipated to have a “Low ” to “Medium” expansion potential. Final expansion potential of site soils should be determined at the completion of grading. Results of expansion testing at finish grades will be utilized to confirm final foundation design.

P
roject No. 25057-01 Page 10 May 16, 2025

3.0 CONCLUSIONS
B
ased on the results of our subsurface geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations contained in the following sections are incorporated during site grading and development. A summary of our geotechnical conclusions are as follows:
• As encountered at the subject site, young alluvial deposits are overlain by undocumented artificial fill presumed to be placed during the construction of the existing site development. The depth of undocumented artificial fill was found at a depth ranging from approximately 4 to 10 feet below existing grade during our and previous evaluation s but may be found at a deeper depth during construction (especially underneath the current building footprints). As encountered at the subject site, the on-site soils generally consisted of medium stiff to hard clays and sandy clays and medium dense to dense silty/clayey sands to the maximum explored dept h of approximately 50 feet below existing grade .

T
he near-surface undocumented fill soils are not suitable for the planned improvements in their present condition. Refer to Section 4.1 for remedial earthwork recommendations. • Deep temporary removals of existing undocumented fill directly adjacent existing property lines result in localized conditions where remedial grading is not feasible . In these areas , CIDH piers or ground improvements such as aggregate piers may be constructed. This condition is found west and north of proposed Building A and north of Building D. As an alternative north of Building D, remedial grading may be performed in slot cuts. See Section 4.1.3 for further details regarding slot cutting .

Proper remedial grading is anticipated to be able to be performed approximately 20 feet off the property line. The CIDH piles should be constructed to a minimum of 20 feet off the property line .

The structural engineer will ultimately design how far off the property line the CIDH piers will need to be constructed.
• From a geotechnical perspective, onsite soils are anticipated to be suitable for use as general compacted fill, provided they are screened of construction debris and any oversized material (8 inches in greatest dimension).
• Groundwater was encountered in previous field evaluations at a depth of approximately 24 feet below existing grade. Historic high groundwater is mapped at approximately 25 feet below current grade based on the seismic hazard zone report for the Inglewood quadrangle (CGS, 1998). • The subject study area is not located within a mapped State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (i.e., Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Act Zone), and based upon our review of published geologic mapping, no known active or potentially active faults are known to exist within or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, the potential for ground rupture as a result of faulting is considered very low. • The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from one of the active regional faults. The subject site will likely experience strong seismic ground shaking during its design life. • Based on our review of the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction potential (C GS, 1999
& 2025), the site is not located within a liquefaction hazard zone. Based on our evaluation, site soils are generally not susceptible to liquefaction due to the fine -grained nature and dense coarse- grained on-site soils. Therefore, liquefaction potential is considered low. • Based on observations during our evaluation and the laboratory testing results, site soils are anticipated to have a “Low” to “Medium” expansion potential Mitigation measures are required for foundations and site improvements like concrete flatwork to minimize the impacts of expansive soils. Final design expansion potential must be determined at the completion of grading.

Project No. 25057-01 Page 11 May 16, 2025
• Pre-soaking of the subgrade for building slabs (and flatwork) will be required due to site expansive soils. The duration of this process varies greatly based on the chosen method and is also dependent on factors such as soil type and weather conditions. Ti me duration for presoaking from completion of rough grading to trenching of foundations should be accounted for in the construction schedule (typically 1 to 3 weeks).
• Excavations into the existing site soils should be feasible with heavy construction equipment in good working order. We anticipate that the sandy and silty earth materials generated from the excavations will be generally suitable for re-use as compacted fill, provided they are relatively free of rocks larger than 8 inches in dimension, construction debris, and significant organic material. • On-site soils are not suitable for backfill of site retaining walls. Import soils that will be used for retaining wall backfill should be tested and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to the backfill of site walls.

Project No. 25057-01 Page 12 May 16, 2025

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are to be considered preliminary and should be confirmed upon completion of grading and earthwork operations. In addition, they should be considered minimal from a geotechnical viewpoint, as there may be more restrictive requirements from the architect, structural engineer, building codes, governing agencies, or the owner.

It should be noted that the following geotechnical recommendations are intended to provide sufficient information to develop the site in general accordance with the 20 22 CBC requirements. With regard to the possible occurrence of potentially catastrophic geotechnical hazards such as fault rupture, earthquake-induced landslides, liquefaction, etc. the following geotechnical recommendations should provide adequate protection for the proposed development to the extent required to reduce seismic risk to an “acceptable level.” The “acceptable level” of risk is defined by the California Code of Regulations as “that level that provides reasonable protection of the public safety, though it does not necessarily ensure continued structural integrity and functionality of the project” [Section 3721(a)]. Therefore, repair and remedial work of the proposed improvement may be required after a significant seismic event. With regards to the potential for less significant geologic hazards to the proposed development, the recommendations contained herein are intended as a reasonable protection against the potential damaging effects of geotechnical phenomena such as expansive soils, fill settlement, groundwater seepage, etc. It should be understood, however, that our recommendations are intended to maintain the structural integrity of the proposed development and structures given the site geotechnical conditions but cannot preclude the potential for some cosmetic distress or nuisance issues to develop as a result of the site geotechnical conditions.

The geotechnical recommendations contained herein must be confirmed to be suitable or modified based on the actual as-graded conditions.

4.1 Site Earthwork

We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of required earthwork removals, precise grading and construction of the proposed new improvements, including the industrial structures, subsurface utilities, and vehicular pavement areas.

We recommend that earthwork onsite be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, future grading plan review report(s), the 20 22 CBC/City of Gardena requirements, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading included in Appendix D. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those included in Appendix D. The following recommendations may be revised within future grading plan review reports or based on the actual conditions encountered during site grading.

P
roject No. 25057-01 Page 13 May 16, 2025

4.1.1 Site Preparation
P
rior to grading of areas to receive structural fill or engineered improvements, the areas should be cleared of existing asphalt, surface obstructions, structures, foundations and demolition debris. Vegetation and debris should be removed and properly disposed of off- site. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions, which extend below proposed finish grades, should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. Any abandoned sewer or storm drain lines should be completely removed and replaced with properly placed compacted fill. Deeper demolition may be required in order to remove existing foundations. We recommend the trenches associated with demolition which extend below the remedial grading depth be backfilled and properly compacted prior to the demolition contractor leaving the site.

I
f cesspools or septic systems are encountered, they should be removed in their entirety.

The resulting excavation should be backfilled with properly compacted fill soils. As an alternative, cesspools can be backfilled with lean sand -cement slurry. Any enc ountered wells should be properly abandoned in accordance with regulatory requirements. At the conclusion of the clearing operations, a representative of LGC Geotechnical should observe and accept the site prior to further grading.

4.1.2 Removal and Recompaction Depths and Limits
I
n order to provide a relatively uniform bearing condition for the planned building structures, all undocumented fill soils are to be temporarily removed and recompacted as properly compacted fills. Existing undocumented artificial fill within the influence of the proposed structural improvements should be removed to suitable, competent native materials prior to placement of artificial fill to design grades. For preliminary planning purposes, the depth of required remedial grading may be estimated as indica ted below.

Updated recommendations may be required based on additional field work, changes to building layouts and actual structural loads.

I
n order to promote more uniform soil conditions, soils shall be temporarily removed and recompacted to a minimum depth ranging from approximately 5 to 10 feet below existing grade or 3 feet below the bottom of proposed foundations, whichever is deeper. Refer to the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2) for approximate recommended remedial grading depths.

Where space is available, the envelope for remedial grading should extend laterally a minimum distance equal to the depth of remedial grading below finish grade or 5 feet beyond the edges of the proposed building improvements, whichever is larger.

F
or minor site structures such as perimeter free-standing and screen walls, the owner may elect not to do complete remedial grading. If this option is elected the temporary removals should extend at least 3 feet beneath the existing grade or 2 feet beneath the base of foundations, whichever is deeper. Within perimeter hardscape and pavement areas, temporary removals should extend to a depth of at least 2 feet below the existing grade or 2 feet below design subgrade, whichever is deeper. In general, the envelope for remedial grading should extend laterally a minimum distance equal to the remedial grading depth Project No. 2505
7-01 Page 14 May 16, 2025
beyond the edges of the proposed improvements mentioned above.

Where remedial gradi
ng is not feasible due to the depth of existing undocumented fill along property lines, CIDH piers or ground improvement such as aggregate piers may be constructed. This condition is found west and north of proposed Building A and north of Building D. As an alternative north of Building D, remedial grading may be performed in slot cuts as there is an easement along this boundary and no structural improvements .

See Section 4.1.3 for further details regarding slot cutting . Proper remedial grading is anticipated to be able to be performed approximately 20 feet off the property line. The CIDH piles should be constructed to a minimum of 20 feet off the property line . The structural engineer will ultimately design how far off the property line the CIDH piers will need to be constructed.

Local conditi
ons may be encountered during excavation that could require additional over- excavation beyond the above-noted minimum in order to obtain an acceptable subgrade.

The actual depths and lateral extents of grading will be determined by the geotech nical consultant, based on subsurface conditions encountered during grading. Removal areas and areas to be over -excavated should be accurately staked in the field by the Project Surveyor.

4.1.3 Temporary Ex
cavations
Temporary excavati
ons should be performed in accordance with project plans, specifications, and applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Excavations should be laid back or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements before personnel or equipment are allowed to enter. Based on our field investigation, the majority of the near surface site soils are anticipated to be OSHA Type “B” soils (refer to the attached boring logs). Some s andy soils are present and should be considered susceptible to caving. Soil conditions should be regularly evaluated during construction to verify conditions are as anticipated. The contractor shall be responsible for providing the “competent person” required by OSHA standards to evaluate soil conditions.

Close coordination with the geotechnical consultant should be maintained to facilitate construction while providing safe excavations. Excavation safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor.

Where proposed
improvements will be adjacent to property lines, the potential for impacting existing offsite improvements may be reduced by performing “ABC” slot cuts while performing earthwork removal and recompaction. “ABC” slot cuts are defined as excavations perpendicular to sen sitive property boundaries that are divided into multiple “slots” of equal width. If slots are labeled A, B, C, A, B, C, etc., then all “A” slots can be excavated at the same time but must be backfilled before all “B slots can be excavated, etc. Any given slot should be backfilled immediately with properly compacted fill to finish grade prior to excavation of the adjacent two slots. To reduce the risk of slot cut failure, north of Building D, slot cuts may be constructed up to 6 feet in height and 20 feet wide.

These widths are preliminary and should be continuously evaluated during construction.

If necessary, the maximum slot cut widths may be adjusted in the field based on the observed conditions during construction . Please note some minor amounts of sands P
roject No. 25057-01 Page 15 May 16, 2025
susceptible to caving are present at the site. Protection of the existing offsite improvements during grading is the responsibility of the contractor.

Vehicular traffic, stockpiles, and equipment storage should be set back from the perimeter of excavations a minimum distance equivalent to a 1:1 projection from the bottom of the excavation or 5 feet, whichever is greater. Once an excavation has been initiated, it should be backfilled as soon as practical. Prolonged exposure of temporary excavations may result in some localized instability. Excavations should be planned so that they are not initiated without sufficient time to shore/fill them prior to weeke nds, holidays, or forecasted rain.

I
t should be noted that any excavation that extends below a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection of an existing foundation will remove existing support of the structure foundation. If requested, temporary shoring parameters can be provided. 4 .1.4 Removal Bottoms and Subgrade Preparation
In general, areas to receive compacted fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to a near-optimum moisture condition (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content), and re-compacted per project requirements.

Removal bottoms and areas to receive fill should be observed and accepted by the geotechnical consultant prior to subsequent fill placement.

