Agenda packet, regular meeting, first session — Santa Fe Springs City Council, April 5, 2022 (part 1 of 5)

Agenda
04-05-22 AGENDA.PDF
Meeting Materials
APRIL 5, 2022, MEETING VIDEO
04-05-22 AGENDA PACKET.PDF

1. Documents:

2. Documents:
.

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE SANTA FE SPRINGS

HOUSING SUCCESSOR

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

AND CITY COUNCIL
April 5, 2022
6:00 P.M.

John M. Mora, Councilmember
Jay Sarno, Councilmember
Juanita Trujillo, Councilmember
Joe Angel Zamora, Mayor Pro Tem
Annette Rodriguez, Mayor
Council Chambers
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
You may attend the City Council meeting telephonically or electronically using the following means:

Electronically using Zoom: Go to Zoom.us and click on “Join A Meeting” or use the following link:
https://zoom.us/j/521620472?pwd=U3cyK1RuKzY1ekVGZFdKQXNZVzh4Zz09 Zoom Meeting ID: 521620472 Password: 659847
Telephonically: Dial: 888-475-4499 Meeting ID: 521620472 Public Comment: The public is encouraged to
address City Council on any matter listed on the
agenda or on any other matter within its
jurisdiction. If you wish to address the City
Council, please use the "Raise Hand" function
via Zoom once the Mayor opens Public
Comment during the meeting. You may also
submit comments in writing by sending them to
the City Clerk's Office at
[email protected]. All written
comments received by 12:00 p.m. the day of the
City Council Meeting will be distributed to the
City Council and made a part of the official record
of the meeting. Written comments will not be
read at the meeting, only the name of the person
submitting the comment will be announced.

Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance
with the ADA, if you need special assistance to
participate in a City meeting or other services
offered by this City, please contact the City Clerk’s
Office. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the
meeting or time when services are needed will
assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable
arrangements can be made to provide
accessibility to the meeting or service.

Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no
action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed
on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or
special circumstances exist. The City Council
may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule
certain matters for consideration at a future City
Council meeting.

Please Note: Staff reports, and supplemental
attachments, are available for inspection at the
office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 11710 E.

Telegraph Road during regular business hours
7:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., Monday-Thursday and every
other Friday. Telephone: (562) 868-0511.

City of Santa Fe Springs
Regular Meetings April 5, 2022
2 1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL
John M. Mora, Councilmember
Jay Sarno, Councilmember
Juanita Trujillo, Councilmember
Joe Angel Zamora, Mayor Pro Tem
Annette Rodriguez, Mayor

3. INVOCATION

4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time when comments may be made by members of the public on matters within the jurisdiction of the City Council, on the agenda and not on the agenda. The time limit for each speaker is three minutes unless otherwise specified by the Mayor.

HOUSING SUCCESSOR

6. CONSENT AGENDA
Consent Agenda items are considered routine matters which may be enacted by one motion and vote. Any item may be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately by the Housing Successor.

Minutes of the March 1, 2022 Housing Successor Meeting (City Clerk) Recommendation:
 Approve the minutes as submitted.

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

7. CONSENT AGENDA
Consent Agenda items are considered routine matters which may be enacted by one motion and vote. Any item may be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately by the Successor Agency.

Minutes of the March 1, 2022 Successor Agency Meeting (City Clerk) Recommendation:
 Approve the minutes as submitted.

CITY COUNCIL

City of Santa Fe Springs
Regular Meetings April 5, 2022
3 b. A Resolution of the City Council Reaffirming the Existence of a Local Emergency Due to the Threat of COVID-19 (pursuant to Government Code section 8630) (City Attorney)
Recommendation:
 Adopt Resolution No. 9775:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE

SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, REAFFIRMING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY DUE TO THE THREAT OF COVID-19.
c. A Resolution of the City Council Affirming Authorization of Remote Teleconference Meetings (City Attorney)
Recommendation:
 Adopt Resolution No. 9776:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE

SPRINGS AFFIRMING THE LEGALLY REQUIRED FINDINGS TO

AUTHORIZE THE CONDUCT OF REMOTE TELECONFERENCE
MEETINGS DURING A STATE OF EMERGENCY.
d. Town Center Plaza Parking Lot Improvements Project – Final Payment (Public Works)
Recommendation:
 Approve the final payment to Los Angeles Engineering, Inc. of Covina, California, in the amount of $21,813.90 (Less 5% Retention) for the subject project.
e. Paratransit User Subsidy Program Management Agreement between the Cities of Santa Fe Springs and Norwalk – Approval of Agreement (Public Works) Recommendation:
 Approve the Management Agreement between the Cities of Santa Fe Springs and Norwalk; and
 Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement with the City of Norwalk for a period of five years.
f. Authorize the Purchase of a 3-year Support Agreement, Providing Web Security, Email Protection and Archival Services (Finance)
Recommendation:
 Authorize the purchase of a 3-year support agreement from GovConnection, Inc. providing web security, email protection, and archival services by piggybacking off of the Region 4 Education Service Center Contract #R210402.
 Authorize the Director of Purchasing Services to issue a purchase order in the amount of $43,578.93.

PUBLIC HEARING

9. Consideration of an appeal of Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 and related Environmental Documents (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation City of Santa Fe Springs
Regular Meetings April 5, 2022
4 Monitoring and Reporting Program) (Planning)
Recommendation:
 Consider the information presented in this report, including all of the attachments, which collectively provide the necessary background and context; and
 Open the Public Hearing and receive any comments from the public regarding this appeal matter and, thereafter, close the Public Hearing; and  Deny the appeal by Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility  Adopt Resolution No. 9774
a. Adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with Traffic Study (MND) which shows that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and
b. Approving Development Plan Approval Case No. 980, subject to the conditions of approval as contained within Resolution No.190-2021.

NEW BUSINESS

10. Police Services Center Carpet Replacement Project – Authorize the purchase of Milliken Carpet and Installation/Site Work Services by piggybacking off Omnia Partners Contract Number 2020002150 (Public Works)
Recommendation:
 Authorize the Director of Purchasing to issue a purchase order in the amount of $61,343.88 for the carpet replacement and installation/site work services utilizing the Omnia Partners Contract Number 2020002150.

11. Authorize the Purchase of One (1) Cut-Away Bus by Piggybacking off the California Association for Coordinated Transportation (CALACT) Morongo Basin Transit Authority (MBTA) Vehicle Purchasing Cooperative Contract No. 20-01 AZ (Finance) Recommendation:
 Authorize the purchase of (1) New Ford E-450 Cut-Away Bus from A-Z Bus Sales by piggybacking off of CALACT/MBTA cooperative contract No. 20-01 AZ
 Authorize the Director of Purchasing to issue a purchase order in the amount of $97,749.26.

12. Adoption of Resolution No. 9773 Dissolving the Sister City Advisory Committee (Community Services)
Recommendation:
 Adopt Resolution No. 9773 dissolving the Sister City Advisory Committee.

13. PRESENTATIONS
a. Proclamation – Proclaiming April as Donate Life Month (City Manager’s Office) b. Recognition of 5K Fun Run Sponsors (Community Services)

14. CITY MANAGER’S AND EXECUTIVE TEAM REPORTS
City of Santa Fe Springs
Regular Meetings April 5, 2022
5 15. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS

16. COUNCIL COMMENTS

17. CLOSED SESSION

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
(Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: APN No. 8009-007-930 (southwest of Telegraph Road and Norwalk Blvd.) Agency negotiator: City Manager, Planning Director
Negotiating parties: Westland Real Estate Group
Under negotiation: Price and terms

18. CLOSED SESSION

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
(Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957(b)(1)) TITLE: City Manager Evaluation

19. CLOSED SESSION REPORT

20. ADJOURNMENT
I, Janet Martinez, City Clerk for the City of Santa Fe Springs, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing agenda was posted at the following locations; City’s website at www.santafesprings.org; Santa Fe Springs City Hall, 11710 Telegraph Road; Santa Fe Springs City Library, 11700 Telegraph Road; and the Town Center Plaza (Kiosk), 11740 Telegraph Road, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting.

March 30, 2022
Janet Martinez, CMC, City Clerk Date Posted
.

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE SANTA FE SPRINGS

HOUSING SUCCESSOR

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

AND CITY COUNCIL
April 5, 2022
6:00 P.M.

Please Note: Staff reports, and supplemental
attachments, are available for inspection at the
office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 11710 E.

Telegraph Road during regular business hours
7:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., Monday-Thursday and every
other Friday. Telephone: (562) 868-0511.

City of Santa Fe Springs
Regular Meetings April 5, 2022
2 1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL
John M. Mora, Councilmember
Jay Sarno, Councilmember
Juanita Trujillo, Councilmember
Joe Angel Zamora, Mayor Pro Tem
Annette Rodriguez, Mayor

3. INVOCATION

4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

HOUSING SUCCESSOR

Minutes of the March 1, 2022 Housing Successor Meeting (City Clerk) Recommendation:
 Approve the minutes as submitted.

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

Minutes of the March 1, 2022 Successor Agency Meeting (City Clerk) Recommendation:
 Approve the minutes as submitted.

CITY COUNCIL

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE

SPRINGS AFFIRMING THE LEGALLY REQUIRED FINDINGS TO

PUBLIC HEARING

NEW BUSINESS

12. Adoption of Resolution No. 9773 Dissolving the Sister City Advisory Committee (Community Services)
Recommendation:
 Adopt Resolution No. 9773 dissolving the Sister City Advisory Committee.

13. PRESENTATIONS
a. Proclamation – Proclaiming April as Donate Life Month (City Manager’s Office) b. Recognition of 5K Fun Run Sponsors (Community Services)

14. CITY MANAGER’S AND EXECUTIVE TEAM REPORTS
City of Santa Fe Springs
Regular Meetings April 5, 2022
5 15. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS

16. COUNCIL COMMENTS

17. CLOSED SESSION

18. CLOSED SESSION

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
(Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957(b)(1)) TITLE: City Manager Evaluation

19. CLOSED SESSION REPORT

March 30, 2022
Janet Martinez, CMC, City Clerk Date Posted
FOR ITEM NO. 6
PLEASE SEE ITEM NO. 8A
FOR ITEM NO. 7
PLEASE SEE ITEM NO. 8A
City Council Meeting April 5, 2022
Report Submitted By: Janet Martinez, City Clerk/ Date of Report: March 30, 2022 Fernando Munoz, Deputy City Clerk
City of Santa Fe Springs

CONSENT AGENDA
Minutes of the March 1, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meetings

BACKGROUND
Staff has prepared minutes for the following meetings:
 Special City Council Meeting of March 1, 2022
 Regular City Council Meeting of March 1, 2022
Staff hereby submits the minutes for Council’s approval.

Raymond R. Cruz
City Manager
Attachments:

1. March 1, 2022 Special Meeting Minutes

2. March 1, 2022 Regular Meeting Minutes

RECOMMENDATION(S)
 Approve the minutes as submitted.

ITEM NO. 8A
APPROVED:
+

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

CITY COUNCIL
March 1, 2022

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Rodriguez called the meeting to order via teleconference at 5:02 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL
Members present: Councilmembers Mora, Sarno, Trujillo, Mayor Pro Tem Zamora, and Mayor Rodriguez.

Members absent: None.

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There was no one wishing to speak during Public Comments.

CITY COUNCIL

4. STUDY SESSION
2022-2025 Capital Improvement Plan (Public Works)
Recommendation:
 Approval of 2022-2025 Capital Improvement Plan.

Director of Public Works, Noe Negrete provided a presentation on Item No. 4. He summarized about coming to Council late last year with a needs list that needed to be condensed, which now stands at 41 projects with an estimated cost of $28 million. He added that the project list is an evolving document, and that changes can be made as needed. Individual meetings were held with each Councilmember to help identify which projects needed priority, along with identifying commercial streets that need attention.

Director Negrete spoke about “Exhibit B” which highlights the recommended projects and how they could potentially be funded. He spoke about defining the scope of work for certain projects so that the true cost can be identified and grants can be searched for. Councilmember Sarno asked if there would be a separate study session for the Aquatic Center, which Director Negrete stated there would be in order to coordinate on what to include when it comes to the renovation.

Director Negrete spoke about “Exhibit C”, which provides an update on the ongoing projects for 2021-2022. Other items that were discussed were current projects in design, and the projects completed in 2021. He concluded the meeting by thanking Council, the CIP Subcommittee, executive team, management team, all City departments, and Public Works staff for their support in finalizing the project list. Mayor Pro Tem Zamora requested copies of the exhibits that were shown during the presentation. City Manager, Ray Cruz stated that discussions were had with federal and state legislators in an attempt to help secure money for specific projects.

Minutes of the January 27, 2022 Special City Council Meeting

Page 2 ends

5. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Rodriguez adjourned the meeting at 5:24 p.m.
_____________________
Annette Rodriguez
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________
Janet Martinez Date
City Clerk
APPROVED:

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE

CITY COUNCIL
March 1, 2022

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Rodriguez called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL
Members present: Councilmembers/Directors: Mora, Sarno, Trujillo, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Zamora and Mayor/Chair Rodriguez.

Members absent: None

3. INVOCATION
Mayor Pro Tem Zamora led the invocation.

4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
St. Paul High School student Makai Pieper led the Pledge of Allegiance.

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following people spoke during Public Comments: Yvette Ximenez from Arellano Associates on behalf of LA Metro via Zoom. City Manager, Raymond R. Cruz provided additional comments on the LA Metro meeting set for April 2022.

HOUSING SUCCESSOR

Minutes of the February 1, 2022 Housing Successor Meetings (City Clerk) Recommendation:
 Approve the minutes as submitted.

It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Zamora, seconded by Councilmember Mora, to approve the minutes as submitted, by the following vote:

Ayes: Mora, Sarno, Trujillo, Zamora, Rodríguez
Nayes: None

Absent: None

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

Minutes of the March 1, 2022 Housing Successor, Successor Agency, and City Council Meetings

Page 2 ends

a. Minutes of the February 1, 2022 Successor Agency Meetings (City Clerk) Recommendation:
 Approve the minutes as submitted.

It was moved by Councilmember Trujillo, seconded by Councilmember Sarno, to approve the minutes as submitted, by the following vote:

Ayes: Mora, Sarno, Trujillo, Zamora, Rodríguez
Nayes: None

Absent: None

CITY COUNCIL

8. CONSENT AGENDA
Consent Agenda items are considered routine matters which may be enacted by one motion and vote. Any item may be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately by the City Council.
a. Minutes of the January 27 and February 1, 2022 Regular and Special City Council Meetings (City Clerk)
Recommendation:
 Approve the minutes as submitted.
b. A Resolution of the City Council Reaffirming the Existence of a Local Emergency Due to Threat of COVID-19 (pursuant to Government Code section 8630) (City Attorney)
Recommendation:
 Adopt Resolution No. 9768:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE

SPRINGS AFFIRMING THE LEGALLY REQUIRED FINDINGS TO

AUTHORIZE THE CONDUCT OF REMOTE TELECONFERENCE
MEETINGS DURING A STATE OF EMERGENCY.
d. Resolution No. 9764 – Ordering the Preparation of the Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022/23 in Conjunction with the Annual Levy of Assessments for Street Lighting District No. 1 (Public Works)
Recommendation:
 Adopt Resolution No. 9764, ordering the preparation of the Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022/23 in conjunction with the annual levy of assessments for Street Lighting District No. 1.

Minutes of the March 1, 2022 Housing Successor, Successor Agency, and City Council Meetings

Page 3 ends

e. Resolution No. 9765 – Ordering the Preparation of the Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022/23 in Conjunction with the Annual Levy of Assessments for Heritage Springs Assessment District No. 2001-01 (Hawkins Street and Palm Drive) (Public Works)
Recommendation:
 Adopt Resolution No. 9765, ordering the preparation of the Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022/23 in conjunction with the annual levy of assessments for Heritage Springs Assessment District No. 2001-01 (Hawkins Street and Palm Drive).
f. Catch Basin Maintenance Services – Renewal of Contract (Public Works) Recommendation:
 Renew the contract for an additional year with Ron's Maintenance, Inc. for Catch Basin Inspection and Cleaning, for an amount not to exceed $31,760. g. Meeting Report from the January 27, 2022 Meeting of the Audit/Finance Subcommittee (Finance) Recommendation:
 Receive and file the meeting report from the January 27, 2022 meeting of the Audit/Finance Sub-committee.
h. Government Tort Claim Denial – BNSF Railway Company (City Attorney) Recommendation:
 Deny the government tort claim from BNSF Railway Company and authorize the Municipal Affairs Manager or designee to send a denial letter in a form approved by the City Attorney’s office.

It was moved by Councilmember Mora, seconded by Mayor Rodriguez, to approve Item Nos. 8A through 8H, by the following vote:

Ayes: Mora, Sarno, Trujillo, Zamora, Rodriguez
Nayes: None

Absent: None

PUBLIC HEARING

9. Consideration of an Appeal of Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 and related Environmental Documents (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) (Planning) Recommendation:
 Continue the appeal hearing to the April 5, 2022 City Council Meeting.

It was moved by Councilmember Mora, seconded by Councilmember Trujillo, to continue the appeal hearing to the April 5, 2022 City Council Meeting, by the following vote:

Ayes: Mora, Sarno, Trujillo, Zamora, Rodriguez
Nayes: None

Absent: None
Minutes of the March 1, 2022 Housing Successor, Successor Agency, and City Council Meetings

Page 4 ends

NEW BUSINESS

10. Presentation and Consideration of the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2021 (Finance)
Recommendation:
 Receive and file the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2021 and related communications.

It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Zamora, seconded by Mayor Rodriguez, to receive and file City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2021 and related communications, by the following vote:

Ayes: Mora, Sarno, Trujillo, Zamora, Rodriguez
Nayes: None

Absent: None

11. Resolution No. 9766 and Resolution No. 9767 – Request for Parking Restrictions during Certain Hours and for Vehicles over 6000 Pounds on Larwin Circle west of Marquardt Avenue (Public Works)
Recommendation:
 Adopt Resolution No. 9766 to implement a parking restriction between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. with a tow-away zone for vehicles that violate parking the restriction on both sides of Larwin Circle from Marquardt Avenue to a point 460 feet west of Marquardt Avenue; and  Adopt Resolution No. 9767 for the restriction of parking of vehicles weighing over 6000 Pounds on both sides of Larwin Circle from Marquardt Avenue to a point 460 feet west of Marquardt Avenue.

Director of Public Works, Noe Negrete provided a presentation on Item No. 11.

It was moved by Councilmember Trujillo, seconded by Councilmember Sarno, to adopt Resolution No. 9766 to implement a parking restriction between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. with a tow-away zone for vehicles that violate parking the restriction on both sides of Larwin Circle from Marquardt Avenue to a point 460 feet west of Marquardt Avenue, and adopt Resolution No. 9767 for the restriction of parking of vehicles weighing over 6000 Pounds on both sides of Larwin Circle from Marquardt Avenue to a point 460 feet west of Marquardt Avenue, by the following vote:

Ayes: Mora, Sarno, Trujillo, Zamora, Rodriguez
Nayes: None

Absent: None

12. PRESENTATIONS
Proclamation – Proclaiming the week of March 21-27, 2022 as “National Drug and Alcohol Facts Week”

13. CITY MANAGER’S AND EXECUTIVE TEAM REPORTS
 City Manager, Raymond R. Cruz reported on completing a year-long teambuilding program provided by Leader Gov with department directors.  Director of Public Works, Noe Negrete provided an update on the Heritage Park Train Exhibit Improvement project and the Betty Wilson Center Vinyl Flooring replacement and interior painting. Lastly, he announced the new Police Patrol Minutes of the March 1, 2022 Housing Successor, Successor Agency, and City Council Meetings

Page 5 ends

Vehicles.
 Director of Planning, Wayne Morrell provided an update on the Chick-Fil-A restaurant that is set to open in Spring 2023. Lastly, he spoke about reviewing the results on the update to the Sculpture Garden.
 Director of Police Services, Dino Torres spoke about reinstating the Bike Patrol Program in the coming months.
 Battalion Chief, Chad Van Meeteren provided a report of COVID-19 cases within the City. He highlighted the graduation of paramedic Tim Taylor and spoke about the end of probation for firefighters Daniel Donis and Derek Gard.  Director of Finance, Travis Hickey spoke about meeting with sales tax consultant HdL to review the 2021 3rd quarter sales tax updates. He also spoke about working with PPE Unite to supply PPE to City employees. Lastly, he spoke about the upcoming Summer Hiring Expo on Saturday, March 26th.  Director of Community Services, Maricela Balderas provided information on the Fitness Court Ribbon Cutting and the Teens Volunteer Day at the Community Garden. She also spoke about the Shamrock 5K Fun Run/Walk on March 12, and about the Float Volunteer Recognition Dinner. Lastly, she announced information for the 2022 Homeless Count update.

14. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS
Mayor Pro Tem Zamora appointed Stella Valenzuela to the Historical and Community Preservation Advisory Committee.

15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Mora congratulated department heads for their leadership award. He spoke about attending Officer Keith Boyer’s 5-year anniversary memorial. He attended a grand opening of a new store at Cerritos College and also spoke about attending the WASC accreditation for Santa Fe High School.

Councilmember Sarno congratulated the new paramedics and the Parks and Recreation staff for the ribbon cutting event.

Councilmember Trujillo commended the new paramedics and also spoke about the fitness court opening. She thanked Director Negrete for providing a clear presentation during the CIP Study Session.

Mayor Pro Tem Zamora brought attention to the new police vehicles and also spoke highly of the new fitness court being opened. He spoke about the Community Garden cleanup and also spoke about the accreditation event for Santa Fe High School.

Mayor Rodriguez congratulated the new paramedics and also spoke about the Community Garden event. She thanked the volunteers who attended the dinner and also spoke about the accreditation event for Santa Fe High School.

16. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Rodriguez adjourned the meeting at 6:52 p.m. in memory of Yolanda Carpio and Alvina Serna.

Minutes of the March 1, 2022 Housing Successor, Successor Agency, and City Council Meetings

Page 6 ends

_____________________
Annette Rodriguez
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________
Janet Martinez Date
City Clerk
City Council Meeting April 5, 2022
Report Submitted By: Ivy M. Tsai, City Attorney Date of Report: March 30, 2022 City of Santa Fe Springs

CONSENT AGENDA
A Resolution of the City Council Reaffirming the Existence of a Local Emergency Due to the Threat of COVID-19 (pursuant to Government Code section 8630)

BACKGROUND
On March 4, 2020, the Governor of California issued a proclamation declaring a state of emergency due to the threat of COVID-19. On March 13, 2020, the President of the United States issued a proclamation of national emergency, beginning March 1, 2020, due to the COVID-19 outbreak. On March 17, 2020, the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Services, issued a proclamation declaring the existence of a local emergency beginning March 12, 2020, due to the threat of COVID-19. On March 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9668 ratifying the proclamation, and on April 9, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9669 relating to taking action in response to the local emergency. The City Council has continued to reaffirm the existence of a local emergency due to the threat of COVID-19.

Government Code section 8630(c) provides that the City Council shall review the need for continuing the local emergency at least once every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency. The state of emergency still exists and has not been lifted at the statewide or county level. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued a revised health order on March 23, 2022, which states that Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicators and thresholds measuring community transmission of COVID-19 within the County continue to be at a Substantial level. The health order also states that while the Omicron BA.1 variant is currently the dominant variant in the County, there is a gradual increase in the BA.2 subvariant, which is highly transmissible.

The reasons for declaring a local emergency still exist, and therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution affirming the existence of a local emergency in accordance with Government Code section 8630(c).

Raymond R. Cruz
City Manager
Attachment:

1. Resolution No. 9775
RECOMMENDATION:
 Adopt Resolution No. 9775:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE

SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, REAFFIRMING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY DUE TO THE THREAT OF COVID-19
ITEM NO. 8B
APPROVED:

ITEM NO.:
1 RESOLUTION NO. 9775

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS,

CALIFORNIA, REAFFIRMING THE EXISTENCE OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY DUE TO THE THREAT OF COVID-19
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor of California issued a proclamation declaring a state of emergency due to the threat of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the President of the United States issued a proclamation of national emergency, beginning March 1, 2020, due to the COVID-19 outbreak; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the City Manager, acting as the Director of Emergency Services, issued a proclamation declaring the existence of a local emergency beginning March 12, 2020, due to the threat of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 18, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9668 ratifying the proclamation declaring the existence of a local emergency, and on April 9, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9669 relating to taking action in response to the local emergency; and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted resolutions reaffirming the existence of a local emergency due to the threat of COVID-19 pursuant to Government Code section 8630(c), which provides that the City Council shall review the need for continuing the local emergency at least once every 60 days until the City Council terminates the local emergency; and
WHEREAS, the state of emergency still exists and has not been lifted at the statewide or county level; and
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health issued a revised health order on March 23, 2022, which states that Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicators and thresholds measuring community transmission of COVID-19 within the County continue to be at a Substantial level; and WHEREAS, the health order also states that while the Omicron BA.1 variant is currently the dominant variant in the County, there is a gradual increase in the BA.2 subvariant, which is highly transmissible; and
WHEREAS, COVID-19 continues to pose a threat to the safety of individuals in 2 Santa Fe Springs and Los Angeles County, and the reasons for declaring a local emergency still exist.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1. The City Council determines that there is need for continuing the local emergency until such time as the City Council declares the termination of the local emergency. The City Council will review the need for continuing the local emergency at least once every 60 days in accordance with Government Code section 8630(c).

2. The City Council reaffirms Resolution Nos. 9668 and 9669 relating to the declaration of and response to a local emergency due to the threat of COVID-19, and all parts therein.

APPROVED and ADOPTED this 5th day of April, 2022.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Annette Rodriguez, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Janet Martinez, CMC, City Clerk
City Council Meeting April 5, 2022
Report Submitted By: Ivy M. Tsai, City Attorney Date of Report: March 30, 2022 City of Santa Fe Springs

CONSENT AGENDA
A Resolution of the City Council Affirming Authorization of Remote Teleconference Meetings

BACKGROUND
At its regular meeting of December 7, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9747 authorizing the City Council and all legislative bodies and committees of the City to meet by teleconference. In order to continue holding teleconference meetings pursuant to this new law, an agency is required, at least every 30 days, to make the following findings by majority vote:
(A) The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency.
(B) Any of the following circumstances exist:
(i) The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.
(ii) State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

On March 4, 2020, the Governor issued a proclamation declaring a state of emergency due to the threat of COVID-19. The California Department of Public Health and the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health have issued public health orders during this state of emergency for the purpose of reducing transmission of COVID-19. Such orders have included social distancing requirements. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person due to a number of factors, including the high number of daily cases and community transmission and increased transmission of COVID-19 by the Delta variant. The Department of Public Health has stated that the Delta variant is two times as contagious as earlier variants, remains predominant in Los Angeles County, and continues to lead to increased infections.

Accordingly, staff has prepared the attached resolution to continue to authorize remote teleconference meetings and will include on all future meeting agendas such a resolution until such time as the state of emergency ceases, or as otherwise directed by the City Council.

RECOMMENDATION
 Adopt Resolution No. 9776:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE

SPRINGS AFFIRMING THE LEGALLY REQUIRED FINDINGS TO

AUTHORIZE THE CONDUCT OF REMOTE TELECONFERENCE

MEETINGS DURING A STATE OF EMERGENCY
ITEM NO. 8C
City Council Meeting April 5, 2022
Report Submitted By: Ivy M. Tsai, City Attorney Date of Report: March 30, 2022 City of Santa Fe Springs
Raymond R. Cruz
City Manager
Attachment:

1. Resolution No. 9776
APPROVED:

ITEM NO.:
1 RESOLUTION NO. 9776
RESOLUTION NO. 9776

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

AFFIRMING THE LEGALLY REQUIRED FINDINGS TO AUTHORIZE THE CONDUCT

OF REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS DURING A STATE OF EMERGENCY WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, pursuant to California Government Code section 8625, the Governor declared a state of emergency; and
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, which bill went into immediate effect as urgency legislation; and
WHEREAS, AB 361 adds Subsection (e) to Section 54953 of the Government Code to authorize legislative bodies to conduct teleconference meetings without complying with the requirements set forth in Section 54953(b)(3), provided the legislative body makes specified findings and complies with certain requirements; and WHEREAS, the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health reports a high number of daily cases and community transmission, as well as increased transmission of COVID-19 due to the Delta variant, which is two times as contagious as earlier variants, remains predominant in Los Angeles County, and continues to lead to increased infections; and
WHEREAS, public health officials recommend social distancing as a protective measure to decrease the chance of spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of November 2, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9735 authorizing the City Council and all legislative bodies and committees of the City to meet by teleconference; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 54953(e)(3) requires an agency to reconsider the circumstances of the state of emergency and make certain findings every thirty days in order to continue to conduct remote teleconference meetings pursuant to Section 54953(e).

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE that:

1. The City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency and finds that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of its members to meet safely in person.

2. The City Council and all legislative bodies and committees of the City are authorized to meet by teleconference pursuant to, and in compliance with the requirements of, Government Code section 54953(e).

APPROVED:

ITEM NO.:
2 RESOLUTION NO. 9776
APPROVED and ADOPTED this 5th day of April, 2022 by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_____________________________
Annette Rodriguez, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Janet Martinez, CMC, City Clerk
City of Santa Fe Springs
City Council Meeting April 5, 2022
Report Submitted By: Noe Negrete Date of Report: March 30, 2022 Director of Public Works

CONSENT AGENDA
Town Center Plaza Parking Lot Improvements Project – Final Payment

BACKGROUND
On February 11, 2021, the City Council awarded a contract to Los Angeles Engineering Inc. of Covina, California in the amount of $3,258,000.00 for Town Center Plaza Parking Lot Improvements project. The renovation included; drainage enhancements, improved traffic circulation, new sidewalks, landscape, irrigation, asphalt concrete pavement, parking/pedestrian lighting, information kiosk, lighted entry handrails, new entry monuments, signage, traffic signal improvements, sewer improvements, wider drive isles, and water/sewer connections.