P
umping subgrade conditions may be encountered throughout the site due to potentially very moist soils at removal bottom depth. Should pumping subgrade be encountered, stabilization of the removal bottom can be achieved with 6 to 12 inches of 1 to 4- inch nominal diameter crushed aggregate or an approved alternative stabilization method.

However, the actual thickness of stabilization aggregate will have to be determined during earthwork based on field conditions and equipment used. S tabilization aggregate base should be placed in layers and compacted. It should be anticipated that the first lift of crushed aggregate will be worked into the pumping subgrade. S ubsequent lifts will help bridge the pumping conditions. Thickness of required aggregate base stabilization may be reduced by placing a layer of biaxial geogrid reinforcement (Tensar TX140 or acceptable equivalent) directly on the subgrade prior to aggregate base placement. Contractor may have to minimize construction traffic on the removal bottom to reduce disturbance. Soft and yielding subgrade should be evaluated on a case- by-case basis during earthwork operations.

R
emoval bottoms and all areas to receive fill should be observed and accepted by the geotechnical consultant prior to subsequent fill placement. Soil subgrade for planned footings and improvements (e.g., slabs, etc.) should be firm and competent.

P
roject No. 25057-01 Page 16 May 16, 2025

4.1.5 Material for Fill
F
rom a geotechnical perspective, the onsite soils are generally considered suitable for use as general compacted fill, provided they are screened of organic materials, construction debris and any oversized material (8 inches in greatest dimension).

F
rom a geotechnical viewpoint, import soils for general fill (i.e., non-retaining wall backfill) should consist of clean, granular soils of Low expansion potential (expansion index of 50 or less based on ASTM D4829). Import for retaining wall backfill should meet the criteria outlined in the paragraph below. Source samples should be provided to the geotechnical consultant for laboratory testing a minimum of four working days prior to any planned importation.

Retaining wall backfill should consist of sandy soils with a maximum of 35 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve) per American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D1140 (or ASTM D6913/D422) and a Very Low expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829). Soils should also be screened of organic materials, construction debris, and any material greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. On -site soils are not suitable for backfill of site retaining walls. Import soils that will be used for retaining wall backfill should be te sted and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to the backfill of site walls.

A
ggregate base (crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base) should conform to the requirements of Section 200 -2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”) for untreated base materials (except processed miscellaneous base), the City of Gardena or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base.

T
he placement of demolition materials in compacted fill is acceptable from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the demolition material is broken up into pieces not larger than approximately 2 to 4 inches in maximum dimension and well blended into fill soils with essentially no resulting voids. Demolition material placed in fills must be free of construction debris (wood, organics, etc.) and reinforcing steel. If asphalt concrete fragments will be incorporated into the demolition materials, approval from an environmental viewpoint may be required and is not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. From our previous experience, we recommend that asphalt concrete fragments be limited to fill areas within planned street areas (i.e., not within building pad areas). 4 .1.6 Placement and Compaction of Fills
M
aterial to be placed as fill should be brought to near -optimum moisture content (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content) and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Moisture conditioning of site soils will be required in order to achieve adequate compaction. Drying and/or mixing the very moist soils may be required prior to reusing the materials in compacted fills. Additionally, soils are present that will require additional moisture in order to achieve the recommended compaction criteria.

P
roject No. 25057-01 Page 17 May 16, 2025
The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. Each lift should be thoroughly compacted and accepted prior to subsequent lifts. Generally, placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances and with observation and testing by LGC Geotechnical. Oversized material as previously defined should be removed from site fills, if encountered.

D
uring backfill of excavations, the fill should be properly benched into firm and competent soils of temporary backcut slopes as it is placed in lifts.

A
ggregate base material should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction at or slightly above optimum moisture content per ASTM D1557. Subgrade below aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction, or in accordance with the City of Gardena requirements, per ASTM D1557 at near-optimum moisture content (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content), unless otherwise noted in the pavement recommendations section (see Sections 4.5 and 4.6).

I
f gap -graded ¾-inch rock is used for backfill (around storm drain storage chambers, retaining wall backfill, etc.) it will require compaction. Rock shall be placed in thin lifts (typically not exceeding 6 inches) and mechanically compacted with observatio n by geotechnical consultant. Backfill rock shall meet the requirements of ASTM D2321. Gap- graded rock is required to be entirely wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved alternative) to prevent the migration of fines into the rock backfill. 4 .1.7 Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill and Compaction B
edding material used within the pipe zone should conform to the requirements of the current Greenbook and the pipe manufacturer. Where applicable, sand having a sand equivalent (SE) of 20 or greater (per Caltrans Test Method [CTM] 217) may be used to bed and shade the pipes within the bedding zone. Sand backfill should be densified by jetting or flooding and then tamped to ensure adequate compaction. Sand grains should be from a natural source with rounded shape. Manufactured sand from crushed rock or recycled material is not suitable for jetting/flooding as the grains are typically angular in shape and do not densify well enough with these methods. Manufactured sand can be used as shading material when mechanical compaction efforts are used. The onsite soils may generally be considered suitable as trench backfill (zone defined as 12 inches above the pipe to subgrade), provided the soils are screened of rocks greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension, construction debris and organic material. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (as outlined above in Section “Material for Fill”) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). If gap-graded rock is used for trench backfill, refer to the above Section).

R
etaining wall backfill should consist of sandy soils as outlined in preceding Section 4.1.5.

The limits of select sandy backfill should extend at minimum ½ the height of the retaining wall or the width of the heel (if applicable), whichever is greater, refer to Figure 3 (rear of P
roject No. 25057-01 Page 18 May 16, 2025
text). Retaining wall backfill soils should be compacted in relatively uniform thin lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Jetting or flooding of retaining wall backfill materials should not be permitted.

I
n backfill areas where mechanical compaction of soil backfill is impractical due to space constraints, typically sand-cement slurry may be substituted for compacted backfill. The slurry should contain about one sack of cement per cubic yard. When set, such a mix typically has the consistency of compacted soil. Sand cement slurry placed near the surface within landscape areas should be evaluated for potential impacts on planned improvements.

A r
epresentative from LGC Geotechnical should observe, probe, and test the backfill to verify compliance with the project recommendations.
4 .1.8 Shrinkage and Subsidence
Volumetric changes in earth quantities will occur when excavated onsite earth materials are replaced as properly compacted fill. The following is an estimate of shrinkage factors for the various soil types found onsite. These estimates are based on in-place densities of the various materials and on the estimated average degree of relative compaction that will be achieved during grading.

T
ABLE 2
Estimated Shrinkage
Soil Type Allowance Estimated
Range
Undocumented Artificial Fill/Alluvium Shrinkage 0 to 10 % S
ubsidence due to earthwork equipment is expected to be on the order of 0.1 feet. It should be stressed that these values are only estimates and that actual shrinkage factors are extremely difficult to predict. These values are estimates only and exclude losses due to removal of vegetation or debris. The effective change in volume of onsite soils will depend primarily on the type of compaction equipment, method of compaction used onsite by the contractor, and accuracy of the topographic survey. The above shrinkage estimates are intended as an aid for others in determining preliminary earthwork quantities. However, these estimates should be used with some caution since they are not absolute values. 4 .2 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations
W
here complete remedial grading is performed, the proposed structures may be supported on spread or continuous footings and conventional slabs, provided earthwork is performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. Since the site soils are anticipated P
roject No. 25057-01 Page 19 May 16, 2025
to be “Low” to “Medium” expansion potential (EI of 90 or less per ASTM D4829), special design considerations from a geotechnical perspective are anticipated , to minimize the impacts of expansive soils. T his must be verified based on as -graded conditions. F ootings should be supported on properly compacted fill. Please note that the following foundation recommendations are preliminary and must be confirmed by LGC Geotechnical at the completion of project plans (i.e., foundation, grading and site layout plans) as well as completion of earthwork/grading.

P
reliminary foundation recommendations are provided in the following sections. The foundation design shall be performed by the structural engineer based on the following geotechnical parameters and minimum values provided.

4.2 .1 Slab Design and Construction
F
rom a geotechnical perspective, minimum slab thickness provided below is recommended for new slabs. Conventional s labs are to be supported on compacted fill soils properly prepared in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report.

Structural slabs should be constructed where CIDH piles will be installed. Additional slab- on-grade recommendations can be provided for alternative building types upon request.

Based on the geotechnical site conditions, the floor slab may be designed using the following parameters:
• Minimum concrete slab thickness of 5 inches.
• Minimum slab reinforcement consisting of No. 4 bars placed at 18 inches center to center, both ways, to reduce the impact of expansive soils. • The structural engineer should structurally connect the slab to the perimeter foundation/grade beam.
• The actual slab reinforcement, connections and slab thickness should be determined by the structural engineer based on the imposed loading an d g
eotechnical conditions of the site.

Th
e foundation designer may use a modulus of vertical subgrade reaction (k) of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pounds per square inch per inch of deflection). This value is for a 1-foot by 1-foot square loaded area and should be adjusted by the structural designer for the area of the proposed footing using the following formula:
k
= 100 x [(B+1)/2B]2
k = modulus of vertical subgrade reaction, pounds per cubic inch (pci) B = foundation width (feet)
I
t is recommended that moisture content of the subgrade soils below slabs be maintained up to the time of concrete placement. The recommended moisture content of the slab subgrade soils should be approximately 120% percent of optimum moisture content to a depth of approximately 18 inches. Pre-soaking of the subgrade for building slabs will be required due to site expansive soils. The duration of this process varies greatly based on the chosen method and is also dependent on factors such as soil type and wea ther

Project No. 25057-01 Page 20 May 16, 2025
conditions. Time duration for presoaking from completion of rough grading to trenching of foundations should be accounted for in the construction schedule (typically 1 to 3 weeks). The subgrade moisture condition of the building pad soils should be maintained at the recommended moisture content up to the time of concrete placement. This moisture content should be maintained around the immediate perimeter of the slab during construction and up to occupancy of the building structures. Additional recommendations regarding the control of surface water and landscaping adjacent to the building are provided in Section 4.9.

The following recommendations are for informational purposes only, as they are unrelated to the geotechnical performance of the foundation. The following recommendations may be superseded by the foundation engineer and/or owner. Some post-construction moisture migration should be expected below the foundation. In general, interior floor slabs with moisture sensitive floor coverings should be underlain by a minimum 10 mil thick polyolefin material vapor retarder, which has a water vapor transmission rate (pe rmeance) of less than 0. 03 perms. The need for sand and/or the sand thickness (above and/or below the vapor retarder) should be specified by the structural engineer, architect or concrete contactor. The selection and thickness of sand is not a geotechnical engineering issue and is therefore outside our purview.

4.2.2 Foundation Design Parameters

For the proposed industrial warehouse structures, minimum continuous wall and column footing widths are to be 12 inches and 24 inches, respectively, m inimum foundation embedment is to extend a minimum of 18 inches below the adjacent exterior grade, and interior column footings should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches beneath the adjacent subgrade. Footing reinforcement should be designed by the structural engineer based on the structural loading conditions.

The following allowable bearing pressures for both continuous and column spread footings presented in Table 3 are recommended for corresponding footing widths and embedments.

TABLE 3

Allowable Soil Bearing Pressures

Allowable Static
Bearing Pressure
(psf)
Minimum Footing
Width
(feet)
Minimum Footing
Embedment*
(feet)
3,000 5 2.5
2,500 3 2
2,000 2 1.5
1,500 1 1
* Refers to minimum depth measured below lowest adjacent grade.

Project No. 25057-01 Page 21 May 16, 2025
Perimeter building foundations should be designed to be continuous across openings such as exterior doorways and the owner may elect to connect flatwork to the building.

These allowable bearing values indicated above (exclusive of the weight of the footings) are for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by ⅓ for short duration loading (i.e., wind or seismic loads). The allowable bearing pr essures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions only.