The following payment detail represents the Final Payment (less 5% Retention) due per terms of the contract for the work which has been completed and found to be satisfactory.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Town Center Plaza Parking Lot Improvement Project is funded by the Utility Users Tax (UUT) Capital Improvement Fund. Sufficient funding is available from UUT to complete funding for the project.

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT
The Town Center Plaza Parking Lot Improvements Project will improve the condition of the existing parking lot section, enhance operational safety, and reduce maintenance costs.

Raymond R. Cruz
City Manager
Attachments:

Exhibit No. 1: Final Payment Detail

RECOMMENDATION
 Approve the final payment to Los Angeles Engineering, Inc. of Covina, California, in the amount of $21,813.90 (Less 5% Retention) for the subject project.

ITEM NO. 8D

City of Santa Fe Springs
City Council Meeting April 5, 2022
Report Submitted By: Noe Negrete Date of Report: March 30, 2022 Director of Public Works

CONSENT AGENDA
Paratransit User Subsidy Program Management Agreement between the Cities of Santa Fe Springs and Norwalk – Approval of Agreement

BACKGROUND
In 2009, the City of Santa Fe Springs entered into a Transportation Management Association Agreement (TMA) with the City of Norwalk. The Agreement expired on June 30, 2020, was not renewed because of the pandemic and the reduction of transportation services required in the region. The Agreement is revised from a TMA to a Management Agreement (MA) to broaden the scope of work, will include the Paratransit User Side Subsidy Transportation Program, along with a Fixed Route Service Passenger Subsidy Program, which was part of the former TMA.

The goal of the MA is to facilitate transportation options, which includes ridesharing, coordination between transportation-related programs, and creating a lasting and valuable partnership between cities and employers in the region. This agreement directly benefits Santa Fe Springs’ senior and disabled residents by providing them access to supplemental transportation.

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Management Agreement with the City of Norwalk for five years, effective February 15, 2022, and ending on June 30, 2027.

LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney’s office has reviewed the agreement.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Fiscal Year 2021/22 budget includes a projected expense of $5,000 for activities under the Management Agreement. Funds for these activities are budgeted and paid for by local return funds designated for transportation projects.

Raymond R. Cruz
Attachment City Manager
Exhibit No. 1: Agreement

RECOMMENDATION
 Approve the Management Agreement between the Cities of Santa Fe Springs and Norwalk; and
 Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement with the City of Norwalk for a period of five years.

ITEM NO. 8E

City Council Meeting April 5, 2022
Report Submitted By: Jeff Bailey Date of Report: March 30, 2022 Finance Department
City of Santa Fe Springs
Springs

CONSENT AGENDA
Authorize the Purchase of a 3-year Support Agreement, Providing Web Security, Email Protection and Archival Services

BACKGROUND
The City utilizes multiple Barracuda hardware devices to enhance the availability, performance and security of the City's computer systems, including the following:

Web Filtering: Provides spyware, malware and virus detection and protection E-mail Protection: provides detection and blocking of spam and phishing messages E-mail Archival Services: provides long-term archival of the City's email system for backup and restoration of messages.

The 3-year agreement will extend our current coverage on Barracuda devices thru September 2025. This agreement includes keeping the devices up to date with the latest firmware and software updates, instant replacement coverage in case of any hardware failures and a subscription to their Advanced Threat Protection service.

Technology Services is recommending to purchase a 3-year support agreement from GovConnection, Inc. in the amount of $43,578.93. GovConnection, Inc. has been a responsive, reliable hardware and software vendor that Technology Services has used in the past. In addition, GovConnection, Inc. currently has an active contract with Region 4 Education Service Center (ESC) after a comprehensive bid process was conducted in April 2021.

FISCAL IMPACT
The acquisition cost of the licenses is included in the adopted Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget.

Raymond R. Cruz
Attachment(s) City Manager

1. GovConnection, Inc. Quote

2. Approval of Contract Award #R210402 (RFP #21-04)

RECOMMENDATION
 Authorize the purchase of a 3-year support agreement from GovConnection, Inc. providing web security, email protection, and archival services by piggybacking off of the Region 4 Education Service Center Contract #R210402.
 Authorize the Director of Purchasing Services to issue a purchase order in the amount of $43,578.93.

ITEM NO. 8F
Account Executive: David Spence
Phone: (800) 800-0019 ext. 75046
Fax: 603-683-1133
Email: [email protected] Date: 2/17/2022
Valid Through: 3/19/2022
Account Manager: Account #: S03064
Phone:

Fax:

Email:

Barracuda

-
Barracuda $ 110.00 $ 103.95 $ 94.37 $ 3,586.06
2 38 37627237 BSF300A-A
Email Security Gateway 300 1 Month

Barracuda

-
Barracuda $ 190.00 $ 179.55 $ 160.14 $ 6,085.32
3 38 37524246 BSF300A-H
1-Month Instant Replacement for ESG
300
Barracuda
-
Barracuda $ 66.00 $ 62.37 $ 58.42 $ 2,219.96
4 HW Serial # 1303202 8/19/2022-
9/22/2025 $ -
5 28 37517396 BYF410A-E
1-Month Energize Updates Subscription
for Web Security Gateway Appliance
410
Barracuda
-
Barracuda $ 130.00 $ 122.85 $ 106.96 $ 2,994.88
6 28 37517521 BYF410A-H
1-Month Instant Replacement
Subscription for Web Security Gateway
Appliance 410
Barracuda
-
Barracuda $ 100.00 $ 94.50 $ 82.69 $ 2,315.32
7 28 37517476 BYF410A-A
Web Security Gateway Appliance 410
Advanced Threat Protection
Subscription 1 Month

Barracuda

-
Barracuda $ 120.00 $ 113.40 $ 98.73 $ 2,764.44
8 HW Serial # 1451101 6/1/2022-
9/22/2025 $ -
9 28 37528685 BYF310A-E
1-Month Energize Updates for Web
Security Gateway 310
Barracuda
-
Barracuda $ 55.50 $ 52.45 $ 45.66 $ 1,278.48
10 28 37528706 BYF310A-H
1-Month Instant Replacement for Web
Security Gateway 310
Barracuda
-
Barracuda $ 50.00 $ 47.25 $ 41.35 $ 1,157.80
11 28 37554357 BYF310A-A
Web Security Gateway Appliance 310
ATP Subscripion 1 mo

Barracuda

-
Barracuda $ 55.50 $ 52.45 $ 45.66 $ 1,278.48
12 HW Serial # 510343 6/1/2023-9/22/2025 $ -
13 28 37639537 BBF440A-E
Load Balancer App 440 1 Month

Barracuda

-
Barracuda $ 77.80 $ 73.52 $ 64.00 $ 1,792.00
14 28 37639545 BBF440A-H
Load Balancer App 440 1 Month

Barracuda

-
Barracuda $ 100.00 $ 94.50 $ 82.28 $ 2,303.84
15 HW Serial # 856731 6/1/2023-9/22/2025 $ -
16 28 37565128 BMA350A-E
1-Month Engerize Updates for Message
Archiver 350
Barracuda
-
Barracuda $ 160.00 $ 151.20 $ 131.65 $ 3,686.20
17 28 37644133 BMA350A-B
Message Archiver Application 350 1
Month

Barracuda

-
Barracuda $ 140.00 $ 132.30 $ 115.19 $ 3,225.32
18 28 37565136 BMA350A-H
1-Month Instant Replacement for
Message Archiver 350
Barracuda
-
Barracuda $ 130.00 $ 122.85 $ 107.48 $ 3,009.44
19 HW Serial # 913209 6/1/2023-9/22/2025 $ -
20 24 37528685 BYF310A-E
1-Month Energize Updates for Web
Security Gateway 310
Barracuda
-
Barracuda $ 55.50 $ 52.45 $ 45.66 $ 1,095.84
21 24 37528706 BYF310A-H
1-Month Instant Replacement for Web
Security Gateway 310
Barracuda
-
Barracuda $ 50.00 $ 47.25 $ 41.35 $ 992.40
22 24 37554357 BYF310A-A
Web Security Gateway Appliance 310
ATP Subscripion 1 mo

Barracuda

-
Barracuda $ 55.50 $ 52.45 $ 45.66 $ 1,095.84
23 HW Serial # 527924 9/23/2023-
9/22/2025 $ -
24 31 37528706 BYF310A-H
1-Month Instant Replacement for Web
Security Gateway 310
Barracuda
-
Barracuda $ 50.00 $ 47.25 $ 41.35 $ 1,281.85
25 31 37528685 BYF310A-E
1-Month Energize Updates for Web
Security Gateway 310
Barracuda
-
Barracuda $ 55.50 $ 52.45 $ 45.66 $ 1,415.46
26 HW Serial # 953957 3/1/2023-9/22/2025 $ -
27 Pricing Valid Until 3/18/2022 $ -
5-30 Days A/R/O
Important Notice: --- THIS QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING Terms of Sale: All purchases from GovConnection, Inc. are subject to the Terms and Conditions of our OMNIA Partners/Region 4 ESC Contract # R210402. Any Order accepted by GovConnection for the items included in this Quotation is expressly limited to those Terms and Conditions; any other terms and conditions referenced or appearing in your Purchase Order are considered null and void. No other terms and conditions shall apply without the written consent of GovConnection, Inc. Please refer to our Quote Number in your order.

Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
(562) 868-0511 (562) 868-0511 x299

SALES QUOTE
GovConnection, Inc. # 2531421.01 732 Milford Road PLEASE REFER TO THE ABOVE QUOTE # WHEN ORDERING Merrimack, NH 03054

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
11710 Telegraph Rd
QUOTE PROVIDED TO: SHIP TO:

AB#: 6014477 AB#: 21734765

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

FINANCE DEPARTMENT JEFF BAILEY
11710 TELEGRAPH RD
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670 City Hall

Page 1 of 3 ends

Account Executive: David Spence
Phone: (800) 800-0019 ext. 75046
Fax: 603-683-1133
Email: [email protected] Date: 2/17/2022
Valid Through: 3/19/2022
Account Manager: Account #: S03064
Phone:

Fax:

Email:

Customer Contact: Jeff Bailey Phone: (562) 868-0511 x7438 Email: [email protected] Fax: (562) 868-7112 DELIVERY FOB SHIP VIA SHIP WEIGHT TERMS CONTRACT ID#
Destination Small Pkg Ground Service Level .00 lbs Net 30 R210402 * Line # Qty Item # Mfg. Part # Description Mfg. MSRP/List Price Standard Contract Price Adjusted Contract Price Ext Contract Pricing 5-30 Days A/R/O
Important Notice: --- THIS QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING Terms of Sale: All purchases from GovConnection, Inc. are subject to the Terms and Conditions of our OMNIA Partners/Region 4 ESC Contract # R210402. Any Order accepted by GovConnection for the items included in this Quotation is expressly limited to those Terms and Conditions; any other terms and conditions referenced or appearing in your Purchase Order are considered null and void. No other terms and conditions shall apply without the written consent of GovConnection, Inc. Please refer to our Quote Number in your order.

Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
(562) 868-0511 (562) 868-0511 x299

SALES QUOTE
GovConnection, Inc. # 2531421.01 732 Milford Road PLEASE REFER TO THE ABOVE QUOTE # WHEN ORDERING Merrimack, NH 03054

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS
11710 Telegraph Rd
QUOTE PROVIDED TO: SHIP TO:

AB#: 6014477 AB#: 21734765

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

FINANCE DEPARTMENT JEFF BAILEY
11710 TELEGRAPH RD
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670 City Hall
Subtotal $ 43,578.93
Fee $ 0.00
Shipping and Handling $ 0.00
Tax Exempt!
Total $ 43,578.93

Page 2 of 3 ends

ORDERING INFORMATION
GovConnection, Inc. DBA Connection
OMNIA Partners/Region 4 ESC Contract #R210402
Contract Expiration: 31 May 2024
Please contact your account manager with any questions.

Ordering Address
GovConnection, Inc.
732 Milford Road
Merrimack, NH 03054
Remittance Address
GovConnection, Inc.

Box 536477
Pittsburgh, PA 15253-5906
Please reference the Contract # on all purchase orders.

TERMS & CONDITIONS
Payment Terms: NET 30 (subject to approved credit)
FOB Point: DESTINATION (within Continental US)
Maximum Order Limitation: NONE
FEIN: 52-1837891
DUNS Number: 80-967-8782
CEC: 80-068888K
Cage Code: OGTJ3
Business Size: LARGE
WARRANTY: Manufacturer’s Standard Commercial Warranty
NOTE: It is the end user's responsibility to review, understand and agree to the terms of any End User License Agreement (EULA).

Important Notice: --- THIS QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING Terms of Sale: All purchases from GovConnection, Inc. are subject to the Terms and Conditions of our OMNIA Partners/Region 4 ESC Contract #R210402. Any Order accepted by GovConnection for the items included in this Quotation is expressly limited to those Terms and Conditions; any other terms and conditions referenced or appearing in your Purchase Order are considered null and void. No other terms and conditions shall apply without the written consent of GovConnection, Inc. Please refer to our Quote Number in your order.

If you require a hard copy invoice for your credit card order, please visit the link below and click on the Proof of Purchase/Invoice link on the left side of the page to print one:
https://www.govconnection.com/web/Shopping/ProofOfPurchase.htm Please forward your Contract or Purchase Order to:

[email protected]
QUESTIONS: Call 800-800-0019
FAX: 603.683.0374
April 30, 2021
Robert Marconi
Vice President SLED Sales
GovConnection, Inc. dba Connection – Public Sector Solutions 732 Milford Road
Merrimack, NH 03054
[email protected]
Re: Award of Contract #R210402
Dear Mr. Marconi:

Per official action taken by the Board of Directors of Region 4 Education Service Center on April 27, 2021, we are pleased to announce that after successful negotiated terms and conditions, GovConnection, Inc. dba Connection – Public Sector Solutions has been awarded an annual contract for the following, based on the sealed proposal (RFP#21-04) submitted on January 19, 2021:

Commodity/Service Supplier
Technology Solutions, Products and Services GovConnection, Inc. dba Connection – Public Sector Solutions
This contract is effective June 1, 2021 and will expire on May 31, 2024. As indicated above, your contract # is R210402. This contract may be renewed annually for an additional two (2) years if mutually agreed upon by Region 4 ESC/OMNIA Partners, Public Sector and GovConnection, Inc. dba Connection – Public Sector Solutions.

Your participation in the proposal process is appreciated and we look forward to a successful partnership. Please feel free to provide copies of this letter to your sales representative(s) to assist in their daily course of business.

If you have any questions, please contact Deborah Bushnell, the Contract Manager assigned to your contract, at (713) 554-7348 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Robert Zingelmann
Chief Financial Officer, Finance and Operations Services DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A44D1AE-E67B-40A9-BCC1-B014DCB41E1D City of Santa Fe Springs
City Council Meeting April 5, 2022
Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: March 30, 2022 Planning and Development Department
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from March 1, 2022 City Council Meeting) Consideration of an appeal of Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 and related Environmental Documents (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program)
Development Plan Approval (DPA 980)
A request for approval to allow the construction of a new ±144,434 sq. ft. concrete tiltup industrial building and related improvements on property located at 11401 Greenstone Avenue (APN: 8026-018-023) within the M-2, Heavy Manufacturing, Zone. (Greenstone SFS, LLC)

BACKGROUND
At the July 12, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, the subject entitlement and related environmental documents were presented by staff for the commissioners’ consideration. With no additional comments from the public, Chairperson Arnold closed the Public Hearing and asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for staff or the applicant. Commissioner Rounds made a general statement about the future tenant having a positive benefit to Santa Fe Springs. Both the applicant and the property owner came to the podium to voice their appreciation of staff and ensure the Planning Commissioners that the future tenant of the subject building will provide a positive impact to the City. After a brief discussion, the Planning Commission, unanimously voted in favor of the project, thus approving DPA 980 and the environmental document (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration).

Approximately one (1) week following the Planning Commission meeting of July 12, 2021, the City Clerk received a formal appeal of the Planning Commissions actions.

RECOMMENDATIONS
 Consider the information presented in this report, including all of the attachments, which collectively provide the necessary background and context; and
 Open the Public Hearing and receive any comments from the public regarding this appeal matter and, thereafter, close the Public Hearing; and  Deny the appeal by Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility  Adopt Resolution No. 9774
a. Adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with Traffic Study (MND) which shows that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and b. Approving Development Plan Approval Case No. 980, subject to the conditions of approval as contained within Resolution No.190-2021.

ITEM NO. 9
Appeal of DPA 980 & Environmental Documents Page 2 of 19 Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: March 28, 2022 Planning and Development Department
The appeal was received within the 14-day appeal period, as specified in Section 155.865 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Based on recommendations by the City Attorney’s office, and consistent with how past appeals have been processed, staff has decided to enact Section 155.866 (C) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and set the appeal as a public hearing before the City Council, allowing staff to address any issues contained within the appeal letter and also allow for further public comment on this matter.

The matter was originally set for an appeal hearing on August 17, 2021. However, the day before the hearing SAFER filed a lengthy letter with an attached report in support of their appeal. In order to address the correspondence, the hearing was continued to September 7, 2021. The matter was further continued to September 20, 2021, October 5, 2021, November 2, 2021, December 7, 2021, January 18, 2022, and March 1, 2022 at which time it was continued to April 5, 2022. The applicant has consented to, or requested, these continuances.

This staff report supplements the original staff report and materials provided to the Planning Commission.

APPEAL
An appeal was filed by the law firm of Lozeau Drury on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), with a memorandum from SWAPE consultants. The issues raised by the appeal only went to the adequacy of the MND and not to any findings relating to the Development Plan Approval. Both the City’s environmental consultant, Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning (“BBEP”), and the applicant provided additional material regarding the raised issues.

In order to overcome the findings in the MND, there must be enough relevant information and reasonable inferences that can be made from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion of a significant impact, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Unsubstantiated or speculative expert opinion does not constitute substantial evidence. The following provides a brief summary of the arguments and responses. In each case, SAFER has failed to provide any substantial evidence of a significant impact and therefore its arguments are without merit.

Energy – SAFER contends that the energy analysis is insufficient because it merely relied on the project’s compliance with Title 24 regulations. BBEP’s response makes clear that that the energy analysis included such things as worker trips, construction equipment and energy consumption.

Appeal of DPA 980 & Environmental Documents Page 3 of 19 Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: March 28, 2022 Planning and Development Department
Air Quality Impacts

1. Refrigeration – SAFER argues that the analysis is inadequate because theCalEEMod did not consider a refrigerated warehouse. SAFER provided no evidence that either the proposed warehouse would be used for refrigeration or that a refrigerated warehouse would lead to a significant impact and could have performed its own analysis. Nevertheless, BBEP ran a new CalEEMOD based on a refrigerated warehouse use and the results show that there will not be any significant impacts.

2. Parking – SAFER argues that the CalEEMod output failed to include parking and therefore underestimates project emissions; again, SAFER put no evidence into the record other than unsubstantiated opinion. BBEP explained that because the project’s parking is ancillary to the facility’s operation, the CalEEMod does not separately calculate this and parking lots are only used in the model if they would result in trips that were independent of the primary use.

3. Demolition – SAFER argues that the MND failed to include emissions relating to demolition, but provided no separate analysis. Table 3-1 of the MND clearly includes air emissions relating to demolition.

4. Construction Schedule – SAFER argued that the air quality analysis was incorrect because it used an 11-month construction schedule instead of 9-months, without actually providing any evidence of a significant impact. BBEP re-ran the model using a 9-months schedule and the impacts were still far below reaching a significant impact.

5. Grading – SAFER argues that the grading values of the CalEEMod were reduced from 15 to 8 acres for grading and from 22.5 to 7.5 acres for paving. The entire site is only 6.63 acres and even at the reduced acreage that was input into the CalEEMod, the results which showed no significant impacts were overstated.

6. Excavation Emissions – SAFER argues that the MND failed to include the excavation emissions related to the Remedial Action Plan (“RAP”) that requires excavation of the site. The RAP is a separate and distinct project that will take place regardless of whether this planned development is approved and therefore, is not part of this project. Nevertheless, as BBEP’s response letter shows, even with the removal of the contaminated soil considered, the emissions are far below the daily thresholds.

Appeal of DPA 980 & Environmental Documents Page 4 of 19 Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: March 28, 2022 Planning and Development Department

7. Fontana Trip Generation Study – SAFER argues that the MND improperly relied on the Fontana Trip Generation study. SAFER’s assumption is incorrect. As stated by BBEP, the Fontana Study was only used to derive the passenger car equivalent rate to more accurately account for traffic.

Health Risk Assessment (“HRA”) – SAFER argues that an HRA was required because the project will create significant cancer risks from diesel particulate matter (“DPM”).

BBEP notes that SWAPE’s analysis was faulty in that the inputs used by SWAPE were incorrect in that they failed to model new requirements, assumed the warehouse would be operating 24 hours a day, misidentified the location of the sensitive receptors and failed to consider required variables in calculating DPM. Additionally, the applicant provided a Health Risk Assessment prepared by Ganddini Group, a transportation and environmental consulting firm,which concluded that there was no health risk impacts from the project.

Need for Mitigation – SAFER argues that all feasible mitigation measures should be analyzed. This is an erroneous legal argument.

In addition to the responses provided above, the applicant has submitted a technical memorandum from Ganddini Group, which points out that the project site is currently being utilized and the proposed project is actually forecast to result in a net decrease in vehicle trips. As the MND did not take into account existing uses, the environmental impacts relating to energy and air – which are already below a level of significance, are still overstated.

LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
This matter was set for Public Hearing in accordance with the requirements of Sections 65090 et seq. and 65854 of the State Planning, Zoning and Development Laws and the requirements of Sections 155.860 through 155.866 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Legal notice of the Public Hearing for the proposed appeal was sent by first class mail to all property owners whose names and addresses appear on the latest County Assessor's Roll within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property on August 4, 2021. The legal notice was also posted at Santa Fe Springs City Hall, the City Library and the City’s Town Center kiosk and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Whittier Daily News) on July 30, 2021, as required by the State Zoning and Development Laws and by the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The hearing was opened and continued several times until April 5, 2022.

Appeal of DPA 980 & Environmental Documents Page 5 of 19 Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: March 28, 2022 Planning and Development Department
Raymond R. Cruz
City Manager
Attachments:

1. Planning Commission Agenda – July 12, 2021

2. Planning Commission Minutes – July 12, 2021

3. Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments (DPA 980)

4. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with Traffic Study

5. Staff Presentation to the Planning Commission – July 12, 2021

6. Letter from SAFER - July 12, 2021

7. Consultant Response - July 12, 2021

8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 190-2021

9. Appeal – July 22, 2021

10. Letter from SAFER – August 16, 2021

11. Consultant Response – January 29, 2022

12. Letter from Applicant’s Attorney – February 4, 2022  Exhibit A – Technical Memorandum Trip Generation and VMT Analysis  Exhibit B – Health Risk Assessment

13. Consultant Response – March 24, 2022

14. City Council Resolution No. 9774
 Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval
 Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appeal of DPA 980 & Environmental Documents Page 6 of 19 Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: March 28, 2022 Planning and Development Department
Attachment 1: Planning Commission Agenda – July 12, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting
City of Santa Fe Springs
AGENDA

FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION
July 12, 2021
6:00 p.m.

Council Chambers
11710 Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Ken Arnold, Chairperson
Gabriel Jimenez, Vice Chairperson
Francis Carbajal, Commissioner
Johnny Hernandez, Commissioner
William K. Rounds, Commissioner
Public Comment: The public is encouraged to address
the Commission on any matter listed on the agenda or on any other matter within its jurisdiction. If you wish to address the Commission, please complete the card that is provided at the rear entrance to the Council Chambers
and hand the card to the Secretary or a member of staff.

The Commission will hear public comment on items listed on the agenda during discussion of the matter and prior to a vote. The Commission will hear public comment on
matters not listed on the agenda during the Oral
Communications period.

Americans with Disabilities Act: In compliance with the ADA, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting or other services offered by this City, please
contact the Planning Department. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist the City staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.

Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda or
unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist.

The Commission may direct staff to investigate and/or
schedule certain matters for consideration at a future
Commission meeting.

Please Note: Staff reports are available for inspection in the Planning & Development Department, City Hall, 11710 E. Telegraph Road, during regular business hours 7:30
a.m. – 5:30 p.m., Monday – Friday (closed every other
Friday) Telephone (562) 868-0511.

Regular Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 2021
2 1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Arnold, Carbajal, Hernandez, Jimenez, and Rounds.

4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time for public comment on any matter that is not on today’s agenda. Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item is asked to please comment at the time the item is considered by the Planning Commission.

5. MINUTES
Approval of the minutes of the June 14, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting

6. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued from June 14, 2021 PC Meeting) Categorical Exempt – CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1 Conditional Use Permit Case No. 819
A request for a ten-year approval to allow the ongoing operation and maintenance of an existing mono-palm wireless telecommunication facility (46’-10” facility height) and related unmanned equipment room at 9500 1/2 Norwalk Boulevard (APN: 8002-017- 014), within the M-2, Heavy Manufacturing, Zone.
(Core Development Services on behalf of AT&T)

7. PUBLIC HEARING
Categorical Exempt – CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 32 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Case No. 61
Development Plan Approval (DPA) Case No. 983
Amendment to CUP Case No. 61: A request for approval to expand the existing truck terminal use; and
DPA Case No. 983: A request for approval to re-clad the existing approximately 12,500 square foot metal building.

The project site is located at 12133 Greenstone Avenue (APN: 8026-020-017) within the M-2, Heavy Manufacturing, Zone. (Rexford Industrial – 12133 Greenstone, LLC)

8. PUBLIC HEARING
Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration
Development Plan Approval (DPA) Case No. 980
A request for approval to allow the construction of a new ±144,434 sq. ft. concrete tiltup industrial building and related improvements on property located at 11401 Greenstone Avenue (APN: 8026-018-023) within the M-2, Heavy Manufacturing, Zone. (Greenstone SFS, LLC)

Appeal of DPA 980 & Environmental Documents Page 7 of 19 Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: March 28, 2022 Planning and Development Department
Attachment 2: Planning Commission Minutes – July 12, 2021

Appeal of DPA 980 & Environmental Documents Page 8 of 19 Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: March 28, 2022 Planning and Development Department
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments (DPA 980) City of Santa Fe Springs
Planning Commission Meeting July 12, 2021
Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: July 8, 2021 Planning and Development Department ITEM NO. 8
RECOMMENDATIONS:
• Open the Public Hearing and receive any comments from the public regarding Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 and related Environmental Documents, and thereafter, close the Public Hearing; and • Find and determine that the proposed project will not be detrimental to persons or properties in the surrounding area or to the City in general, and will be in conformance with the overall purpose and objective of the Zoning Ordinance and consistent with the goals, policies and program of the City’s General Plan; and
• Find that the applicant’s DPA request meets the criteria set forth in §155.739 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, for the granting of a Development Plan Approval; and
• Approve and adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) which, based on the findings of the Initial Study, indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment; and
• Approve Development Plan Approval Case No. 980, subject to the conditions of approval as contained within Resolution No. 190-2021; and • Adopt Resolution No. 190-2021, which incorporates the Planning Commission’s findings and actions regarding this matter.

PUBLIC HEARING
Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration
Development Plan Approval (DPA) Case No. 980
A request for approval to allow the construction of a new ±144,434 sq. ft. concrete tilt-up industrial building and related improvements on property located at 11401 Greenstone Avenue (APN: 8026-018-023) within the M-2, Heavy Manufacturing, Zone. (Greenstone SFS, LLC)

GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Applicant: Greenstone SFS, LLC
7901 Crossway Drive
Pico Rivera, CA 90660
B. Property Owner: Babak Nassirzadeh
1820 San Vicente Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90402
C. Existing Zone: M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing)
Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 Page 2 of 16
Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: July 8, 2021 Planning and Development Department
D. General Plan: Industrial
E. CEQA Status: Mitigated Negative Declaration
F. Staff Contact: Vince Velasco, Associate Planner
[email protected]

LOCATION / BACKGROUND
The subject property, located at 11401 Greenstone Avenue, is comprised of a single parcel (APN: 8026-018-023) measuring 289,238 sq. ft. (6.64 acres), and located on the west side of Greenstone Avenue. The property is zoned M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing) and is currently occupied by a truck trailer storage facility (JB Hunt Transport Services, Inc.). Industrial uses are located on all four sides. It should also be noted that the property is located within the City’s Methane Zone as there is a single oil well on the property to the north and the former Kalico Landfill No.1 just over 1,000 feet to the south.

A majority of the property is unpaved and is currently developed with a modular office/maintenance building at the northeast corner. These improvements will be demolished when the construction activities begin.

The applicant, Greenstone SFS, LLC, is proposing to construct a new ±144,434 sq. ft. concrete tilt-up industrial building on the subject property. In accordance with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, a Development Plan Approval is required for the construction of a new building.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL CASE NO. 980
Site Plan
As previously mentioned, the applicant is proposing to construct a new ±144,434 sq. ft. concrete tilt-up industrial building at 11401 Greenstone Avenue (APN: 8026- 018-023). The proposed industrial building will be setback a minimum 89’-1” from the front property line along Greenstone Avenue. The proposed development will provide two (2) driveways along Greenstone Avenue for ingress and egress, both 40’ in width. Parking and landscaping for the subject property is distributed throughout the property.

Floor Plan
The floor plan indicates that the proposed industrial building will measure ±144,434 sq. ft., with 2,481 sq. ft. designated as first floor office area, 2,940 sq. ft. as office mezzanine, 4,018 sq. ft. as storage mezzanine, and the remaining 134,995 sq. ft. designated for warehouse/manufacturing use. It should be noted that the speculative building is designed with the potential for multiple tenants. However, tenant improvements will be submitted through the plan check process to determine the specific leasing area for each tenant should the building be occupied by multiple Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 Page 3 of 16
Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: July 8, 2021 Planning and Development Department
tenants.