In utilizing the above-mentioned allowable bearing capacity and provided our earthwork recommendations are implemented, foundation settlement due to structural loads is anticipated to be on the order of 1-inch or less. Differential static settlement may be taken as half of the static settlement (i.e., ½-inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet).

The foundation is to be excavated into competent compacted artificial fill placed during grading operations. It is recommended that the foundation subgrade soils be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to steel and/or concrete placement.

4.2.3 Lateral Load Resistance

Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. For concrete/soil frictional resistance, an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.25 may be assumed with dead-load forces. An allowable passive lateral earth pressure of 200 psf per foot of depth (or pcf) to a maximum of 2,000 psf may be used for the sides of footings poured against properly compacted fill. Allowable passive pressure may be increased to 270 pcf (maximum of 2,700 psf) for short duration seismic loading.

This passive pressure is applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions. Frictional resistance and passive pressure may be used in combination without reduction. We recommend that the upper foot of passive resistance be neglected if finished grade will not be covered with concrete o r asphalt. The provided allowable passive pressures are based on a factor of safety of 1.5 and 1.1 for static and seismic loading conditions, respectively.

4.2.4 Deep Foundation Recommendations for Industrial Building

In areas where remedial grading is not feasible along the property line due to the depth of existing undocumented fill, CIDH piers may be constructed such that the building loads are transmitted below the depth of the undocumented fill . This condition is found west and north of proposed Building A and north of Building D. As an alternative north of Building D, remedial grading may be performed in slot cuts. See Section 4.1.3 for further details regarding slot cutting. Proper remedial grading is anticipated to be able to be performed approximately 20 feet off the property line. The CIDH piles should be constructed to a minimum of 20 feet off the property line . The structural engineer will ultimately design how far off the property line the CIDH piers will need to be constructed.

Allowable passive pressures should be neglected within the existing undocumented fill soils (See Figure 2). The depth of undocumented fill and remedial grading depths are the

Project No. 25057-01 Page 22 May 16, 2025
same. For Cast -In-Drill-Hole (CIDH) piers spaced a minimum of three diameters on - center, an allowable passive pressure of 400 pcf may be used for passive resistance in the native soils below the undocumented fill . This passive pressure is based on an arching factor of 2 (e.g., 200 pcf x 2) and should be limited to a maximum of 1 0 times the value provided above (e.g., 400 pcf to a maximum of 4, 000 psf). Passive pressure should be reduced below groundwater (greater than approximately 24 feet below grade) . Below groundwater, an allowable passive pressure 200 pcf may be used. This passive pressure is based on an arching factor of 2 (e.g., 100 pcf x 2) and should be limited to a maximum of 10 times the value provided above (e.g., 2 00 pcf to a maximum of 2 ,000 psf). These passive pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions. This value may be increased by one -third for short -duration loading. The increase of passive pressure is based on a reduced factor of safety (seismic factor of safety equal to three-fourths of the static factor of safety) for short duration loading. To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be made to assure firm contact between the CIDH piers and the undisturbed soils. The provided allowable passive pressure is based on a factor of safety of 1.5. The foundation designer should incorporate appropriate factors of safety in design.

Skin friction should be neglected within the existing undocumented fill soils (See Figure 2). The depth of undocumented fill and remedial grading depths are the same. To resist dead and live loads, the allowable axial capacity may be calculated using a skin friction of 400 psf in the native soils below the undocumented fill. Allowable compressive capacity is based on a safety factor of 2.0. Piers should be spaced at a minimum on-center spacing of three times the pier diameter. The pier capacities are based on soil resistance only and may be further limited by the pier -head connection details and struc tural material strength. The effects of end bearing should be neglected for drilled piers. The piers should connect to a grade beam system supporting the industrial building. The actual pier depth and diameter should be determined by the structural engineer.

If feasible, for constructability purposes we would recommend that the CIDH piers be designed to not be constructed at a depth below groundwater.

4.2.5 Aggregate Piers

As an alternative to CIDH piers , ground improvement such as Rammed Aggregate Piers (RAPs) may be utilized below the proposed building footprints to improve the existing undocumented fill soils. RAPs consist of drilled holes filled with aggregate that are mechanically compacted as it is placed. Because such systems are proprietary, the work is performed on a design-build basis by a specialty contractor. Every aspect of the design and construction of the ground improvement system is the responsibility of the specialty contractor/designer including estimated static settlements of foundations and bearing on the RAPs. We expect the RAPs will need to be installed to depths approximately 10 to 15 feet below existing grade; however, the actual depths and spacing will be determined by the specialty contractor/designer.

It is standard practice for the geotechnical consultant to observe the construction of the ground improvement system (e.g., RAPs, etc.) to confirm that they have been installed in

Project No. 25057-01 Page 23 May 16, 2025
accordance with the approved foundation plan. A representative of LGC Geotechnical can perform these services including confirmation of the diameter and depth of the drilled hole, specified lift thickness and compaction effort. The locations of the RAPs sh ould be confirmed by the project surveyor.

4.2.6 Borehole Shaft Construction

Boreholes should be plumb and free of loose or softened material. Extreme care in drilling, placement of reinforcement steel and the pouring of concrete will be essential to avoid excessive disturbance of borehole walls. The reinforcement cage should be installed and the concrete pumped immediately after drilling is completed. If applicable, concrete placement by pumping or tremie tube to the bottom of CIDH excavations is recommended.

No pier boreholes should be left open overnight. We recommend that CIDH pier boreholes not be drilled immediately adjacent to another borehole until the concrete in the other pier has attained its initial set. If aggregate piers are constructed, we recommend that borings are not be drilled immediately adjacent to another pier until the RAP has been constructed.

A representative from LGC Geotechnical should be onsite during the drilling of pier boreholes to verify the assumptions made during the design stages.

Sandy soils and groundwater are also locally present at the site and these materials are generally susceptible to caving. Some caving of drilled holes should be anticipated. The contractor should anticipate that any borehole left open for any extended period of time will likely experience additional caving and groundwater t ypically from local irrigation.

Refer to the boring logs provided in Appendix B. If caving occurs during construction of pier boreholes a temporary casing may be required.

4.3 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls

The following preliminary lateral earth pressures may be used for s ite retaining walls. Lateral earth pressures are provided as equivalent fluid unit weights, in pound per square foot (psf) per foot of depth or pcf. These values do not contain an appreciable factor of safety, so the retaining wall designer should apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design.

The following lateral earth pressures are presented on Table 4 for approved imported sandy soils with a maximum of 35 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve per ASTM D -421/422) and Very Low expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829). Retaining wall backfill should also be limited to fill material not exceeding 3 inches in greatest dimension. The wall designer should clearly indicate on the retaining wall plans the required sandy soil backfill criteria. On-site soils are not suitable for backfill of site retaining walls. Import soils that will be used for retaining wall backfill should be tested and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to the backfill of site walls.

Project No. 25057-01 Page 24 May 16, 2025
TABLE 4

Lateral Earth Pressures – Import Sandy Backfill

Conditions
Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight
(pcf)
Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight
(pcf)
Level Backfill 2:1 Sloped Backfill
Imported Sandy Soils Imported Sandy Soils
Active 35 55
At-Rest 55 70

If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for “active” pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the earth pressure will be higher.

The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free -draining conditions. Retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately waterproofed (Refer to Figure 3).

Please note that waterproofing and outlet systems are not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. If condi tions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical consultant.

Surcharge loading effects from any adjacent structures should be evaluated by the retaining wall designer. In general, structural loads within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) upward projection from the bottom of the proposed retaining wall footing will surcharge the proposed retaining structure.

In addition to the recommended earth pressure, retaining walls adjacent to streets should be designed to resist vehicular traffic if applicable. Uniform surcharges may be estimated using the applicable coefficient of lateral earth pressure using a rectangular distribution. A factor of 0.35 and

0.5 may be used for the active and at-rest conditions, respectively. The vertical traffic surcharge may be determined by the structural designer. The retaining wall designer should contact the geotechnical engineer for any required geotechnical input in estimating any applicable surcharge loads.

If a retaining wall greater than 6 feet in height is proposed, t he retaining wall designer should contact the geotechnical engineer for specific seismic lateral earth pressure increments based on the configuration of the planned retaining wall structures).

Soil bearing and lateral resistance (friction coefficient and passive resistance) are provided in Section 4. 2. Earthwork considerations (temporary backcuts, backfill, compaction, etc.) for retaining walls are provided in Section 4.1 (Site Earthwork) and the subsequent earthwork related sub-sections.

4.4 Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal

Although not corrosion engineers (LGC Geotechnical is not a corrosion consultant), several governing agencies in Southern California require the geotechnical consultant to determine the corrosion potential of soils to buried concrete and metal facilities. We therefore present the

Project No. 25057-01 Page 25 May 16, 2025
results of our testing with regard to corrosion for the use of the client and other consultants, as they determine necessary.

Corrosion testing of near -surface bulk samples indicated soluble sulfate contents of approximately 0.01 percent, chloride content of approximately 27 parts per million (ppm), pH value of approximately 8.1, and minimum resistivity value of 2,144 ohm-cm. Based on Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines (2021), soils are considered corrosive if the pH is 5.5 or less, or the chloride concentration is 500 ppm or greater, or the sulfate concentration is 1,500 ppm (0.15 percent) or greater. Based on the test results, soils are not considered corrosive using Caltrans criteria. Note that based on minimum resistivity the soils are considered moderately corrosive to metallic improvements. If improvements that may be susceptible to corrosion are proposed, it is recommended that further evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed

Based on laboratory sulfate test results, the near surface soils are designated to a class “S0” per ACI 318, Table 19.3.1.1 with respect to sulfates. Concrete in direct contact with the onsite soils can be designed according to ACI 318, Table 19.3.2.1 using the “S0” sulfate classification.

Laboratory testing may need to be performed at the completion of grading by the project corrosion engineer to further evaluate the as -graded soil corrosivity characteristics including sulfate, chloride, pH, minimum resistivity and provide design level recommendations .

Accordingly, revision of the corrosion potential may be needed, should future test results differ substantially from the conditions reported herein. The client and/or other members of the development team should consider this during the design and planning phase of the project and formulate an appropriate course of action.

4.5 Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections

For the purposes of these preliminary recommendations, we have assumed an R-value of 10 and calculated pavement sections for Traffic Indices of 5.0 (or less), 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0. R-value testing of the drive aisles and parking subgrade will need to be performed to confirm our preliminary testing results/assumptions once the underground utilities have been backfilled, drive aisles and parking areas have been graded to finish subgrade elevations, and the final Traffic Index is determined by the Civil Engineer or City Engineer. Determination of the Traffic Index is not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. Final asphalt concrete pavement sections should be confirmed by the project civil engineer based upon the projected design Traffic Index. If requested, LGC Geotechnical will provide sections for alternate TI values. Should the City of Gardena have more stringent requirements, updated pavement recommendation can be provided.

Project No. 25057-01 Page 26 May 16, 2025
TABLE 5

Preliminary Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections

Assumed Traffic Index 5.0 (or less) 6.0 7.0 8.0
R -Value Subgrade 10 10 10 10
AC Thickness 4.0 inches 4.5 inches 5.5 inches 6.5 inches Aggregate Base
Thickness

7.0 inches 10.0 inches 11.5 inches 14.0 inches

Increasing the thickness of asphalt or adding additional base material will reduce the likelihood of the pavement experiencing distress during its service life. The above recommendations are based on the assumption that proper maintenance and irrigation of the areas adjacent to the roadway will occur through the design life of the pavement. Failure to maintain a proper maintenance and/or irrigation program may jeopardize the integrity of the pavement.

Additionally, earth moving equipment should not be allowed to drive on paved surfaces. The weights of these vehicles far excee d the limits of the pavement and will cause distress, likely requiring the pavement sections to be removed and replaced.