Elevations
The elevations indicate that the proposed industrial building will have a contemporary design. Since the building has been designed for multiple tenants, the applicant is proposing two main office entries at the northeast and northwest corners of the building. The entry to both office areas (north and east elevations) are provided with extensive glazing, color variation, pop-outs, height variation, and a mixture of materials used. The remaining elevations have been provided with a combination of the aforementioned architectural treatments, which results in an aesthetically pleasing building. The most unique feature of the proposed project is the longboard cladding, used in modern architectural designs. The horizontal siding will help contrast the concrete walls and separate itself from other industrial projects.

Landscape Requirement
For maximum value, a majority of the landscaping will be provided along the setback areas that adjoins the street (Greenstone Avenue). Additionally, as required by the Code, the applicant will landscape at least 6% of the parking area.

The minimum landscape requirement for the project, based on the overall street frontage of 337’ and 62,000 sq. ft. of parking area is 12,145 sq. ft. According to the conceptual landscape plan, the applicant will be providing an overall total of 17,425 sq. ft. of landscaping throughout the site. The project, therefore, exceeds the minimum requirement set forth in the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Parking Requirements
A total of 205 parking stalls will be provided for the new building: 139 standard stalls, 32 parallel stalls, 16 clean air, 10 electric vehicle, and 8 accessible stalls.

Due to the multi-tenant design of the building, the project is required to provide a total of 205 parking stalls. It should be noted that if the building is only occupied by a single tenant, the proposed development will then exceed the number of required parking stalls.
• Single Tenant Calculation – 1 stall per 500 sq. ft. for the first 20,000 sq. ft. = 40 stalls, 1 stall per 750 sq. ft. for the next 80,000 sq. ft. = 107 stalls, and 1 stall per 1,000 sq. ft. for the remaining 44,434 sq. ft. = 45 stalls. • Multiple Tenant Calculation - 1 stall per 500 sq. ft. for the first 40,000 sq. ft. = 80 stalls, 1 stall per 750 sq. ft. for the next 60,000 sq. ft. = 80 stalls, and 1 stall per 1,000 sq. ft. for the remaining 44,434 sq. ft. = 45 stalls.

Pursuant to Section 155.487 (F) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, because the proposed industrial/warehouse building is 100,000 sq. ft. or more, the development Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 Page 4 of 16
Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: July 8, 2021 Planning and Development Department
is also required to provide one (1) truck parking stall (12’ x 53’) for every four (4) dock high doors. With 16 dock high doors proposed, the project is required to provide a total of 4 truck parking stalls. The plans indicate that a total of four (4) truck parking stalls will be provided within the loading area. The proposed project, therefore, meets the minimum parking requirements set forth by the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Loading/ Roll Up Doors
According to the plans, the proposed building will have a total of 18 loading doors, including two (2) grade level doors and 16 dock high doors, along the north elevation. All loading doors are strategically placed so that they will not be directly visible from Greenstone Avenue. Additionally, the applicant will provide a 14’ high concrete screen wall to provide additional screening for on-site truck loading activities.

Per the City’s Zoning Ordinance, all off-street truck loading areas, zones, ramps, doors, wells, or docks shall be designed to provide and maintain a minimum unobstructed area of 120’ to allow for proper truck maneuvering on-site. As proposed, the design will provide the required unobstructed area in all necessary locations.

Trash Enclosures
According to the site plan, two trash enclosures (461 sq. ft. each) will be located along the north elevation of the building. Each enclosure will be placed on opposite sides of the loading area to accommodate the potential for multiple tenants. The proposed trash enclosures are also strategically placed behind the proposed 14’ high concrete screen wall and will not be visible or accessible to the public.

STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
The subject site is located on the west side of Greenstone Avenue. Greenstone Avenue is designated as a local industrial street, within the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan.

ZONING AND LAND USE
The subject property is zoned M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing). The property has a General Plan Land Use designation of Industrial. The zoning, General Plan and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows:

Surrounding Zoning, General Plan Designation, Land Use
Direction Zoning District General
Plan Land Use (Address/Business Name)
North M-2, Heavy
Manufacturing, Zone Industrial
Medical Supply Distribution
(11333 Greenstone Ave./TwinMed)
Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 Page 5 of 16
Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: July 8, 2021 Planning and Development Department
South M-2, Heavy
Manufacturing, Zone Industrial Manufacturing
(11529 Greenstone Ave./Maruichi American Corp.)
East M-2, Heavy
Manufacturing, Zone Industrial
Trade School/Fire Academy
(11400 Greenstone Ave./Rio Hondo College Fire
Academy)
West M-2, Heavy
Manufacturing, Zone Industrial Steel Pipe Distribution
(11680 Bloomfield Ave./Kelly Pipe Co., LLC)

LEGAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
This matter was set for Public Hearing in accordance with the requirements of Sections 65090 and 65091 of the State Planning, Zoning and Development Laws and the requirements of Sections 155.860 through 155.864 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Legal notice of the Public Hearing for the proposed project was sent by first class mail to all property owners whose names and addresses appear on the latest County Assessor's Roll within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property on June 30, 2021. The legal notice was also posted in Santa Fe Springs City Hall, the City’s Town Center Kiosk, the City’s Library, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Whittier Daily News) on July 1, 2021, as required by the State Zoning and Development Laws and by the City’s Zoning Ordinance. As of the date of this report, staff has not received any comments and/or inquiries regarding the proposed project.

ZONING REQUIREMENTS
The procedures set forth in Section 155.736 of the Zoning Ordinance, states that a DPA is required for the siting of new structures or additions or alterations to existing structures.

Code
Section: Development Plan Approval
155.736 Section 155.736
The purpose of the development plan approval is to assure compliance with the provisions of this chapter and to give proper attention to the siting of new structures or additions or alterations to existing structures, particularly in regard to unsightly and undesirable appearance, which would have an adverse effect on surrounding properties and the community in general.

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
The environmental analysis provided in the Initial Study indicates that the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse immitigable impacts on the environment, therefore, the City caused to be prepared and proposed to adopt a Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 Page 6 of 16
Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: July 8, 2021 Planning and Development Department
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed project. The MND reflects the independent judgment of the City of Santa Fe Springs, and the environmental consultant, Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning.

Phases in the Environmental Review Process:

The implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) entails three separate phases:

1. The first phase consists of preliminary review of a project to determine whether it is subject to CEQA

2. If the project is subject to CEQA, the second phase involves the preparation of an Initial Study to determine whether the project may have a significant environmental effect.

3. The third phase involves the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if the project may have a significant environmental effect of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Declaration if no significant effects will occur.

Phase 1: The first phase is to determine if the proposed project is subject to CEQA.

CEQA applies to an activity that (a) involves the exercise of an agency’s discretionary powers, (b) has the potential to result in a direct or reasonable foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and (c) falls within the definition of a “project” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378. City Staff and Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning reviewed the proposal and determined that the project is subject to CEQA
Phase 2: The second phase involves the preparation of an Initial Study. An Initial Study is a preliminary analysis to determine whether an EIR or a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is needed. If the Initial Study concludes that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated, an EIR should be prepared. If no potentially significant impacts are identified, then a Negative Declaration can be prepared. If potentially significant impacts are identified that can be mitigated, then a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be prepared with mitigated measures conditioned as part of the project’s approval to reduce potentially significant impacts to levels of insignificance. To facilitate the Commission’s determination whether “effects” are potentially significant, the Commission should focus on scientific and factual data.

Unfortunately, CEQA does not provide a definitive definition of what constitutes a “significant effect” as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical environment. City Staff and Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning determined, through the preparation of the Initial Study, that there were no potentially significant environmental effect that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance and, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared.

Phase 3: A Mitigated Negative Declaration is a written statement, briefly explaining Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 Page 7 of 16
Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: July 8, 2021 Planning and Development Department
why a proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect and includes a copy of the Initial Study justifying this finding. Included within the Initial Study are mitigation measures to avoid potentially significant effects. City Staff and Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning determined that, although, the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project applicant or mitigation measures are being implemented to reduce all potentially significant effects to levels of insignificance. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project.

Draft MND Review:

The Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of Santa Fe Springs and the environmental consultant, Blodgett/Baylosis Environmental Planning, as to the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project on the environment. The Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for the required 20-day public review and comments from June 1, 2021 to June 21, 2021. The Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted with the Los Angeles County Clerk. The Planning Commission were emailed a copy of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration on June 7, 2021. A copy of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was also mailed to all responsible and trustee agencies as well as surrounding cities for their review and comment.

On June 1, 2021, the City released the Draft IS/MND, along with the accompanying Traffic Study. These materials were made available to the public throughout the 20- day review and comment period. The public comment period for the Draft IS/MND ended June 21, 2021 and, to date, no comments were received. All materials were made available for review at the following locations:
• Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office Website:
https://apps.lavote.net/CEQA/Search/Results/10#res
• City of Santa Fe Springs Website:
https://www.santafesprings.org/cityhall/planning/planning/environmental_documents.asp When reviewing the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study, the focus of the review should be on the project’s potential environmental effects. If persons believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should, (a) Identify the specific effect; (b) Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and; (c) Explain why they believe the effect would be significant.

Individuals who believe there are significant effects as outlined above, should also explain the basis for their comments and submit data or reference offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.

Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 Page 8 of 16
Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: July 8, 2021 Planning and Development Department
Potentially Affected Environmental Factors:

The draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has identified several factors that may be potentially affected by the subject project which include: Cultural Resources, Hazardous Materials, and Tribal Cultural Resources. These factors and their respective pertinent issues are discussed and analyzed within the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mitigations, where necessary, were implemented to help ensure potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. A detailed analysis can be found in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Mitigation Monitoring:

The monitoring and reporting on the implementation of these measures, including the monitoring action, monitoring agency, and the period for implementation, are identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment #4).

AUTHORITY OF PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission has the authority, subject to the procedures set forth in the City’s Zoning Ordinance, to grant a Development Plan Approval when it has been found that said approval is consistent with the requirements, intent and purpose of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The Commission may grant, conditionally grant or deny approval of a proposed development plan based on the evidence submitted and upon its own study and knowledge of the circumstances involved, or it may require submission of a revised development plan.

STAFF REMARKS
Based on the findings set forth in the attached Resolution (190-2021), Staff finds that the applicant’s request meets the criteria set forth in §155.739 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, for the granting of a Development Plan Approval.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditions of approval for DPA 980 are attached to Resolution 190-2021 as Exhibit A.

Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 Page 9 of 16
Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: July 8, 2021 Planning and Development Department
Wayne M. Morrell
Director of Planning
Attachments:

1. Aerial Photograph

2. Public Hearing Notice

3. Radius Map for Public Hearing Notice

4. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration & Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (previously emailed to Planning Commission on 6/7/2021)

5. Resolution 190-2021
a. Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval

6. Full Set of Proposed Plans
Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 Page 10 of 16
Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: July 8, 2021 Planning and Development Department
Attachment #1: Aerial Photograph
Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 Page 11 of 16
Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: July 8, 2021 Planning and Development Department
Attachment #2: Public Hearing Notice
Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 Page 12 of 16
Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: July 8, 2021 Planning and Development Department
Attachment #2: Public Hearing Notice
Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 Page 13 of 16
Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: July 8, 2021 Planning and Development Department
Attachment #3: Radius Map for Public Hearing Notice
Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 Page 14 of 16
Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: July 8, 2021 Planning and Development Department
Attachment #4: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration & Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (previously emailed to Planning Commission on 6/7/2021)
Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 Page 15 of 16
Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: July 8, 2021 Planning and Development Department
Attachment #5: Resolution 190-2021
a. Exhibit A – Conditions of Approval
Development Plan Approval Case No. 980 Page 16 of 16
Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: July 8, 2021 Planning and Development Department
Attachment #6: Full Set of Proposed Plans
CONTACT PERSON: MIKE OLIAIE
#A
1 1
1 1
11 3
4 A
2 1 C.E.G. CONSTRUCTION 7901 CROSSWAY DRIVE, FAX (562) 948-1735 TEL (562) 948-4850 PICO RIVERA, CALIFORNIA 90660 WALNUT, CA 91789 20101 E. VALLEY BLVD., SUITE #E TEL (909)-869-6337 FAX (909) 869-6340 EXTERIOR ELEVATION REFERENCE 1 SHEAR WALL REFERENCE NUMBER TILT-UP PANEL REFERENCE NUMBER OC ENGINEERING 7901 CROSSWAY DRIVE, PICO RIVERA, CALIFORNIA 90660 FAX (562) 948-1735 TEL (562) 942-9804 & II " ' @ 1XXX ROOM REFERENCE NUMBER REVISIONS REFERENCE NUMBER
# SECTION CUT DETAIL REFERENCE INTERIOR ELEVATION REFERENCE GRID LINE KEYNOTE REFERENCE NUMBER WINDOW REFERENCE NUMBER DOOR REFERENCE NUMBER MANUFACTURER MATERIAL MAXIMUM MACHINE BOLT MEZZANINE MANUFACTURING MALLEABLE IRON MINIMUM MOUNTED NEW NORTH NOT APPLICABLE NAILING NORTHEAST NOT TO SCALE NORTHWEST ON CENTER OPPOSITE HAND OPENING OPTIONAL PIECES PLYWOOD EDGE NAILING PERIMETER PLATE PLACES PLYWOOD PRESSURE TREATED RAFTERS REDWOOD REQUIRED REQUIREMENT RETAINING ROOF SOUTH SEE ARCH. DRWG'S STRUCTURAL GABLE END STRONG BACK SCHEDULE SOUTHEAST SECTION SIMILAR SHEET SHEATHING SIMPSON COMPANY SPACING SPECIFICATIONS SQUARE SQUARE FEET SEE STR. DRW'GS STEEL STRUCTURAL SOUTHWEST SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE SHEAR WALL TYPE TOP AND BOTTOM TONGUE AND GROOVE TO BE FIELD VERIFIED TIEDOWN OR HOLDOWN TIEDOWN SCHEDULE TOE NAIL TOP OF TOP OF CONCRETE TOP OF LEDGER TOP OF PARAPET TOP OF SHEATHING TOP OF SUB-FLOOR TOP OF WALL TOTAL TYPICAL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE WEST WINDOW STEEL WIDE FLANGE WELDED WIRE FABRIC WITH WITHOUT AT FEET INCHES PARALLEL PERPENDICULAR AND DIAMETER CENTER LINE HANGER STEEL ANGLE PROPERTY LINE MMANU. MAT'L MAX. M.B. MEZZ. MFG. M.I. MIN. MTD. N(N) NN/A NAIL'G N.E. N.T.S. N.W. OO.C. O.H. OPEN'G OPT. PPC'S P.E.N. PERIM. PLT. PLC'S PLYD. P.T. RRAF. RDWD. REQ'D REQ'T RET. RF. S SS.A.D. S.G.E. S.B. SCH. S.E. SEC. SIM. SHT. SHT'G SIMP. SPC'G SPECS SQ. S.F. S.S.D. STL STR. S.W. S.W.S. S.W.T. TT & B T & G T.B.F.V. T.D. T.D.S. T.N. T.O. T.O.C. T.O.L. T.O.P. T.O.S. T.O.S.F. T.O.W. TOT TYP. UU.N.O. WWWDW S.W.F. W.W.F. W/ W/O AA & B A.B. ABV ADJ A.F.F. ARCH
BB.F.W. BLDG. BLK'G BM. BOTT BRG
CCCANT. C.J. CLG CTR CLR CONC C.M.U. CONN CONST CONT CS'K C.T. DDBL. DET D.F. DIA DIAPH DIMDIR DR. D.F. DWG EEEAE.F. ELEV EMB E.N. EQ. E.W. EXP (E) FF.F. F.HT. F.H.O.B. F.W.O.B. FINFLR F.J. F.L.O.M. F.N. F.O.S. F.O.C. FNDN. F.P. FRAM'G FT. FTG. GGALV. GAR. GEN. G.L.B. GR. HHDR. HT.

IINFO. INT. JJ.H. JNT JST KK.P. LLOC. ABOVE AND BELOW ANCHOR BOLTS ABOVE ADJACENT ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ARCHITECTURAL BALLOON FRAMED WALL BUILDING BLOCKING BEAM BOTTOM BEARING CAMBER CANTILEVER CEILING JOIST CEILING CENTER CLEARANCE CONCRETE CONC. MASONRY UNIT CONNECT, CONNECTION CONSTRUCTION CONTINUOUS COUNTERSINK COLLAR TIE DOUBLE DETAIL DOUGLAS FIR DIAGONAL DIAPHRAGM DIMENSION DIRECTION DOOR DOOR FRAME DRAWING EAST EACH EACH FACE ELEVATION EMBEDMENT EDGE NAILING EQUAL EACH WAY EXPANSION EXISTING FINISH FLOOR FULL HEIGHT FULL HEIGHT OF BLDG. FULL WIDTH OF BUILDING FINISH FLOOR FLOOR JOIST FULL HEIGHT OF MEMBER FACE NAILED FACE OF STUDS FACE OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION FIREPLACE FRAMING FEET FOOTING GALVANIZED GARAGE GENERAL GLU-LAM BEAM GRADE HEADER HEIGHT INFORMATION INTERIOR JOIST HANGER JOINT JOIST KING POST LOCATION CONTACT PERSON: KAMAL ISKANDER KAMAL S. ISKANDER & ASSOCIATES P-# DESIGN BUILD - UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT BLUE PEAK ENGINEERING INCORPORATED 18543 YORBA LINDA BLVD., SUITE 235 TEL (714) 749-3077 YORBA LINDA, CALIFORNIA 92886 # PHIL MAY DESIGN 1937 WEST NINTH STREET TEL (909) 373-1959 UPLAND, CA 91786 CONTACT PERSON: PHIL MAY ROBERT J DEPRAT Ø
℄U
⅊ SLADDEN ENGINEERING 6782 STANTON AVENUE, SUITE A TEL (714) 523-0952 BUENA PARK, CA 90621 BRETT ANDERSON

GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL
11401 GREENSTONE AVE., SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA - CONRETE TILT UP WAREHOUSE / OFFICE BUILDING 6/16/2021 2:14 PM - Y:\2020\A-20-011 11401 Greenstone Ave\GREEN ARCH\GREEN 0T1 TITLE.dw SHEET
OF SHEETS DATE: DRAWN:

SCALE: PROJECT NO.
29MAR21 B.C.
7901 CROSSWAY DRIVE
PICO RIVERA, CA 90660
TEL 562.942.9804
CONTENTS: CLIENT: REVISIONS:
-
-
- architecture
C.E.G.

CONSTRUCTION
7901 CROSSWAY DRIVE
PICO RIVERA, CA 90660
TEL 562.948.4850
A-20-011
MR. BOBBY NASSIR
truckterminalproperties.com

STATE OF CAL FI OR
I N A
C-34996

RENEWAL DATE
10/31/2021

GI NAC OI CRESPO
CI
L

NE SED ARCHITECT
O.C. DESIGN &
ENGINEERING 8026-018-023 CBC 2019 with LACoBC 2020 AMENDMENTS M - 2 III-B, FULLY SPRINKLERED RANCHO SANTA GERTRUDES SECTIONS TOWNSHIP AND RANGE LOT COM AT INTERSECTION OF S LINE OF NW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF SEC 8 T 3S R 11W WITH E ... SEE MAPBOOK FOR MISSING PORTION ... OF NW 1/4 OF SEC 8 T 3S R 11W S-1 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: BUILDING CODE BUILDING TYPE BLDG. OCCUPANCY DESCRIPTION LEGAL ZONING B AREAS LAND AREA : DESCRIPTION AREA JUSTIFICATION CONSTRUCTION TYPE III-B W/ AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS 50.00% 205 - STALLS 4 - STALLS OVER100,000 SQ. FEET ACCESSIBLE (8' VAN) PARKING PROVIDED: TOTAL TOTAL 17' X 20' 40,001 TO 100,000 SF PARKING REQUIRED : COVERAGE : ACCESSIBLE (STANDARD) 14' X 20' 4 - STALLS PARALLEL STALLS 10' X 22' 32 - STALLS LANDSCAPED AREA PROVIDED LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIRED TOTAL AREA BUILDING PARCEL 288,935 S.F. (6.63 AC) GROSS WAREHOUSE OFFICE BUILDING FOOTPRINT FIRST FLOOR MEZZA FLOOR TRASH ENCLOSURE AREA REQUIRED 1% x 40,000 = 400 S.F. 0.5% x 104,434 = 522 S.F. 40,000/500 = 80 CARS 60,000/750 = 80 CARS 44,434/ 1,000 = 45 CARS 205 CARS TOTAL OFFICE 3.4% *25 SF FOR EA 1' OF FRONTAGE, F= 337' = 8,425 SF *6% OF PARKING AREA = 3,720 SF TOTAL REQUIRED = 12,145 SF STANDARD STALLS 8'-6" X 19' 139 - STALLS OFFICE MEZZANINE STORAGE MEZZANINE TOTAL MEZZANINE LANDSCAPED AREA MUST BE WATER EFFICIENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH AB1881 LANDSCAPED SETBACK = 6,408 S.F. PARKING AREA = 11,017 S.F. TOTAL = 17,425 S.F. TRASH ENCLOSURE AREA PROVIDED = 922 S.F. 5,000 S.F. PARKING AREA = 62,000 S.F. CLEAN AIR STALLS (151-200) 8'-6" X 19' 16 - STALLS LONG TERM BIKE RACK @ 5% OF PARKING 5 SPACES SHORT TERM BIKE RACK @ 5% OF 30 VISITOR PARKING 2 SPACES ELEC VEHICLE (151-200) 8'-6" X 19' 10 - STALLS AREA JUSTIFICATION: UNLIMITED AREA PER 507.4, SURROUNDED BY 60' WIDE PUBLIC WAYS OR YARDS, SUCH YARDS CAN BE REDUCED TO 40' IN UP TO 75% OF THE PERIMETER MAX. HEIGHT PER TABLE 504.3 = 75' , MAX. NUMBER OF STORIES PER TABLE 504.4 =2FIRST 40,000 SQ. FEET TRUCK PARKING (12' X 52') 1 PER 4 TRUCK DOORS 4 SPACES 144,434 S.F. 134,995 S.F. 2,481 S.F. 137,476 S.F. 2,940 S.F. 4,018 S.F. 6,958 S.F. T100 TITLE SHEET T200 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL T210 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CIVIL (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT) C-1 TITLE SHEET C-2 HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN C-3 HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN C-4 HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN C-5 PRECISE GRADING PLAN C-6 PRECISE GRADING PLAN C-7 WET UTILITY PLAN C-8 PRE DEVELOPMENT EROSION CONTROL PLAN C-9 POST DEVELOPMENT EROSION CONTROL PLAN C-10 EROSION CONTROL NOTES C-11 LID EXHIBIT C-12 DETAIL SHEET C-13 DETAIL SHEET C-14 DETAIL SHEET C-15 DETAIL SHEET ARCHITECTURAL A001 GENERAL NOTES A002 ACCESSIBILITY NOTES A003 ACCESSIBILITY NOTES A004 ADA REQUIREMENTS A005 GBSC NOTES A100 SITE PLAN A110 ENLARGED PLAN / SITE PLAN NOTES A200 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - GROUND FLOOR A210 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - MEZZANINE FLOOR A220 ENLARGED OFFICE FLOORS A230 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A240 ROOF PLAN A250 ENLARGED RESTROOM PLANS /ELEVATION A260 STAIR PLANS, SECTION AND DETAILS A270 STAIR DETAILS A300 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A400 BUILDING SECTIONS A410 WALL SECTIONS A420 WALL SECTIONS A430 WALL SECTIONS A440 WALL SECTIONS A450 WALL SECTIONS A460 WALL SECTIONS A500 WINDOW AND DOOR SCHEDULE AD100 SITE DETAILS AD110 SITE DETAILS AD200 ROOF DETAILS AD300 STUD WALL / CEILING DETAILS AD310 STUD WALL / CEILING DETAILS AD400 DOOR / WINDOW DETAILS AD500 CASEWORK AND CANOPY DETAILS STRUCTURAL SN-1 GENERAL NOTES SN-1.1 GENERAL NOTES SN-1.2 GENERAL DETAILS S-1 FOUNDATION PLAN S-1.1 ENLARGED MEZZANINE FRAMING & FOUNDATION S-2 ROOF FRAMING PLAN / NAILING S-3 PANEL ELEVATIONS S-3.1 PANEL ELEVATIONS S-3.2 PANEL ELEVATIONS SD-1 FOUNDATION DETAILS SD-1.1 FOUNDATION DETAILS SD-2 PANEL DETAILS SD-3 ROOF FRAMING DETAILS SD-3.1 ROOF FRAMING DETAILS SD-4 MEZZANINE FRAMING DETAILS SD-4.1 MEZZANINE FRAMING DETAILS SD-4.2 CANOPY DETAILS SD-5 STAIR PLAN AND DETAILS ELECTRICAL (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT) E-0.0 GENERAL NOTES, LEGEND AND SLD E-0.1 LOAD AND LIGHTING FIXTURE SCHEDULE E-1.0 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN E-1.1 PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLAN E-2.0 LIGHTING PLAN E-2.1 ENLARGED POWER PLAN E-3.0 TITLE 24 INDOOR SHEETS E-3.1 TITLE 24 OUTDOOR SHEETS MECHANICAL (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT) M-1.0 MECHANICAL DETAILS, NOTES, PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS T-24.1 T-24 ENERGY FORMS T-24.2 T-24 ENERGY FORMS T-24.3 T-24 ENERGY FORMS PLUMBING (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT) P-1.0 PLUMBING DETAILS, NOTES, PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS P-2.0 ENLARGED PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN P-3.0 PLUMBING ROOF PLAN AND SUMP PUMP DETAILS LANDSCAPING (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT) L-1 PLANTING PLAN L-2 IRRIGATION PLAN L-3 IRRIGATION DETAIL PLAN ········ 1. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM. 2. STORAGE RACKING SYSTEM 3. RETAINING WALLS OR BLOCK FENCE WALLS 4. PLANTERS/LANDSCAPING 5. BUILDING SIGNAGE 6. STEEL ROOF GIRDERS AND TRUSSES DEFERRED ITEMS SHALL BE: DESIGN BUILD SYSTEMS PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR OR OWNER/ TENANT AGENTS AND WHERE REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNING AGENCY SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR PLAN CHECK SEPARATELY UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT AND WHERE REQUIRED SHALL BE APPROVED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF PERMIT OF THIS SET OF DOCUMENTS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND COORDINATE ALL DESIGN BUILD SYSTEMS WITH GOVERNING AGENCIES AND OWNER. DESIGN BUILD SYSTEMS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: GREATER THAN 6' HIGH 7. FLOOR TJI WOOD TRUSS TRUCK TERMINAL PROPERTIES PROJECT ADDRESS: 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE, SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA. GREENSTONE INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED: NEW ±144,434 S.F. WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE CONCRETE TILT UP SPEC. BUILDING WITH A ±137,476 S.F. FOOTPRINT AND MEZZANINE FLOOR ±6,958 S.F. FOR: 1820 SAN VICENTE BLVD. SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA CONTACT PERSON: BOBBY NASSIR TEL (310) 466-7225 TRUCK TERMINAL PROPERTIES, LLC THREE POINTE DRIVE, SUITE 217 TEL (310) 466-7225 1820 SAN VICENTE BLVD., SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP T100 TITLE SHEET
N.T.S. SITE LAKELAND ROAD
GREENSTONE AVE.

BLOOMFIELD AVE.

RAILROAD CONTACT PERSON: BOBBY NASSIR (714) 289-2621 ORANGE, CA 92867 CONTACT PERSON: JOSEPH NASR 1411 N. BATAVIA ST., SUITE 220 JOSEPH NASR ENGINEERING INC.

CLEAN AIR VEHICLE
NO

PARKING

VAN EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING

ONLY NO

PARKING
VAN
VAN NO

PARKING

VAN VAN NO

PARKING

VAN NO PARKING
CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLYCLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE CLEAN AIR VEHICLE EV CHARGING ONLY EV CHARGING ONLY SCALE 1" = 30'-0" SITE PLAN VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE

GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL
11401 GREENSTONE AVE., SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA - CONRETE TILT UP WAREHOUSE / OFFICE BUILDING 6/16/2021 2:25 PM - Y:\2020\A-20-011 11401 Greenstone Ave\GREEN ARCH\GREEN A100.dw SHEET
OF SHEETS DATE: DRAWN:

SCALE: PROJECT NO.
29MAR21 B.C.
7901 CROSSWAY DRIVE
PICO RIVERA, CA 90660
TEL 562.942.9804
CONTENTS: CLIENT: REVISIONS:
-
-
- architecture
C.E.G.

CONSTRUCTION
7901 CROSSWAY DRIVE
PICO RIVERA, CA 90660
TEL 562.948.4850
A-20-011
MR. BOBBY NASSIR
truckterminalproperties.com

STATE OF CAL FI OR
I N A
C-34996

RENEWAL DATE
10/31/2021

GI NAC OI CRESPO
CI
L

GREENSTONE AVE. 728'-0" BUILDING DIMENSION
(N) DRIVEWAY
40'-0"
6,958 S.F. MEZZA
BLOOMFIELD AVE.
52'-0" TYPICAL 60'-0"
216'-0" BUILDING

DIMENSION
40'-0"

SETBACK
80'-10"
SETBACK 40'-0" SETBACK 89'-1" SETBACK 25'-2" SETBACK
(N) DRIVEWAY
40'-0"
120'-0"
1 INDICATED A100
RAILROAD CONCRETE SHEAR WALL FORKLIFT RAMP FORKLIFT RAMP OFFICE F.F. = 2,481 S,F, MEZZA. = ± 2,940 S.F. 727$/ 6) 52'-0" TYPICAL 137'-0" TREE WELLS @ TRUCK COURT, TYPICAL
36'-0"
30'-0"
FIRE LANE 28'-0" FIRE LANE
1TYP.