Aggregate base material (crushed aggregate base and crushed miscellaneous base) should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction at or slightly above optimum moisture content per ASTM D1557. Subgrade below aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction, or the City of Gardena specifications, at or slightly above optimum moisture content per ASTM D1557. Earthwork recommendations are provided in Section 4.1 “Site Earthwork” and the related sub-sections of this report.

Please note that as the geotechnical consultant of record we will only be performing temperature checks of the asphalt and testing the wet density for calculating relative compaction. We recommend obtaining the services of others if material testing and ev aluation of the quality of workmanship by the contractor is desired or required by the regulatory agency.

4.6 Preliminary Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Sections

The provided preliminary Portland Cement concrete section is based on the guidelines of the American Concrete Institute (ACI 330R-08). For the final design section, we recommend a traffic study be performed as LGC Geotechnical does not perform traffic engineering. Traffic study should include the design vehicle (number of axles and load per axle) and estimated number of daily repetitions/trips. LGC Geotechnical does not perform traffic engineering and determination of traffic loading is not the purview of t he geotechnical consultant. The concrete should have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi and a minimum flexural strength of 550 psi at the time the pavement is subjected to traffic. Steel reinforcement is not required (ACI, 2013). This pavement section assumes that edge restraints like a curb and gutter will be provided. To reduce the potential (but not eliminate) for cracking, paving should provide control joints at regular intervals not exceeding the recommendations provided in Table 6. Decreasing the spacing of these joints will further reduce, but not eliminate the potential for unsightly cracking.

Project No. 25057-01 Page 27 May 16, 2025
The primary input for anticipated loadings over the lifetime of the concrete pavement is based on the Average Daily Truck Traffic (ADTT). Truck loading is defined one 16-kip axle and two 32-kip tandem axles. Other factor to be considered are potentially the use of industrial vehicles (e.g., lift trucks, mobile cranes, gantry cranes, reach stackers, etc.), static loads from containers, and temporary structures stored on the pavement. If semi -trailers are to be disconnected from the tractors from dolly jacks the design should consider concentrated loads imposed on the concrete pavement. These loads typically exceed the axle loads of the semi -trailer combination and are applied to smaller contact areas, especially if applied near joint locations. If these irregular loadings are confined to specific areas of the site, the pavement section required thickness can be economized. These and other factors (e.g., traffic patterns, irregular loading, doweled vs un - doweled joints, etc.) outlined in ACI, 2017 should be addressed for the final design. Preliminary PCC pavement section recommendations are provided in Table 6 below.

TABLE 6

Preliminary Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Section Options

Assumed Daily
Truck Traffic
(ADTT)
Concrete
Thickness*
(inch)
Aggregate Base
Thickness
(inch)
Maximum Joint
Spacing
Thickness
(inch)
100 7.0 5.0 12
300 7.5 5.0 14
*Minimum concrete compressive strength and Modulus of Rupture as indicated above.

The thicknesses shown are for minimum thicknesses. Increasing the thickness of any or all of the above layers will reduce the likelihood of the pavement experiencing distress during its service life. The above recommendations are based on the assumption th at proper maintenance and irrigation of the areas adjacent to the roadway will occur through the design life of the pavement.

Failure to maintain a proper maintenance and/or irrigation program may jeopardize the integrity of the pavement.

Earthwork recommendations regarding aggregate base and subgrade are provided in the previous section “Site Earthwork” and the related sub-sections of this report.

4.7 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork

Nonstructural concrete (such as flatwork, sidewalks, etc.) has a potential for cracking due to changes in soil volume related to soil-moisture fluctuations. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking and lifting, concrete should be designed in accordan ce with the minimum guidelines outlined below. These guidelines will reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along construction joints but will not eliminate all cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding additional reinforcement will further reduce cosmetic distress.

Nonstructural and non- vehicular concrete flatwork placed on compacted subgrade may be a minimum 4-inches in thickness with crack control joints spaced 6 feet apart for flatwork slabs

Project No. 25057-01 Page 28 May 16, 2025
and 5 feet apart for flatwork sidewalks. Crack control joints should be sawcut or deep open tool joint to a minimum of 1/3 the concrete thickness. Reinforcement should consist of No. 3 bars spaced at 24 inches on center, both ways. The compacted subgrade below the nonstructural and non-vehicular concrete flatwork should be presoaked to a depth of 12 inches.

To reduce the potential for nonstructural concrete flatwork to separate from entryways and doorways, the owner may elect to install dowels to tie these two elements together.

4.8 Subsurface Water Infiltration

It should be noted that intentionally infiltrating storm water conflicts with the geotechnical engineering objective of directing surface water away from structures and improvements. The geotechnical stability and integrity of a site is reliant upon appropriately handling surface water.

In general, the vast majority of geotechnical distress issues are directly related to improper drainage. Distress in the form of movement of foundations and other improvements could occur as a result of soil saturation and loss of soil support of foundatio ns and pavements, settlement, collapse, internal soil erosion, and/or expansion. Additionally, off -site properties and improvements may be subjected to seepage, springs, instability, movements of foundations or other impacts as a result of water infiltrati on and migration. Infiltrated water may enter underground utility pipe zones or other highly permeable layers and migrate laterally along these layers, potentially impacting other improvements located far away from the point of infiltration.

Any proposed i nfiltration system should not be located near slopes or settlement sensitive existing/proposed improvements in order to reduce the potential for slope failures and geotechnical distress issues related to infiltration.

If water must be infiltrated due to regulatory requirements, we recommend the absolute minimum amount of water be infiltrated and that the infiltration areas not be located near settlement - sensitive existing/proposed improvements, basement/retaining walls, or any slopes. As with all systems that are designed to concentrate surface flow and direct the water into the subsurface soils, some minor settlement, nuisance type localized saturation and/or other water related issues should be expected. Due to variability in geologic and hydraulic conductivity characteristics, these effects may be experienced at the onsite location and/or potentially at other locations beyond the physical limits of the subject site. Infiltrated water may enter underground utility pipe zones or flow along heterogeneous soil layers or geologic structure and migrate laterally impacting other improvements which may be located far away or at an elevation much lower than the infiltration source. Recommendations for subsurface water infiltration are provided below.

Based on the very low infiltration rates provided by others , low permeability fine -grained materials, and relatively shallow groundwater table, intentional infiltration of stormwater from a geotechnical perspective is not feasible.

4.9 Surface Drainage and Landscaping

Due to the presence of expansive soils, special provisions should be considered to limit the potential for surface water to penetrate the soils adjacent to the proposed structures and improvements.

Project No. 25057-01 Page 29 May 16, 2025

4.9.1 General

Surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during precise grading, building construction, future landscaping, and throughout the design life of the industrial structure. Positive drainage should be provided to direct surface water away f rom improvements and towards either the street or other suitable drainage devices. Ponding of water, adjacent to any structural improvement foundation, must be avoided. The performance of structural foundations is dependent upon maintaining adequate surfac e drainage away from them, thereby reducing excessive moisture fluctuations. From a geotechnical perspective, area drains, drainage swales, and finished grade soils should be aligned so as to transport surface water to a minimum distance of 5 feet away fro m the proposed foundations. Roof gutters and downspout systems should be discharged directly to a pipe or to a paved surface with a positive gradient away from the building and should not outlet directly into unpaved landscape areas.

Decorative gravel tends to act as a reservoir trapping surface water; therefore, we do not recommend it be used adjacent to buildings unless the system is designed with a subsurface drainage system and is properly lined.

4.9.2 Precise Grading

From a geotechnical perspective, we recommend that compacted finished grade soils adjacent to the proposed industrial structures be sloped away from the proposed structures and towards an approved drainage device or unobstructed swale. Drainage swales, wherever feasible, should not be constructed within 5 feet of buildings. Where lot and building geometry necessitates that the drainage swales be routed closer than 5 feet to structural foundations, we recommend the use of area drains together with drainage swales. Drainage swales used in conjunction with area drains should be designed by the project civil engineer so that a properly constructed and maintained system will prevent ponding within 5 feet of the foundation. Code compliance of grades is not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. We do not recommend that area drains be connected to basement/retaining subdrains.

Planters with open bottoms adjacent to buildings should be avoided. Planters should not be designed adjacent to buildings unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins, liners, and/or area drains, are made. Overwatering must be avoided.

4.9.3 Landscaping

Planters adjacent to a building or structure should be avoided wherever possible or be properly designed (e.g., lined with a membrane and properly outlet), to reduce the penetration of water into the adjacent footing subgrades and thereby reduce moisture related damage to the foundation. Planting areas at grade should be provided with appropriate positive drainage. Wherever possible, exposed soil areas should be above adjacent paved grades to facilitate drainage. Planters should not be depressed below adjacent paved grades unless provisions for drainage, such as multiple depressed area

Project No. 25057-01 Page 30 May 16, 2025
drains, are constructed. Adequate drainage gradients, devices, and curbing should be provided to prevent runoff from adjacent pavement or walks into the planting areas.

Irrigation methods should promote uniformity of moisture in planters and beneath adjacent concrete flatwork. Overwatering and underwatering of landscape areas must be avoided. Irrigation levels should be kept to the absolute minimum level necessary to maintain healthy plant life.

Area drain inlets should be maintained and kept clear of debris in order to properly function. The building owner should also be made aware that excessive irrigation of adjacent properties can cause seepage and moisture conditions on adjacent lots.

The impact of heavy irrigation or inadequate runoff gradients can create perched water conditions. This may result in seepage or shallow groundwater conditions where previously none existed. Maintaining adequate surface drainage and controlled irrigation will significantly reduce the potential for nuisance -type moisture problems. To reduce differential earth movements such as heaving and shrinkage due to the change in moisture content of foundation soils, which may cause distress to a structure and associated improvements, moisture content of the soils surrounding the structure should be kept as relatively constant as possible.

4.10 Geotechnical Plan Review

Project plans (grading, foundation, retaining wall, etc.) should be reviewed by this office prior to construction to verify that our geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated. Additional or modified geotechnical recommendations may be required based on the proposed layout.

4.11 Geotechnical Observation and Testing

The recommendations provided in this report are based on limited subsurface observations and geotechnical analysis. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of LGC Geotechnical. Geotechnical observation and testing is required per Section 1705 of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC).

Geotechnical observation and/or testing should be performed by LGC Geotechnical at the following stages:

• During grading (removal bottoms, fill placement, etc.); • During retaining wall backfill and compaction;
• During utility trench backfill and compaction;
• During precise grading;
• Preparation of building pads and other concrete-flatwork subgrades, and prior to placement of aggregate base or concrete;
• After building and wall footing excavation and prior to placement of steel reinforcement and/or concrete;

Project No. 25057-01 Page 31 May 16, 2025
• Preparation of pavement subgrade and placement of aggregate base; and • When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operation subsequent to issuance of this report.

Project No. 25057-01 Page 32 May 16, 2025

5.0 LIMITATIONS

Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to t he conclusions and professional advice included in this report.

This report is based on data obtained from limited observations of the site, which have been extrapolated to characterize the site. While the scope of services performed is considered suitable to adequately characterize the site geotechnical conditions rel ative to the proposed development, no practical evaluation can completely eliminate uncertainty regarding the anticipated geotechnical conditions in connection with a subject site. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during grading and construction.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the other consultants (at a minimum t he civil engineer, structural engineer, landscape architect) and incorporated into their plans. The contractor should properly implement the recommendations during construction and notify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein to be unsafe, or unsuitable.

The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a site can and do occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if LGC Geotechnical has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. This report is intended exclusively for use by the client, any use of or reliance on this report by a third party shall be at such party’s sole risk.

In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Ther efore, this report is subject to review and modification.

LEGENDArtificial Fill - Older, Circled Where BuriedQuaternary Young Alluvium, Circled Where BuriedApproximate Location of Hollow Stem Auger Boring by LGCGeotechnical, With Total Depth in FeetApproximate Location of Cone Penetration Test (CPT)Boring by LGC Geotechnical, With Total Depth in FeetApproximate Location of Hollow-Stem Boring by Others(AES, 2024), With Total Depth in FeetApproximate Location of Exploratory Infiltration Test Pits byOthers (AES, 2024), With Total Depth in FeetApproximate Remedial Grading Depth Below ExistingGrade, in FeetApproximate Site Limits HS-7T.D. = 14.5'CPT-4T.D. = 50'
HS-1T.D. = 14.5'
HS-2T.D. = 14.5'HS-3T.D. = 14.5'HS-6T.D. = 14.5'
HS-4T.D. = 14.5'
HS-7T.D. = 14.5'
HS-5T.D. = 14.5'
CPT-4T.D. = 50'CPT-2T.D. = 50'CPT-3T.D. = 50'
CPT-1T.D. = 50'
B-7T.D. = 11'T-4
B-3T.D. = 16'
B-2T.D. = 31'
B-4T.D. = 21'
B-7T.D. = 11'
B-5T.D. = 26'
B-1T.D. = 21'
B-2T.D. = 16'
T-4 T-3 T-2T-1
afoQya
10'
6'
5'10'

7.5'

8.5'

7.5'

7.5'afo
afo afoafo
Qya
Qya QyaQya
6'

7.5'
Figure 2Geotechnical Map ENG. / GEOL. PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME SCALE DATE1" = 80'May 2025Focus Real Estate - GardenaDJB / BPG25057-01 LGC Geotechnical, Inc.131 Calle Iglesia, Ste. 200San Clemente, CA 92672TEL (949) 369-6141 FAX (949) 369-6142 4 INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATEDPVC PIPE TO FLOW TO DRAINAGE DEVICE PERPROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER SAND BACKFILL(EXPANSION INDEX £20,MAXIMUM 35% FINES)
NATIVE BACKFILL COMPACTEDTO MINIMUM 90% RELATIVECOMPACTION PER ASTM1557-D MINIMUM 1 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAR FOOTBURRITO TYPE SUBDRAIN, CONSISTING OF3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK WRAPPED INMIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENTFOOTING/WALL PER DESIGN ENGINEER WATER PROOFING PER DESIGN ENGINEER12" MINIMUM18" MAXIMUMBACKCUT PER OSHA EXTENT OF FREE DRAINING SAND BACKFILL, MINIMUMHEEL WIDTH OR H/2 WHICH EVER IS GREATER

WALL HEIGHT, H
NOTE:PLACEMENT OF SUBDRAINAT BASE OF WALL WILL NOTPREVENT SATURATION OF SOILSBELOW AND / OR IN FRONT OF WALL FIGURE 3 Retaining WallBackfill DetailMay 2025 DATEENG./GEO. PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME SCALEDJB / BPGNot to ScaleFocus Real Estate - Gardena25057-01

CONTACT
James Thomas, CEP-IT
[email protected]
619.798.5658
1100 W Town & Country Road
Suite 700
Orange, CA 92868
www.kimley-horn.com
The entirety of this proposal, including text and images, is the property of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., protected under US copyright law.

City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services A.2 6809 Indiana Ave, Suite 203
Riverside, CA 92506
(951) 733-5240
www.migcom.com

CALIFORNIA

BERKELEY, FULLERTON,

LOS ANGELES, PASADENA,

RIVERSIDE, SACRAMENTO,

SAN DIEGO, SAN JOSE,

AND SONOMA

COLORADO
DENVER

NEW YORK

BROOKL YN
OREGON

PORTLAND
TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO

WASHINGTON

SEATTLE
October 30, 2025
Jo-Anne Burns
Assistant Director of Community Development
1700 W 162nd St
Gardena, CA 90247
[email protected]
RE: RFQ No. 2026-03PL On-Call Environmental Planning Services for the City of Gardena Dear Ms. Burns and Selection Committee Members:

MIG, Inc., is pleased to submit our proposal and qualifications to the City of Gardena (City) to provide on-call California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance services. MIG has a 40-plus year track record of working interactively with our public and private clients, becoming an extension of their staff and guiding them through the environmental review process from project initiation through approval.

MIG offers a full range of environmental services that are provided by seasoned CEQA practitioners and technical subject matter experts. Our environmental team has prepared and reviewed hundreds of CEQA documents and associated technical studies. Our highly capable environmental professionals have analyzed all manner of environmental projects throughout California. Our environmental staff also performs mitigation monitoring, field monitoring, and related services. On this contract, MIG staff will be supported by our longtime collaborators Fehr & Peers, who will provide transportation planning services.

We also have substantial experience providing environmental planning services in the Los Angeles area, assisting cities including Commerce, Compton, Paramount, Downey, Signal Hill, Long Beach, Lynwood, Carson, Whittier, and Santa Fe Springs. From our local office in Riverside, our environmental staff are accessible and can quickly respond to the consulting needs of the City.

Our Director of Environmental Services Bob Prasse has extensive experience with all types of environmental projects, including large-scale mixed-use developments, infrastructure and parks projects, industrial parks and warehouses, General Plans, Specific Plans, and “big box” commercial centers. He also has considerable experience in providing third-party peer review services for environmental documents.

As Principal-in-Charge, I am authorized to represent MIG, negotiate on its behalf, and bind MIG to all commitments made in our proposal. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Bob Prasse at (909) 519-5871, or me at (951) 733-5240, or email us at bprasse@ migcom.com or [email protected], respectively.

Sincerely,

Pamela Steele
Principal-in-Charge

1. Cover Letter

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Cover Letter A.2

3. Scope of Services 1

4. Related Experience 6

5. Subconsultants 14

6. Qualifications and Capabilities 16

7. Fees/Cost 28

8. Additional Information 28
City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 1 MIG has successfully initiated, organized,
and managed a diverse array of planning and
environmental projects throughout Southern California,
as well as many CEQA and NEPA documents for cities
and jurisdictions throughout the entire state. MIG
offers a broad scope of environmental planning and
permitting, design, communication, management, and
technology services to public agencies and private
clients. As a multidisciplinary firm, our array of services benefits clients; we can seamlessly integrate our areas of expertise to support the specific characteristics and unique environmental challenges of each project. Our
public agency clients include community development,
building, planning, and public works departments,
as well as special districts. Our staff has a long and
successful record working on complex planning and
environmental projects, including tasks through on-call contracts. Our work is characterized by a dedication to quality, a flexible approach, compliance with city, state, and federal requirements, creativity in planning and
design, and a commitment to completing projects on
time and within budget.

MIG staff consists of highly experienced planners
with expertise and qualifications needed to prepare
and process thorough, technically sound, and legally
defensible environmental documents in accordance
with the requirements of the CEQA and NEPA. Staff
backgrounds include urban and regional planning,
environmental analysis, landscape architecture, public
participation, communications, graphic design, and
public policy. The diversity of our staff bridges technical expertise and values and facilitates the exchange of
information between all parties engaged in the planning and design process. Our experienced staff is capable
of acting as the extension of the Gardena Planning
Division. We understand the unique project and staffing needs required of on-call contracts, necessitating
proactive management, quickly formulating project
teams, and aligning expectations between the client
and the consultant. We also coordinate project and
CEQA/NEPA review, including applicable noticing
and submittal requirements for public disclosure and
processes through the State Clearinghouse and the
County.

MIG’s environmental team has experience managing
and preparing all types of environmental documents,
from simple Initial Studies and Exemptions to
complex, multiphase EIRs. Our staff has experience
in environmental analysis of many forms of proposed
land use and development, including transit-oriented
development, and all types of residential development
and industrial, office, and commercial projects. Our
staff is also experienced in giving presentations to
commissions, city councils, and community groups.

Finally, our staff has experience assisting with the AB 52 and SB 18 Native American consultation processes.

Our array of services includes environmental analysis in compliance with CEQA and NEPA including:
» Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs)
» Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
» Combined EIR/EIS
» Environmental Assessments (EAs)
» Addendums to EIRs
» Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declarations
(IS/MNDs) and Negative Declarations
» Categorical Exemptions (CEs)
» Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs)
Additionally, we have in-house expertise in preparing
a full range of technical studies and providing support services including:
» Air Quality Impact and Health Risk Assessments
» Biological Site Surveys and Special Status Species
Surveys
» Energy Estimates and Evaluations
» Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and Climate
Change Impact Assessments
» Noise and Vibration Impact Assessments
» Regulatory Permitting
» Native American Tribal Consultation Services
» Visual Impact Assessments and Analysis

3. Scope of Services
City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 2 Project Management
The MIG Project Manager will review all materials prior to submitting them to the City, providing comments to
subconsultants as needed using our established QA/
QC process to assure technical accuracy. Only after
completing that process will the work products be
submitted for City review. The MIG Project Manager will coordinate communications with any subconsultants
and City staff to confirm deliverables meet expectations outlined in the project scope. Our record of successfully delivering projects shows that this process works, and
clients know that a MIG-led team means products and
deliverables will meet high standards.

We are highly responsive to our clients’ needs and we
deliver quality work products on time and within budget.

Upholding these high standards requires the assignment
of qualified, dedicated staff. Our project management
procedures, including assigning appropriate staff, careful scoping, engagement of senior project management
throughout the project, and consistent quality control, enable us to fulfill our contract requirements to the
best of our abilities. Project Manager Bob Prasse will
be responsible for verifying that your project goals are achieved and that we provide high-quality deliverables
and superior client service. As an experienced
Director of Environmental Services, Bob Prasse can
direct any environmental services project and brings
significant experience and knowledge in environmental
planning. Bob has managed many successful complex
multidisciplinary projects that involved a variety of
in-house staff and subconsultants, as well as multiple
review agencies. He will bring this wealth of experience and knowledge to any project we work on under this
on-call contract and he will serve as the primary point of contact with the City’s project manager.

Our team includes task order managers who regularly
manage teams in preparing and/or reviewing CEQA/
NEPA documents and associated technical studies.

MIG’s technical experts provide the full range of
qualifications and experience to provide supporting
studies and documentation. Further, MIG’s firmwide
resources are available to the project team, so that
expertise in a variety of related fields are just a call or an e-mail away. Resumes for all proposed personnel,
including their background, education, and relevant
project experience are provided in Section 6.

QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
The Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) process
begins with the preparation of the scope of services
and staff assignments. The MIG project manager will
closely match staff skills and experience with each
project assignment. Once the City signs off on the
project description, scope of work, content, and format of required technical studies, the project manager
will then have an internal kick-off meeting to review
the project assignments. At this point all staff will be provided clear guidance on deliverables, and senior
subject matter experts are assigned to review these
deliverables prior to finalizing them and sending them to the client. MIG’s project manager will oversee all work products. The project manager will regularly keep the
City and the applicant updated on the project’s progress.

If potential issues start to develop the project manager will identify such issues to the City and the applicant and recommend a corrective course of action before
such issues become problems. Following these QA/QC
procedures allows projects to remain on schedule and
on budget, and assures that client expectations are met.

The project manager, Bob Prasse, will direct QA/QC
procedures and, as Principal-In-Charge, Pamela Steele is ultimately responsible for oversight of these procedures across all projects.

PROJECT CONTROLS
MIG will continuously monitor and manage the project
scope, schedule, and budget for optimization during
all phases of the project. MIG will notify the City in
advance of any possible impacts to the project scope,
schedule, and fees established during project initiation.

These potential impacts will be reviewed with the City
for immediate resolution. MIG has real-time project
budgeting and monitoring software to align budget
allocations and expenditures and support project
success. Once the schedule and final budget have been
set, the staff hours and costs by each team member
will be generated each month and cumulatively for
the monthly project invoice. This provides the basis
for reviewing actual staff hours against estimated
expenditures. Status reports are reviewed regularly with the internal project team and the client to allow us to proactively address potential overruns, thus avoiding
change orders and requests for additional services.