CL
2TYP.
2TYP.
2TYP.
3 3TYP.
3 2TYP.
3TYP.
3TYP. 13 TYP.
4 5
7 7
8 8 10 TYP. 11 10 11 15 19 20 16A 16 38 33 42 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE 24 TYP. 24 24 24 19A 44 TYP. PPPPPP 26'-0" 37 37 37 17' 5' 10 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 85'-0" 5' 10 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 85'-0" 5' 10 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 85'-0" 5' 10 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 85'-0" 5' 10 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 85'-0" 5' 10 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 85'-0" 5' 10 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 85'-0" 8' 11' 10 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 85'-0" 10' 7 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 59'-6" 36 10 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 85'-0" 10 STALLS @ 8'-6" = 85'-0"
1 2 16 TRANSFORMER PAD TO BE SCREENED WITH LANDSCAPING PER SCE STANDARDS T/ER TP.P. POWER POLE F.H. FIRE HYDRANT (E) EXISTING DENOTE TRASH ENCLOSURE DENOTE RECYCLE AREA DENOTE TRANSFORMER PAD CONCRETE LANDSCAPE STRIPING ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL T.D. TRUCK DOOR 1:20 MAX. SLOPE LEGEND: ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL. 48" WIDE (MIN.) CONCRETE TITL-UP WALL, SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS CONCRETE TRUCKWELL- SEE GRADING & STRUCTURAL DWGS. STEEL BUILDING COLUMNS. TYP. 9' X10' TRUCK DOOR (DOCK HIGH), TYPICAL. SEE DETAIL: 12' X14' TRUCK DOOR (GRADE LEVEL) TYPICAL. SEE DETAIL:
123456789101112131415 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT BULLETIN BOARD 161718192021222324 BUILDING ENTRANCE. PROVIDE FIRE DEPARTMENT KNOX BOX AS REQUIRED PARKING STALL STRIPPING (PER CITY OF SANTA FE SPRING STDS.) TYP., SEE DETAIL: A.C. PAVING PER CIVIL PLANS AND SOILS REPORT. 6" MIN. HIGH CONCRETE CURB, TYPICAL. SEE GRADING PLANS VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN, PER DETAIL: 5' WIDE CONCRETE MEANDERING WALKWAY. 5% MAX. SLOPE W/ 2% MAX. CROSS SLOPE INTERIOR ROOF DRAIN W/SPLASH BLOCK DRAIN TO A.C. PAVING. SEE DETAIL: 28'-0" WIDE MIN. & CLEAR TO THE SKY FIRE LANE W/ FIRE TRUCK TURNABOUT STRIPED PER FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARDS 25 CATCH BASIN TO SUMP PUMP, SEE PLUMBING DWGS. TYP 26 DUAL SUMP PUMP IN 3'-0" X 3'-0" X 3'-0" 2V2D BASIN WITH GRATING, UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT, SEE PLUMBING PLANS 27 CONCRETE BUMPER, TYPICAL SEE DETAIL: AD100 13 28 AD200 7 29303132 PROPOSED LOCATION MONITORING WELL 333435 AD100 9 A110 SHT AD400 16 AD400 8 AD400 7 14' HIGH CONC. TILT-UP SCREEN WALL. COLOR & REVEALS TO MATCH BUILDING. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS AD100 10 AD400 4 AD200 9 36 3'X7' MAN DOOR (TYPICAL)WITH 60"x60" LANDING, SEE THRESHOLD DETAIL: 37 9'X18' MIN. ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL W/ ALL SYMBOLS, SIGNS, RAMPS AS REQUIRED TO MEET TITLE 24 AND ADA REQUIREMENTS - SEE HANDICAP NOTES SHT. A-0.2 & A-0.4 A004 16 38 WARNING SIGN FOR ALL DRIVEWAY ACCESSIBLE PARKING. SEE DETAIL: A004 19 3940 TRASH ENCLOSURE, MIN. 6' HIGH SCREEN WALLS WITH METAL DOORS-SEE (1-TRASH/1-RECYCLE BIN) PER SANTA FE SPRINGS DISPOSAL STANDARDS, SEE DETAIL: AD100 15 DESIGNATED SMOKING AREA FURTHER THAN 25'-0" FROM MAIN ENTRY DOORS ACID WASH CONCRETE FINISH. (VERIFY COLOR & PATTERN W/ OWNER) NO SMOKING SIGNAGE WITHIN 25'-0" OF BUILDING ENTRIES, OUTDOOR AIR INTAKES, OPERABLE WINDOWS, AND WITHIN THE BUILDING. PARKING SPACES FOR CLEAN AIR VEHICLE / CARPOOL PARKING AD400 11 AD100 14 AD100 14 (E) 6"x4"x2 1/2" OFF-SITE HYDRANT DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK ASSEMBLY WITH LANDSCAPE SCREENING . SEE CIVIL PLANS DETECTABLE WARNING TRUNCATED DOME. SEE DETAIL: LANDSCAPE W/AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SEE LANDSCAPING DWGS. MOUND LANDSCAPE WHERE PATH OF TRAVEL OCCURS TO PROVIDE 3" MAX. GRADE ELEVATION DIFFERENCE MOUND LANDSCAPE WHERE PATH OF TRAVEL OCCURS TO PROVIDE 3" MAX. GRADE ELEVATION DIFFERENCE AD100 4AD110 7 CONCRETE SWALE PER CIVIL PLANS INTERIOR CONC. AT OFFICE SLAB AREA TO RECEIVE 2" SAND OVER 10 MIL. VISQUEEN OVER 2" SAND. KEY NOTES: A110 11 (1) WELLE MULTI BEND BICYCLE RACK (PARKS 5 BICYCLE) MODEL #H3605-SM AS MANUF. BY PALMER GROUP FOR LONG TERM PARKING 16A CATCH BASIN WITH GALVANIZED GRATING. SEE CIVIL PLANS EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED, SEE GRADING PLAN LIGHT POLE STANDARD AREA LIGHTING PER ELECTRICAL PLAN AND DETAIL: NEW 6" x 4" x 2-1/2" ON-SITE PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT, FOR GUARD POST SEE DETAIL: CONCRETE FILLED PIPE BOLLARD PER DETAIL: CATCH BASIN WITH GALVANIZED GRATING AND BIO-CLEAN INLET FILTER, SEE CIVIL PLANS CONCRETE STAIR AD100 19 AD110 20 41 10'-HIGH WROUGHT IRON MANUAL BI-PARTING SLIDING GATE W/ CONC. SCREEN WALL TO COVER TRUCK YARD. PROVIDE FIRE DEPARTMENT KNOX BOX. SEE NOTE #34 ON A-1.1. (BY OTHERS, UNDER SEPARATE PLAN CHECK PERMIT) PROVIDE ELECTRICAL CONDUIT FOR GATE OPENER FUTURE USE. SEE DETAIL: 8'-HIGH WROUGHT IRON MANUAL BI-PARTING SLIDING GATE. PROVIDE FIRE DEPARTMENT KNOX BOX. SEE NOTE #34 ON A-1.1. (BY OTHERS, UNDER SEPARATE PLAN CHECK PERMIT) 424344 19A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT TRIP REDUCTION & TRAVEL DEMAND PROGRAM PROVIDE BULLETIN BOARD (INFORMATION AREA REQUIRED PER SEC. 16.57 OF THE ART. VI " TRIP REDUCTION AND TRAVEL DEMAND PROGRAM"). THE INFORMATION AREA MAY INCLUDE A BULLETIN BOARD, DISPLAY CASE, OR KIOSK, DISPLAYING TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION LOCATED WHERE THE GREATEST NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES ARE LIKELY TO SEE IT. INFORMATION IN THE AREA SHALL INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING: 1. CURRENT MAPS, ROUTES & SCHEDULES FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT ROUTES SERVING THE SITE. 2. TELEPHONE NUMBERS FOR REFERRALS ON TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION INCLUDING NUMBERS FOR THE REGIONAL RIDESHARING AGENCY AND LOCAL TRANSIT OPERATORS. 3. RIDESHARING PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED BY COMMUTER-ORIENTED ORGANIZATIONS. 4. BICYCLE ROUTE AND FACILITY INFORMATION, INCLUDING REGIONAL/LOCAL BICYCLE MAPS AND BICYCLE SAFETY INFORMATION, AND 5. A LISTING OF FACILITIES AVAILABLE FOR CARPOOLERS, VANPOOLERS, BICYCLISTS, TRANSIT RIDERS AND PEDESTRIANS AT THE SITE. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM TYPE (CBC 903, CFC 903): ESFR SYSTEM THE REQUIRED FIRE FLOW IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CALCULATION: TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION PER THE BUILDING CODE: TYPE III-B FIRE FLOW BASED ON THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF ALL FLOOR LEVELS WITHIN THE EXTERIOR WALLS AND UNDER THE HORIZONTAL PROJECTIONS OF THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING: 5,250 GPM REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS (MAXIMUM 50%): 2,625 GPM TOTAL FIRE FLOW REQUIRED: 2,625 GPM FIRE FLOW CALCULATION: SITE NOTES 1. SITE LIGHTING SHALL BE SHIELDED AND WILL NOT IMPACT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. 2. GROUND AND FLOOR SURFACES ALONG HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE ROUTES AND IN ACCESSIBLE ROOMS AND SPACES INCLUDING FLOORS, WALKS, RAMPS, STAIRS, AND CURB RAMPS SHALL BE FIRM AND SLIP RESISTANT. 3. THE SOILS REPORT IS A PART OF THIS PROJECT AND SHALL BE READ CAREFULLY. CONCRETE AND GRADING CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONDITIONS OF THE SOILS REPORT. GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL ELEVATIONS FORM THE SURVEY. 4. PROPOSED BUILDING SEWER LINE SHALL TIED TO THE EXISTING USEABLE CITY SEWER REFER TO PLUMBING DRAWINGS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 5. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE 110 VOLT, 20 AMPERES RECEPTACLES FOR IRRIGATION CONTROL PURPOSES 6. PLUMBING CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE WATER SUPPLY LINES, BACK FLOW PREVENTOR AND GATE VALVE FOR LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. 7. PLUMBING CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND INSTALL AN APPROVED SEISMIC GAS SHUT-OFF VALVE PER CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY SPECIFICATION GUIDELINES. 8. WALKS AND SIDEWALKS SHALL HAVE A CONTINUOUS COMMON SURFACE, NOT INTERRUPTED BY BY STEPS OR BY ABRUPT CHANGES IN LEVEL EXCEEDING 1/2". 9. WALKS AND SIDEWALKS SHALL BE 48" MINIMUM IN WIDTH. 10. WALK AND SIDEWALK SURFACES SHALL BE SLIP-RESISTANT AS FOLLOWS: A SURFACES WITH A SLOPE OF LESS THAN 6% GRADIENT SHALL BE AT LEAST AS THAT DESCRIBED AS A MEDIUM SALTED FINISH. A SLIP RESISTANT B SURFACES WITH A SLOPE OF 6% OR GREATER GRADIENT SHALL BE SLIP RESISTANT. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION AND SIZE OF ALL UTILITY PIPES. 12. THIS OFFICE SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE TO ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITIES UTILITIES SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS 13. THE LANDSCAPE DESIGNER RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LANDSCAPING FOR THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE ADVISED TO UTILIZE PLANTING AND IRRIGATION TECHNIQUES THAT LEND THEMSELVES TO OPTIMUM CONSERVATION OF WATER RESOURCES. 14. PLUMBING FIXTURES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE 422.1 SEE A-2.0 FOR FIXTURE CALCULATIONS 15. COMPLY WITH PROTECTION OF ADJOINING PROPERTY BY PROVIDING A WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE OWNERS OF ADJOINING BUILDINGS ADVISING THEM THAT AN EXCAVATION DEEPER THAN THE FOUNDATION OF THE ADJOINING BUILDING AND LOCATED LESS THAN EXCAVATION DEPTH TO THE PROPERTY LINE IS TO BE MADE AND THAT THE ADJOINING BUILDINGS SHOULD BE PROTECTED. SAID NOTIFICATION SHALL BE DELIVERED NOT LESS THAN 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED STARTING DATE OF THE EXCAVATIONS. 16. PEDESTRIANS SHALL BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION, REMODELING AND DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES AS REQUIRED BY COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BUILDING CODE CHAPTER 33 17. ANY FENCING WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK SHALL NOT EXCEED 42 INCHES. AD100 18 SITE PLAN 32 44
1TYP.
9TYP.
9TYP. 12 12 13 TYP. 20
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
3 4 35 41 41 41 A110 SHT (1) WELLE CIRCULAR RACK ROUND PIPE (PARKS 4 BICYCLE) MODEL #WCRO2-IC AS MANUF. BY PALMER GROUP FOR SHORT TERM PARKING. SEE DETAIL: 16 8' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. FENCING AT THE FRONT SETBACK SHALL NOT EXCEED 42 INCHES HIGH 52'-0" 52'-0" 52'-0" 52'-0" TYP.
52'-0" 52'-0" 52'-0" 60'-0" 52'-0" TYP.

M
N
P
Q
1212
M
N
P
Q
12345
A B C

D E F G
H
12345

H J K L M
N
P
Q
5 SHEET

GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL
OF SHEETS DATE: DRAWN:

CONTENTS:

SCALE:
-
-
-
MR. BOBBY NASSIR
truckterminalproperties.com A200 FLOOR PLANS
INDICATED STUD WALL, TYPICAL STEEL BUILDING COLUMN (TYP.) 12345678910 9' X 10' DOCK HIGH DOOR, TYPICAL CONCRETE TILT UP WALL, TYPICAL 11 STAIRS TO MEZZANINE / GROUND FLOOR GLAZING, TYPICAL 3' X 7' HOLLOW METAL PAINTED TO MATCH THE BUILDING, TYPICAL 6' X 7' FULL LITE DOUBLE DOORS, TYPICAL CONCRETE SLAB PER STRUCTURAL 12 BUILDING ENTRANCE. KEY NOTES: 12' X14' TRUCK DOOR (GRADE LEVEL) 42" HIGH GUARD, TYPICAL 13 HVAC SHAFT 14 DOCK LEVELER 15 FUTURE RESTROOMS, PROVIDE STUB OUTS MEZZANINE OFFICE 6) SCALE 1" = 20'-0" 1 PARTIAL OVERALL FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 4 ENLARGED OFFICE PLAN - G.F.