We will work with City staff to expedite the process of managing new assignments, thus facilitating project
City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 3 delivery, quality control, and quality assurance, as well as full capability and flexibility to provide the appropriate services when needed.

STAFF AVAILABILITY
With over 265 people on staff, MIG is able to advance
multiple assignments simultaneously. We have the
personnel and firm resources to accommodate new
projects and to respond to new assignments. Our project teams are assembled based on staff expertise and
capacity. The MIG staff assigned to any project that may come from this on-call contract will be committed for
the duration of the project and their current workload
will not impact their availability to successfully complete the assignment. All our projects and staff capacity
are monitored and scheduled in coordination with
existing project workloads. Weekly in-house firm-wide
Management Team meetings sustain a high level of
communication among project leaders and the efficient
allocation of personnel and other firm resources.

Additional meetings are held with business lines that
frequently work together on projects, in particular, our planning, design, and environmental planning groups
work closely to plan optimal allocation of staff to
projects.

BUDGET AND SCHEDULE
Proactive project management and client service are
paramount to our success. Our strategies for successful budget and schedule control include: communication,
advance planning, and early establishment (and
communication) of agreed-upon scope, budgets,
milestones, and deadlines for each task. This also takes into consideration report and review cycles required by the City and various other agencies and stakeholders
involved. MIG’s Project Manager carefully monitors
project costs and schedule on a regular basis to meet
the agreed-upon budget and milestone deliverable
due dates. In addition, MIG does not over-commit our
staff and will maintain City projects as a high priority for the designated staff. Our streamlined project team will include only essential staff in the project execution.

Maintaining a streamlined project team helps facilitate smoother project management, simplify communications
with clients and key stakeholders, and control costs.

We will create an integrated working relationship with
the City and will provide you and the applicant with:
status updates regarding schedule and budget, monthly
progress reports, and regular informal communication.

We are proactive with our clients in communicating
project status, issues to be resolved, the need for
meetings, and project updates and news.

Tasks and Deliverables
An example of tasks and deliverables for a typical Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration includes the
following:

TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION/DATA COLLECTION
» Host an initial meeting with City staff and, if necessary, the applicant to review project description, define
data needs, clarify project objectives, and establish a timeline for deliverables.
» Discuss key project issues and/or concerns.
» Establish primary contact and communication
protocols.

Task 1 Deliverables
» Host kick-off meeting
» Issue data request for all relevant project information and documents
TASK 2: PEER REVIEW TECHNICAL STUDIES AND

REPORTS
» Confirm consistency of existing conditions and project description between documents.
» Review each report/study for technical adequacy,
accuracy, clarity, and suitability for inclusion in the CEQA document.
» Prepare memorandum identifying critical deficiencies
or concerns, if any, related to each study/report.
» Review revisions to confirm that peer review
comments have been adequately addressed.

Task 2 Deliverables
» Memorandum
» Review revisions for adequacy
City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 4 TASK 3: PREPARE/UPDATE TECHNICAL STUDIES

AND REPORTS
» Establish existing baseline conditions and formulate
an accurate and well-defined project description that
is consistent with other project documents.
» Thoroughly analyze potential project impacts against
established existing baseline conditions for certain
technical issues using appropriate and accepted
resources and methods.
» Prepare clear and concise technical memorandum
for each technical issue area in accordance with
the criteria contained in Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines and other pertinent federal, state and local regulations.
» Recommend mitigation measures, if necessary,
to reduce potentially significant impacts to within
established significance thresholds.

Task 3 Deliverables
» Draft technical studies/reports supported with
references and appendices (e.g., model outputs,
archival information, findings from field reviews)
» Final technical studies/reports incorporating changes based on City review
TASK 4: PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT IS/MND
» Describe the purpose and organization of the Initial
Study, as well as the need for the Initial Study under
CEQA Guidelines.
» Describe the existing physical conditions of the
project site and surrounding areas to establish
baseline conditions.
» Formulate an accurate and well-defined project
description containing a comprehensive description
of all aspects of the project, including activities and processes that will occur on the site, as well as any
off-site improvements necessary to implement the
project.
» List all required approvals and permits, if any, that are needed to implement the project.
» Utilize Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (or the
City’s standard checklist, if available), project plans, relevant established thresholds of significance,
and applicable federal, state, and City of Gardena
regulations to analyze physical changes to the
environment that could result from construction and
operation of the proposed project.
» Provide thorough and comprehensive answers to
each of the 80+ checklist question, within each of the
20 issue areas, which will be supported by tables,
figures, maps, and graphics, as appropriate, with
source information referenced.
» Summarize findings and conclusions reached for
each Appendix G issue area (i.e., air quality, noise,
transportation, etc.).
» Recommend mitigation measures, as necessary, in
order to limit potentially significant project impacts. » Provide administrative draft IS/MND and technical
appendices to the City for review and comment prior
to circulation for public review.

Task 4 Deliverables
» Administrative draft IS/MND
» Technical appendices
TASK 5: PREPARE PUBLIC REVIEW IS/MND
» Following receipt of City comments on the
administrative draft IS/MND, prepare a screencheck
draft IS/MND that incorporates the City’s requested
changes.
» Submit screencheck IS/MND to the City for final
review.
» Upon approval of the screencheck IS/MND, prepare
a public review draft IS/MND as well as a draft CEQA
Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a Negative Declaration. » Upon approval of the draft NOI, prepare and distribute the final NOI to agencies and interested parties on the City’s standard mailing list via certified US mail.
» File the NOI with the Los Angeles County Registrar-
Recorder/County Clerk office.
» Prepare a Notice of Completion and Summary Form
and submit all documents and forms to the State
Clearinghouse for state or local agency review.

Task 5 Deliverables
» Screencheck draft IS/MND
» Public review IS/MND
» Draft Notice of Intent to Adopt
» Final Notice of Intent to Adopt
» Distribute NOI to agencies and interested parties on
City’s standard mailing list
» File NOI with LA County Registrar-Recorder/County
Clerk
City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 5 » Prepare State Clearinghouse NOC and Summary Form
» Submit all documents and forms to State
Clearinghouse
TASK 6: PREPARE FINAL DOCUMENTS
» Following the conclusion of the CEQA public review
period of the Public Draft IS/MND, if requested, assist the City in responding to any written comments
received, including the preparation of written
responses, if necessary.
» Prepare the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting
Program (MMRP) for all mitigation measures adopted
pursuant to Section 15097 of the State CEQA
Guidelines to confirm they are implemented as
intended by the IS/MND.
» Prepare a table that can be used by the City to track the implementation and monitoring of the mitigation
measures.
» Immediately following the City’s approval of the
project and adoption of the IS/MND, provide a draft
Notice of Determination (NOD) to the City for review
and collect filing fees from the applicant or City that will need to be paid under the State of California Fish and Game Code Section 713.
» Following approval of the draft NOD by the City,
prepare and file a final NOD with the Los Angeles
County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk office within
five working days of the approval date.
» Submit final NOD and all required documents and
forms to the State Clearinghouse.

Task 6 Deliverables
» Written response to public comments letter
» Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
» Draft NOD
» Final NOD
» File NOD with LA County Registrar-Recorder/County
Clerk
» Submit NOD and all required documents and forms to
State Clearinghouse
TASK 7: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS
» Depending on the needs of the City and/or
the complexity of the project, participate in an
established number of internal meetings with the
City and/or applicant throughout the environmental
documentation process on either a recurring or
as-needed basis.
» Attend up to two public hearings for the adoption of
the IS/MND.

Task 7 Deliverables
» Internal meeting participation
» Public hearing attendance
TASK 8: PROJECT MANAGEMENT
» Maintain frequent, immediate, and clear
communication with the project team.
» Administer contractual matters, coordinate
subconsultants, and our quality control review
process.

Task 8 Deliverables
» Project status updates
» Budget updates
OPTIONAL TASK 9: NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBAL

CONSULTATION SERVICES
» Provide Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) and/or Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) consultation support as needed under the
direction of the City.
» Assist the City in obtaining a list of tribes to contact to initiate SB 18/AB 52 consultation.
» Provide the City with a template consultation letter for the City to send to the tribes.
» Provide guidance any other information regarding
consultation requested by the tribes including, but
not limited to, tribal monitoring, avoidance/mitigation measures, the timing of consultation relative to the
CEQA process, etc.

Task 9 Deliverables
» Contact NAHC for list of Native American tribes
» Template consultation letter
» Additional guidance as needed
City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 6

4. Related Experience
MIG’s CEQA and NEPA work is guided by three
principles: first, the methodology and content of our
CEQA and NEPA documents are consistent with the
most current statutes, guidelines, and case law; second, mitigation recommendations are realistic and feasible;
and third, conclusions are effectively presented through clear and concise writing, informative graphic design,
and skillful oral presentation. These principles result in legally sound CEQA and NEPA documents that inform
the public, decision-makers, and interested agencies.

CEQA DOCUMENTS
MIG’s dedicated environmental staff have the
background and experience to properly scope and
prepare environmental impact analysis documents
for a wide variety of projects. MIG prepares clearly
written, legally defensible environmental impact reports (EIRs) and other CEQA compliance documentation; for
example, Initial Studies/Mitigated Negative Declarations (IS/MND) and Categorical Exemptions, along with
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs, findings, and resolutions. We specialize in preparing both
“project-specific” environmental documents for projects such as parks, trails, water and sewer line replacements, and roadway improvements, as well as broad-based
“program EIRs” for specific plans, general plans, and
other policy plans.

MIG has successfully completed over 300 EIRs, as well
as numerous other CEQA compliance documents for
public agencies. We also provide third-party peer review services for all types of CEQA environmental documents
and technical studies.

AIR QUALITY IMPACT AND HEALTH RISK

ASSESSMENTS
MIG prepares the technical air quality analyses
necessary to obtain CEQA and other permitting/
regulatory approvals from regional, state, and federal air agencies. MIG prepares area and fugitive (e.g., dust and emissions from soil disturbance and material transfer), mobile, and stationary source emissions estimates using agency-recommended models.

The emissions estimates developed by these models
and methodologies are compared to regulatory
thresholds of respective air quality management
districts, CEQA significance thresholds, or other state or federal regulatory requirements as appropriate.

MIG is skilled in quantifying the emissions levels from all aspects of a project, comparing emissions levels
and concentrations against applicable thresholds
and developing project design features or mitigation
measures that reduce project emissions and associated
risks.

BIOLOGICAL SITE SURVEYS/SPECIAL-STATUS

SPECIES SURVEYS
MIG’s experience in biological studies and impact
assessments includes the preparation of biological
surveys to evaluate existing conditions and the presence of sensitive habitat or special-status plant or animal
species, and identifying the applicable laws pertaining to the resources found. Biological impact assessments
evaluate the effects of a proposed project on biological resources and are used to support CEQA documents
and permit applications.

City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 7 MIG also provides the technical support required
for Endangered Species Act Section 7 or Section
10 consultations and California Fish and Wildlife
Endangered Species Act 2081 permits.

CULTURAL/HISTORIC RESOURCES
MIG’s historic resources specialists have decades
of experience in evaluating historic significance for
properties in California and statewide and assessing the potential for impacts as part of the CEQA/NEPA review
process, including under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. Our staff meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards and are certified to perform sensitive records searches at
local and statewide repositories.

ENERGY
MIG also has expertise in evaluating the energy impact
requirements of the State CEQA guidelines, including
how project energy consumption is estimated using
information from air quality emissions estimates or
modeling conducted for the project. MIG will then
evaluate whether the project will result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, including mobile sources. Energy-saving
factors analyzed will include site layout and orientation, proximity to regional arterials, building design, and any trip-reducing or other energy-saving operations that result in the efficient use of available energy resources.

GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG)/CLIMATE CHANGE

IMPACT ASSESSMENT
In California, local land use authorities are required
to consider the effects of project- and plan-level
greenhouse gas emissions as part of the CEQA review
process. Many of the models (e.g., CalEEMod) and
inventories (e.g., OFFROAD) MIG uses to estimate
emissions of criteria air pollutants like particulate matter also quantify GHG emissions from common GHG
sources, such as vehicles, electricity consumption, space heating, etc.

However, the methods for evaluating GHG emissions
levels can differ from traditional air quality analyses because GHG emissions represent a global impact
and there are myriad state, national, and international goals, policies, and programs adopted for the purposes
of reducing GHG emissions. GHG emissions are also
produced from less common but high-emitting sources,
such as refrigerants and electrical insulators, that fall outside the scope of traditional air quality analyses.

MIG tracks the latest information from state, national, and international governing bodies regarding climate
change projections and impacts, GHG regulations, and
GHG efficiency targets, and uses this information to
prepare clear, concise analyses of whether project- and plan-level GHG emissions would constitute a significant cumulative contributor to climate change impacts. Our
analyses include the GHG reductions that would occur
from existing regulatory and policy requirements, as
well as reductions from voluntary design features and
mitigation measures included in a project’s design or
developed as part of the environmental review process.

NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
MIG performs noise monitoring and impact
assessments for environmental analysis, mitigation
monitoring, and other compliance purposes. MIG has
the necessary expertise and equipment to monitor
pre- and post-project noise levels, documenting in-situ attenuation patterns and evaluating the effectiveness of noise-reducing insulation and infrastructure.

City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 8 MIG has monitored noise levels from construction
equipment, traffic, public events (with and without
amplified sound), and various types of stationary
equipment (e.g., HVAC units, generators, concrete batch plants).

MIG collects and analyzes project-specific noise data to assess the compatibility of pre- and post-project noise levels with zoning and general plan requirements. We
can clearly articulate noise impact findings to decision- making bodies and have worked with community
members, project architects, municipal staff, and
project proponents to develop mitigation in the form
of operating restrictions, sound barriers, and sound
power output limits that provide community and project
benefits.

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
MIG’s graphic and computer simulation staff specialize in computerized view simulations and preparation of visual impact analyses. Our team can prepare and/or review
visual simulations, urban design height analyses, shade studies, and other illustrative plans needed for all types of projects. We have extensive experience creating
illustrations and analyzing environments—allowing for
objective review and understanding of projects.

Schedule and Budget Control
MIG staff is capable of producing large work products
with accuracy and cost effectiveness. Our experienced
senior staff is actively involved in all aspects and phases of a project to maintain the quality of work products
and to deliver documents are on schedule and within
budget. Our project management strategies, including
assigning appropriate staff, careful scoping, engagement of senior project management throughout the project,
and consistent quality control, allow us to fulfill our contract requirements to the best of our ability. Our
strategy starts with assigning the right personnel to the project team. MIG has many experienced senior project
managers who can be assigned to a particular project
based on its needs and staff availability.

MIG CEQA analysts and technical experts have relevant
educational backgrounds to their areas of expertise and receive regular training and professional development.

MIG keeps abreast of changes to the CEQA Guidelines
and CEQA case law through conferences, trainings, and
professional associations.

Our project teams are assembled based on staff
expertise and their expected time availability during the project. All MIG projects and staff capacity are monitored and scheduled in coordination with existing project
workloads.

Past Project Performance
MIG has a long track record of performing work for
environmental on-calls to the satisfaction of our clients, on schedule and under budget. On the following pages,
we have included a selection of project write-ups
demonstrating our past success performing project work
and coordinating with a team of subconsultants tailored for each project.

City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 9 Location: Redlands, CA
Client: City of Redlands
Reference: Sean Reilly,
Principal Planner,
City of Redlands
(909) 798-7555 ext. 7344
[email protected]
Dates: 2024
MIG was contracted to complete an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and technical analyses for a single-family residential subdivision in the City of Redlands, California. The project involved the construction of 103 new single-family homes, ranging between 1,544 and 1,858 square feet each, along with associated landscaping and internal roadway improvements. The project also included a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; a new Specific Plan for residential development with applicable development standards; and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide approximately 9.01 acres for condominium purposes. Development of the project also included 206 garage parking stalls and 70 guest parking stalls, totaling 276 parking stalls. Approximately 65,470 square feet (1.5 acres) of the site would be landscaped and a private community park is located within the center of the project site. This project was approved by the City in May 2024.

Madera at Citrus Trail Residential Project IS/MND

City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 10 Location: Baldwin Park, CA
Client: City of Baldwin Park
Reference: Nick Baldwin,
AICP, City Planner
Baldwin Park Planning
Division
(626) 960-4011 ext. 475
[email protected]
Dates: 2023–2024
The project included renovation of an existing, unoccupied 72-room hotel on a

1.23-acre site located at 14624 Dalewood Avenue. The project included a small (approximately 3,944 square foot) expansion of the hotel’s total building space with the addition of a new 350 square-foot hotel lobby, a new 200-square foot water booster room, and enclosure of existing outdoor balconies to enlarge the size of the guest rooms. The façade of the building was also redesigned to account for the removal of the balconies. In addition, the project included an approximately 330 square-foot steel-framed canopy over the passenger drop-off zone at the entrance of the hotel lobby. The project also included demolition and backfilling of the existing 950-square-foot swimming pool with approximately 300 cubic yards of soil, reconfiguration of the existing parking lot to provide additional necessary parking spaces, and landscaping improvements throughout the parking lot area. The project included the addition of 18 parking spaces for a total of 62, and approximately 7,665 square feet of landscaping within the parking lot area. Because the City’s Zoning Code did not allow for hotels with less than 100 rooms within the Freeway Commercial zone, within which the project was located, the project included a Zoning Code Amendment to reduce the minimum number of total rooms required for a hotel from 100 to 72. In addition, because the City’s parking requirements required a total of 76 parking spaces for the project, the project also included a variance to allow for a parking reduction. Finally, the project included a Conditional Use Permit to allow the Hotel use pursuant to Section 153.050.020 of the City’s Municipal Code. MIG’s work included preparation of technical studies, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, and all CEQA required notices.

Dalewood Street Hotel Renovation Project

City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 11 Location: Grand Terrace, CA
Client: City of Grand Terrace
Reference: Scott Hunter,
Planning and Development
Services Director,
City of Grand Terrace
(909) 954-5176
[email protected]
Dates: Ongoing
MIG was contracted to complete an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and technical analyses for a Dutch Bros drive-through coffee shop in the City of Grand Terrace, California. The project includes demolition of an existing auto repair shop building and associated soil remediation and construction of a 984-square-foot Dutch Bros coffee shop with drive-through and walk-up service. The project also includes approximately 17,577 square feet of ornamental landscaping, 12,063 square feet of parking and drive aisles, and 2,835 square feet of walkways. The project is currently in public review as of March 2025.

Dutch Bros Drive-Thru Coffee Shop IS/MND

City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 12 Location: Commerce, CA
Client: City of Commerce
Reference: Jessica Serrano
Director of Community
Development,
City of Commerce
(323) 722-4805 Ext. 2811
Dates: 2021–2024
This project included demolition of existing structures, including one primary 233,260-square-foot warehouse and office building and five ancillary structures ranging in size from 694 square feet to 6,750 square feet, and development of a new 292,029-square-foot warehouse/distribution facility on the 12.95-acre project site.

The proposed warehouse/distribution facility included approximately 15,000 square feet of office floor area, 22 dock high loading doors, 63 truck trailer parking stalls, and 224 passenger vehicle parking spaces. The project also included approximately 55,336 square feet of ornamental landscaping, along with 184 ornamental trees.

MIG performed peer review of the applicant-provided Initial Study, technical studies, Draft and Final versions of the EIR (including responses to public comments), and all CEQA-required notices.
7400 Slauson Avenue Industrial Project CEQA Peer Review City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 13 CEQA
Documentation
Special Studies
Air Quality/
GHG
Noise
Biological
Resources
Cultural
Resources
Visual Impact/
Aesthetics
Santa Fe Springs GPU EIR, Santa Fe Springs, CA
Whittier General Plan Update (GPU) EIR,Whittier CA Monterey Park General Plan Update EIR, Monterey Park, CA Walnut General Plan Update EIR, Walnut CA
Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update EIR, Desert Hot Springs, CA Cudahy GPU EIR, Cudahy, CA
Garden Grove GPU, EIR, Garden Grove, CA
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan EIR, El Segundo, CA
Duke Realty Warehouse EIR, San Bernardino County, CA Duarte Station Specific Plan EIR, Duarte, CA
Walnut Ranch Park EIR and HCP, Walnut, CA
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan EIR, Rosemead, CA
Covina Town Center Specific Plan EIR, Covina, CA
Poway Road Specific Plan Amendment EIR, Poway, CA Positive Investments, Krameria TTM IS/MND, Moreno Valley, CA Olympic R.E. Holdings, Inland Ct. Dr. Warehouse,
San Bernardino, CA
Jack Lee, Perris/Rider St. 7-Eleven IS/MND
G.H. Palmer Specific Plan EIR Addendum (Residential), Ontario, CA Memorial Park Improvements IS/MND, Upland, CA
Sierra Madre Dolorosa Res. EIR Peer Review, Sierra Madre, CA Condor Battery Energy Storage Faciliity IS/MND, Grand Terrace, CA Cutter Way Residentiail IS/MND, Covina, CA
Sheila St. Warehouse EIR Peer Review, Commerce, CA
Costco Expansion IS/MND Addendum, Chino Hiills, CA Alere, Telegraph Commerce Ct. IS/MND, Pico Rivera, CA Outfront Media Digital Billboard IS/MND; Garden Grove, CA South Alhambra Ave. Senior Housing Project IS/MND,
Monterey Park, CA
Blue Mtn, Spruce St. Warehouse IS/MND, Riverside, CA
Eastern Municipal Water District Water Well 204 IS/MND, Perris, CA S2A Modular Home Factory IS/MND, Hemet, CA
Atlantic Blvd Improvement Cat. Exemption, Commerce, CA Arbor Express Car Wash IS/MND & Tech. Studies,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
123 Pomona Ave. Residential IS/MND, Monrovia, CA
Dhammakaya Meditation Center EIR Addendum, Azusa, CA
Garvey Square Mixed-Use Development IS/MND, El Monte, CA Station Square South Specific Plan IS/MND, Monrovia, CA Avalon Monrovia Specific Plan IS/MND, Monovia, CA Additional Project Experience
City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 14 About Fehr & Peers
Fehr & Peers is a transportation planning and
engineering firm with 24 offices and over 400 staff
nationwide. Since 1985, the firm has partnered with
public and private clients to design safer, more effective ways for people and goods to move—creating spaces
where everyone can thrive, today and for generations to come.

Bringing together data, technology, and the lived
experiences of the communities they serve, Fehr &
Peers helps clients make confident, well-informed
decisions. In addition to understanding travel demand
models and vehicular demands, they are sustainable
transportation experts who have prepared hundreds
of transportation sections of all types of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. They know
the CEQA verbiage (CE, ND, MND, EIR) and NEPA lingo
(FONSI, EA, EIS), but more importantly, they understand the criteria in determining the type of study required
based on the mobility analysis.

Fehr & Peers’ research into the connection between
land use and transportation lead much of the work that
is currently utilized to estimate vehicles miles of travel for both climate action plans and for CEQA assessment
under SB 743.

Fehr & Peers’ key staff are listed in the organizational chart in the next section, and their resumes follow.

PAST PROJECTS WITH MIG
MIG and Fehr & Peers have an extensive history of
collaboration on various projects across many of our
offices in California and nationwide. The following list is a selection of our project work together
» Santa Fe Springs General Plan
» Historic Whittier Boulevard Specific Plan
» Manhattan Beach Downtown Parking Study
» El Segundo LU Element Update
» Gold Line Transit-Oriented District Plan
» Marina del Rey Mobility Element
» Metro Regional Bike Share

5. Subconsultants
» Cudahy General Plan
» City of Whittier General Plan
» I-710 Livability Initiative
» Duarte Station Specific Plan
» Covina Active Streets
» Alameda Street Mobility PSR-PDS
» SB State Street Master Plan
» Alondra Regional Park MND Traffic Study
» Grass Valley Amendment EIR
» Alameda Countywide Multimodal Arterial
» Chabot LP Master Plans
» San Pablo Ave Specific Plan Update
» Emeryville Powell Street Redesign
» SCAG Enhancement of Sustainability Tool
» Temecula Jefferson Avenue Corridor Study
» Anaheim Platinum Triangle
» Anaheim Urban Greening Plan
» Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan
» Los Rios Street SCAG
» Adelanto North Communities Plan EIR
» Armorlite Complete Street
» Tustin Downtown Commercial Core
» Garden Grove GP Update
» Lake Elsinore GPU EIR
» Lake Elsinore General Plan Update
» TriMet Transit Oriented Development Plan
» UC Davis 2015 LRDP
» CSUS Ramona Master Plan
» Ogden BRT TOD Study
» Vista SR2S Strategic Plan
» Euclid Avenue Master Plan
» National Avenue Master Plan
» SD County SB 743 Continuation
» Sacramento Pedestrian Plan
» Redwood City Fair Oaks Mobility Plan
» San Bruno Transit Corridors Plan
City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 15 Team Member Coordination
With each project, MIG brings together professionals
with the expertise and knowledge best suited to the
project’s scope of services regardless of their physical location within the organization. Working seamlessly
across offices and between firms is part of our standard operations and procedures; systems and infrastructure
exist firmwide to facilitate in-person and online
communication and collaboration.

Before commencing work, MIG creates a detailed
work plan and schedule that illustrates the project on a task-by-task basis, clarifying the project’s critical path, key deadlines and checkpoints, and the responsibilities of each team member. This is communicated with our
subconsultant team to maintain continuity in our plan.

Regularly scheduled project team meetings are
conducted to sustain work quality and appropriately
allocate staff time and project resources. Prior to delivery to the client, all work is reviewed by the project manager and principal using a comprehensive checklist. MIG has
developed checklists to communicate and maintain
standards for quality and timeliness, including a project initiation questionnaire, AutoCAD manual and standards, design process standards, QA/QC checklist, and/or
construction administration procedures.
» St. Helena General Plan
» Tolay Lake Regional Park Master Plan
» Healdsburg Avenue Improvement Study
» South City San Bruno CBTPs
» Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan EIR
» San Bruno Transit Corridors Plan EIR
» Cupertino Parks Master Plan
» Redwood City DTPP Review
» Bascom Complete Streets
» Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan
» City of San José Vision Zero Strategic Plan
» San José Vision Zero Strategic Communications Plan
» Spokane RTC Transportation Visioning
» Downtown Newcastle Strategic Plan
» Renton Civic Core Vision and Action Plan
» Van Lierop Park Master Plan
» Eastgate-Tyee School Traffic Improvement
» Kent TMP Phase 5 - Comprehensive Plan
» Burien Subarea Plan
» Mercer Island Traffic Fee Update
» Puyallup Meridian Ave. Streetscape Design
» Blueprint Denver Plan Update
» Regis University Master Plan
» Denver Upper Downtown Plan
» DRCOG Vision Zero Action Plan
» Greeley Transportation Master Plan
» Denver Moves Cherry Creek
» Lutheran Campus Master Plan
» Louisville Downtown Vision Plan
» Puyallup Comprehensive Plan 2024
» Puyallup Meeker Festival Street
» Puyallup Meridian 2-Way Conversion Study
» Lacey Transportation Element
» Covington Systemic Safety Pedestrian Improvements
» San Pablo Ave Specific Plan/Complete Streets
» Sonoma Blvd. Corridor Design Project
» Fairfield Downtown/West Texas SP and EIR
» Adeline Corridor Specific Plan
» Vallejo Vision Zero

City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 16 About MIG
MIG improves, adapts, and creates organizations,
environments, and tools for human development. We
are a community of designers, planners, engineers,
scientists, and storytellers who engage people in
creative problem-solving and collective action. We
believe that the physical and social environment around us have a profound impact on our lives, and this belief shapes the principles that guide our work:
» Communities can plan their own futures.
» The world needs an ecological perspective.
» Great projects work for everyone.
» Elegant design inspires new thinking.
» Every project presents an opportunity to advance
racial and social equity.
» All work must be context driven.

MIG understands the regulatory environment. Our
dedicated staff has the experience to guide clients in
environmental compliance and technical studies. As
a complement to our planning, CEQA, and technical
services, we bring critical information into the process, and ultimately into key decisions impacting feasibility, livability, and successful project implementation.

Our expertise spans the breadth of state and federal
environmental analysis (CEQA, NEPA), technical studies
(air quality, biology, cultural resources, greenhouse gases, noise), and peer review.

MIG ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE AREAS
» CEQA Documentation, including Consistency
Analyses and Streamlining
» Biological Resources Reports
» Habitat Assessments
» Special-Status Species Surveys
» Jurisdictional Delineations, including Wetlands
» Noise and Vibration Studies
» Air Quality Studies
» Health Risk Assessments
» GIS Analysis and Mapping
» Construction Monitoring, including Worker Education
» State and Federal Permitting, including Wetlands and
Rare Species
» Historic Structure Reports
» Historic Resource Evaluations and Determinations
of Eligibility
» Cultural Resources Technical Reports

6. Qualifications and Capabilities

City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 17 Pamela Steele, Principal-in-Charge
Bob Prasse , Project Manager,
Director of Environmental Services

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

CEQA ANALYSIS
Kent Norton
Cameron Hile
Kevin Shannon

AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE

GAS, AND NOISE STUDIES
Kasey Kitowski
William Deeman

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ANALYSIS
Erik Jansen
.

Miguel Nunez, F&P
Michael Kennedy, F&P
Fatemeh Raniefar, F&P

TRANSPORTATION
Team Organizational Chart

City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 18 Pamela Steele has extensive experience on “both sides of the counter,” offering a full range of planning, environmental, and development consulting services to public agencies and private-sector clients. Early in her 30-year career, she was a Building Department employee whose frequent interaction with planners shifted her path toward contributing to a project from beginning to end—from due diligence to entitlement and permit approval to occupancy. Having served as a Planning Director and as a development project manager, Pamela’s strength lies in bringing people and perspectives together to create projects that provide public and private benefits. She has prepared and managed specific plans and amendments, community and master plans, and multilayered environmental reviews and clearances for industrial, commercial, residential, and medical projects. Pamela distills and articulates the needs of public agencies and private developers to foster collaboration and mutual understanding. In doing so, she helps them navigate the entire process to successfully achieve their common goals.

SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
» City of Twentynine Palms Planning Director,
Twentynine Palms, CA
» City of Cypress Assistant Planning Director, Cypress, CA » City of Canyon Lake Planning Director, Canyon Lake, CA » City of Murrieta Planning Staff, Murrieta, CA
» City of Diamond Bar Consultant Staff, Diamond Bar, CA » City of Yucaipa Planning Staff, Yucaipa, CA
» Kaiser Commerce Center Specific Ran Amendments and EIR, San Bernardino County, CA
» Crossroads Business Park Specific Plan Amendments and Build-Out, Ontario, CA
» Kaiser Permanente Medical Facilities and Master Plans, Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, Colton, San Marcos, San Bernardino, and Victorville, CA » Senior Assisted Living Projects (new and expansions of existing facilities), Multiple Locations, CA
» Steel Plant Expansion to Improve Air Quality and Safety Measures, San Bernardino County, CA
» Multiple General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments,
Multiple Locations, CA

EDUCATION
» University of California,
Riverside
» Brigham Y oung University,
Utah

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
» National Association
of Industrial and Office
Professionals
» American Planning
Association
» Urban Land Institute
Pamela Steele
PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE | MIG

City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 19 Bob Prasse has extensive knowledge and expertise in urban planning and environmental analyses. A college class on the economics of environment peaked Bob’s interest in the factors affecting the built environment, which led to a 35+-year career working with public agencies and developers throughout Southern California. With his analysis, communications, and writing skills, Bob helps clients anticipate and adjust to changing conditions while still meeting project goals related to general and specific plans, zoning ordinances, development reviews, and entitlement services. In addition, he has managed, prepared, and processed CEQA and NEPA documentation for a wide range of planning projects, including large-scale mixed-use communities, public facilities, general plans, retail centers, and warehouse/logistics complexes.

SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
» Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse, Fontana, CA
» FedEx Distribution Facility Expansion, Fontana, CA
» Duarte Station Specific Plan Amendment EIR, Duarte, CA » Duke Realty Logistics Warehouse EIR,
Redlands area of San Bernardino County, CA
» City of Garden Grove Focused General Plan Update (GPU) EIR, Garden Grove, CA
» City of Whittier GPU EIR, Whittier, CA
» City of Santa Fe Springs General Plan Update EIR,
Santa Fe Springs, CA
» City of Monterey Park GPU EIR, Monterey Park, CA
» City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update EIR,
Desert Hot Springs, CA
» City of Cudahy GPU EIR, Cudahy, CA
» City of Hesperia General Plan Update EIR, Hesperia, CA » The Preserve Specific Plan and Program EIR, Chino, CA » Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Program EIR, El Segundo, CA » Covina Town Center Specific Plan Program EIR, Covina, CA » Arrow Highway Specific Plan Program EIR, Glendora, CA » Redlands Crossing Shopping Center (Walmart Store) EIR, Redlands, CA » Renaissance Specific Plan (Rialto Airport Reuse), Program EIR, Rialto, CA

EDUCATION
» Master of Urban and
Regional Planning,
University of
Southern California
» BS, Public Affairs (Urban
Planning), University of
Southern California
Bob Prasse
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/PROJECT MANAGER | MIG

City of Gardena | Environmental Consulting Services 20 Kent Norton has 44 years of experience in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance for public- and private-sector clients encompassing transportation, aviation, public works, schools, residential, recreational, and mixed-use land developments. He has authored and managed a wide variety of environmental compliance documents for projects ranging from an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/ MND) for relocation of aviation uses at a regional airport and road widening/ improvements, to a subdivision of 13,000 acres in the San Bernardino desert and the World Logistics Center Specific Plan EIR that addressed 41-plus million square feet of warehousing on 2,600 acres in the City of Moreno Valley.

SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
» Citrus Avenue Industrial Warehouse, Fontana, CA
» Starpointe 6th Street Warehouse MND, San Bernardino County, CA » Memorial Park Master Plan MND, Upland, CA
» Hemet Modular Home Factory MND, Hemet, CA
» Housing Element Update ND, Downey, CA
» General Plan Update EIR, Whittier, CA
» Queen of the Valley Hospital Specific Plan EIR,
West Covina, CA
» Community Soccer Park IS/MND, Colton, CA
» General Plan EIR, Jurupa Valley, CA
» World Logistics Center Specific Plan EIR, Moreno Valley, CA » Los Alamos Hills Master Plan and EIR for Park and School Facilities, Murrieta, CA » Marketplace at Main Street Project EIR, Corona, CA
» West Fontana Logistics Center EIR, Fontana, CA
» North Business Park Specific Plan EIR, Westlake Village, CA » Paradise Knolls Specific Plan EIR, Jurupa Valley, CA
» Limonite Avenue Widening, Bain to Homestead IS/MND,
Jurupa Valley, CA
» Space Center Industrial Project EIR, Jurupa Valley, CA » Gateway South Building 5 MND Addendum, San Bernardino, CA

Gardena City CouncilNovember 18, 2025

Gardena City Council
November 18, 2025