MATCH LINE 1-1 SCALE 1" = 20'-0" 2 PARTIAL OVERALL FLOOR PLAN MATCH LINE 2-2 SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 3 ENLARGED OFFICE PLAN - MEZZ. GROUND FLOOR OFFICE 6) PROPOSED BUILDING PROPOSED BUILDING -3
-4
MW
W
M
W
M STORAGE UNDER MEZZ. MEZZANINE STORAGE 6) BRM TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. 16 PROPOSED LOCATION OF FIRE SPRINKLER RISER 17 CONCRETE SHEAR WALL OVERALL PLAN 2-2 OVERALL PLAN 1-1 18 FORKLIFT ACCESS DOOR WITH REMOVABLE SAFETY GUARDRAIL 10" MIN. VARIES
2" 2-2x TYP. @ OPENING SEE FRMG PLAN PLYWOOD SHEATHING SBS MODIFIED FLASHING SHT. O/ PLYSHEET REINF. - ATTACH AT 6" O.C. PROVIDE MASTIC @ ALUM. FLASH VENTILATING LOUVERS 2" CURB MOUNT FRAME A35H @ EA. CORNER 7 1/2" MIN. 4" NOTES: 2. PROVIDE EXTERIOR MANUAL RELEASE (OR) 4. ALL SMOKE HATCH HINGES SHALL BE MOUNTED TOWARDS THE WINDS 6. SEE ROOF PLAN FOR LOCATION AND QUANTITY INSIDE CORNER AND MIDDLE AS REQ'D SMOKE HATCH DOME-WHITE ACRYLIC SMOKE HATCH RELEASE MECHANISM- CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM TEMP. RATING WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT 2x8 MIN. WOOD CURB W/METAL COUNTER FLASHING (REMOVE IF SKYLIGHTS ARE SELF FLASHING) FASTENERS DRIVEN THROUGH NEOPRENE WASHERS 12" SIMP. STRAPS CONNECTION @ EA. 1. LOUVERED SMOKE HATCH DOMES BY ACRALIGHT SMOKE VENT SKYLIGHTS, MODEL No. 4896-S-SV2D-L4-CM-ST-MF-OR, UL#793 TO MEET FLUSH W/DECK-RAISE CURB TO MAINTAIN MIN. 7 1/2" CLR. ABOVE TOP OF CRICKET. 5. SMOKE HATCH SKYLIGHTS SHALL NOT BE WITHIN 20' OF THE PARAPET (AT PROPERTY LINE) 3. INSTALL PLYWD. CRICKET ON HIGH SIDE OF CURBS WIDER THAN 96" - MITER PLYWOOD 7. ALL THE SKYLIGHT SHALL HAVE RAIN GUARD AND INSECT SCREEN RAIN GUARD INSECT SCREEN 8. SKYLIGHT/SMOKE HATCH FUSIBLE LINK SHALL OPERATE AT A TEMPERATURE THAT IS AT LEAST 100 DEGREES ABOVE THE SPINKLER HEAD TEMPERATURE. 1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
AA
BB
CC
DD
EE
FF
GG
HH
JJ
KK
LL
MM
NN
PP
Q A.1 A.7 P.4
Q P.4 P.8 P.8 P.9 1.1 1.6 4.9 4.4 M.5 N.5 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8 FUTURE SOLAR ZONE AREA 1 = 5,679 S.F. FUTURE SOLAR ZONE AREA 2 = 5,679 S.F. FUTURE SOLAR ZONE AREA 3 = 5,679 S.F. FUTURE SOLAR ZONE AREA 4 = 5,679 S.F. FUTURE SOLAR ZONE AREA 5 = 5,679 S.F. FUTURE SOLAR ZONE AREA 6 = 5,679 S.F. FUTURE SOLAR ZONE AREA 7 = 5,679 S.F. FUTURE SOLAR ZONE AREA 8 = 5,679 S.F. FUTURE SOLAR ZONE AREA 9 = 5,679 S.F. FUTURE SOLAR ZONE AREA 10 = 5,679 S.F.

GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL
11401 GREENSTONE AVE., SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA - CONRETE TILT UP WAREHOUSE / OFFICE BUILDING 6/16/2021 2:27 PM - Y:\2020\A-20-011 11401 Greenstone Ave\GREEN ARCH\GREEN A240.dw SHEET
OF SHEETS DATE: DRAWN:

SCALE: PROJECT NO.
29MAR21 B.C.
7901 CROSSWAY DRIVE
PICO RIVERA, CA 90660
TEL 562.942.9804
CONTENTS: CLIENT: REVISIONS:
-
-
- architecture
C.E.G.

CONSTRUCTION
7901 CROSSWAY DRIVE
PICO RIVERA, CA 90660
TEL 562.948.4850
A-20-011
MR. BOBBY NASSIR
truckterminalproperties.com

STATE OF CAL FI OR
I N A
C-34996

RENEWAL DATE
10/31/2021

GI NAC OI CRESPO
CI
L

NE SED ARCHITECT
O.C. DESIGN &
ENGINEERING CPC TABLE 1101.12 REQUIREMENTS BASED ON 3"/HR. RAINFALL: SEE PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR ACTUAL SIZES. 3 X EQUAL REQUIREMENT AREA OF ROOF DRAIN NOTE: EXTERIOR OVERFLOW AREA SHALL BE 38,660 S.F. 17,995 S.F. 11,530 S.F. ALLOWABLE HORIZONTAL PROJECTED AREA VERIFY TOP OF PARAPET WITH PANEL ELEVS. OF ROOF DRAIN DIAMETER SIZE ROOF DRAIN TABLE 8" 5" 6" NOTE: T.O.N. TOP OF NAILER T.O.W. TOP OF WALL T.O.L. TOP OF LEDGER LEGEND: ROOF PLAN KEYNOTES INTERIOR ROOF DRAIN AND ROOF LINE SCUPPER ROOF
DRAIN
12345
67 8 AD-2 7 AD-2 9AD-2 20 AD200 12 GENERAL NOTES 1. UNDERSIDE OF ROOF SHALL BE INSULATED WITH VENTED FOIL FACED AND KRAFT LINER CAPSHEET INSULATION THROUGHOUT, AT THE TIME OF TENANT IMPROVEMENTS IT SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH R-30 ABOVE CONDITIONED SPACES 2. VERIFY THAT ALL AREAS HAVE 1/4"/FT. MIN. SLOPE TOWARDS TO THE ROOF DRAIN 3. FOR TYPICAL ROOF PENETRATION CLEARANCES SEE DETAIL 4. BUILT-UP ROOF TO BE INSTALLED FOR EXPOSURE "C" 100 MPH. WINDS 5. ALL ROOF ELEVATIONS ARE FROM THE FINISH FLOOR TO THE TOP OF FRAMING MEMBER, REFER TO PANEL ELEVATIONS ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR EXACT LOCATION 6. CLASS A BUILT-UP COMPOSITION ROOF 4 PLIES 15# ASPHALT FELTS AND 1 PLY 90# MINERAL CAP SHEET, HOT MOP EACH PLY WITH 25# ASPHALT MOPPING, 275#/SQ.FT.. FIBERGLASS CAP SHEET. 3" FIBER GLASS CANT AT ALL PROJECTIONS AT ROOF SUCH AS ROOF PARAPETS, EQUIPMENT PLATFORMS, CURBS, ETC. INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS. UL CLASS "A" FIRE RATING FH CLASS I FIRE RESISTANCE, ROOFING MAY BE GAF (UL R1306-02) OR EQUAL. 7. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY AND COORDINATE WITH ALL SUBCONTRACTORS, ALL LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF THE ROOF OPENINGS. 8. PROVIDE SHAPED INSULATION CRICKETS AS REQUIRED FOR PROPER ROOF DRAINAGE OF 1/4" PER FOOT (MIN.) 9. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE EXACT SKYLIGHT LOCATION W/ FIRE SPRINKLER AND ROOF FRAMING SUBCONTRACTORS. LOCATION ON DRAWINGS ARE APPROXIMATE. 10. ROOF DRAINAGE AND OVERFLOW DRAINS TO BE A MIN. 5" DIA., DRAINAGE SYSTEM SHALL COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 11 OF THE CPC, SYSTEM SHALL BE SIZED FOR A MINIMUM RAIN INTENSITY OF 3 INCHES PER HOUR. 11. ROOFING MUST COMPLY WITH UL 55A TYPE 63. MEETING OR EXCEEDING ASTM-D 3909-97B. 12. FIRE RETARDANT ROOFING SHALL COMPLY WITH ICC-ES EG107 13. ROOF SLOPE, DRAINS AND SECONDARY ROOF DRAIN/SCUPPERS ON THE ROOF SHALL COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 11 OF THE PLUMBING CODE. 14. SYSTEM SHALL BE SIZED FOR MINIMUM RAIN INTENSITY OF 3 INCHES PER HOUR. 15. SECONDARY ROOF DRAINS HAVING THE SAME SIZE AS THE PRIMARY ROOF DRAINS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE INLET FLOW LINE LOCATED A MINIMUM 2 INCHES ABOVE THE LOW POINT OF THE ROOF. 16. SCUPPERS THROUGH PARAPET WALLS ADJACENT TO THE LOW POINT OF THE ROOF MAY BE USED AS SECONDARY ROOF DRAINAGE. SCUPPER OPENINGS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES HIGH AND HAVE A WIDTH EQUAL TO THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF ROOF DRAIN REQUIRED FOR THE AREA SERVED. SMOKE HATCH VENTILATING SKYLIGHT - TYPICAL, SEE DETAIL: ROOF ACCESS HATCH BY BILCO WITH SAFETY EXTENSIONS POLE, PROTECTION CAGE AND INTERMEDIATE LANDING - SEE DET: CLASS "A" 4 PLY B.U.R. SYSTEM BY POLYGLASS USA, INCORPORATED ICC ESR-2018 (OR APPROVED EQUAL) SIZE OF SCUPPERS CALCUALTED PER: · CBC SECTION 1503.4.2 · CPC SECTION 1101.11.2.1 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LOCATION, AS SHOWN. SEE MECH'L SHEETS, STRUCTURAL SHEET S-2 & DETAIL 9 SLOPED CONCRETE CAP PER STRUCTURAL (NOT USED) SCUPPER 10 CANTILEVER TILT-UP WING WALL. SEE STRUCTURAL FOR MORE INFO. SHEET S-3 -3 11 1/4" RISE PER 1'-0" RUN ,MINIMUM SLOPE ,THROUGHOUT ROOF, TYPICAL ROOF ADDRESS LETTERS PAINTED IN BLACK, WHEN REQUIRED BY THE CITY SHALL BE PER CITY REQUIREMENTS, BUT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 4'-0" HIGH W/ MIN. 12" WIDE STROKE PER LETTER - CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM ACTUAL ADDRESS NUMBERS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION 12 SCALE - SCUPPER DETAIL 2 1" = 1'-0" SCALE - SMOKE HATCH/ VENTILATING SKYLIGHT
3 N.T.S. AD-2 14 H.P. HIGH POINT L.P. LOW POINT PROVIDE WHITE REFLECTED COATING AT ROOF OVER CONDITIONED OR FUTURE CONDITIONED SPACE OFFICE AS SHOWN HATCHED. "TOPGARD 5000" BY JOHNS MANVILLE OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. THERMAL EMITTANCE AND SOLAR REFLECTANCE, OR SRI VALUES IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALGREEN A5.106.11.2.1 THERMAL EMITTANCE: 0.88 SOLAR REFLECTANCE: 0.83 SRI VALUE: 104 13 SKYLIGHT NOTES 1. 48"X96" SMOKE HATCH VENTILATING SKYLIGHT BY BRISTOLITE MODEL 4896 ECO-SVSH-CM-1-HS1-M1-MF WITH RAIN GUARD OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. UL 793 / ICC REPORT: ESR 3177 2. PROVIDE EXTERIOR MANUAL RELEASE 3. INSTALL PLYWD. CRICKET ON HIGH SIDE OF CURBS 24" OR WIDER - MITER PLYWOOD CRICKET TO MEET FLUSH W/DECK. RAISE CURB TO MAINTAIN MIN. 7 1/2" CLR. ABOVE TOP OF CRICKET. 4. ALL SKYLIGHT HINGES SHALL BE MOUNTED TOWARDS THE WINDS 5. SKYLIGHTS SHALL NOT BE WITHIN 20' OF THE PARAPET (AT PROPERTY LINE) EXTERIOR OVERFLOW - SEE DET: AD-2 6 2A INTERIOR ROOF DRAIN AND INTERIOR OVERFLOW - SEE DET: 1. ALL THE ROOF ELEVATIONS MEASURED FROM TOP OF STEEL LEDGER AND WOOD NAILER TO TOP OF FINISHED FLOOR SLAB MEASURED BELOW THE DESIGNATED ELEVATION (FLOOR SLAB SLOPED 0.5% WHEN APPLICABLE - SEE GRADING PLAN) 2. VERIFY & COORDINATE ALL DWGS. WITH ALL TRADES INVOLVED IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS (CIVIL, ARCH'L., STRUCT., MECH., ELECT., ETC.) PRIOR TO THE FABRICATION AND OR CONSTRUCTION OF ALL ITEMS AS CALLED ON THE DWGS. 3. OWNER OF TENANT SHALL MAINTAIN ROOF DRAINS AND SCUPPERS SO THAT THEY ARE FREE OF DEBRIS OR ANY BLOCKAGE SEE GENERAL NOTES ON SHEET A-0.1 NOTES : 14 HORIZONTAL ROOF DRAIN PIPE WITH 1/8" PER LINEAR FOOT SLOPE DEDICATED PROPOSED LOCATION OF FUTURE SOLAR PANELS UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT AS SHOWN HATCH, MAX. DESIGN LOAD 40 PSF PLYWOOD BUILT-UP CRICKETS, PROVIDE MIN. 1/4" PER FOOT SLOPE CONCRETE PARAPET WALL - SEE STRUCT. DRAWINGS FOR THICKNESS TYPICAL CONCRETE PANEL JOINT - SEE STRUCTURAL DWGS. SKYLIGHT CALCULATIONS: AGGREGATE VENT AREA CALCULATIONS: A 134,995 x 32 FT. / 9000 VR V/9000 4,319,840 CU. FT./ 9000 AVR 479.98 TOTAL VENT AREA PROVIDED: 86 x 32 = 2,752 S.F. > 479.98 OK 137,476 S.F. 4%137,476 S.F. X 0.04 = 5,499 S.F. 2,301 S.F. 100 LOUVERED SKYLIGHTS X 32 S.F. = 3,200 S.F. 2,301 S.F. + 3,200 S.F. = 5,501 S.F. 5,501 S.F. > 5,499 S.F. O.K. GENERAL WAREHOUSE S-1: ROOM NET AREA: VENTILATION RATIO REQUIRED: VENTILATION AREA REQUIRED: VENTILATION BY WAY OF OPENINGS: VENTILATION BY WAY OF VENTED SKYLIGHTS: VENTILATION AREA PROVIDED: CHECK: VENTILATION SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 12 OF 2019 CBC FOR INTERIOR ENVIRONMENT: NATURAL VENTILATION CALCULATION: CBC SECTION: 910.3.3 SMOKE AND VENTS AREA HORIZONTAL PER PLAN PROJECTED AREA SOLAR AREA 1 5,679 S.F.23 FUTURE SOLAR AREAS CALCS. SOLAR ZONE AREA = 40% FUTURE SOLAR ZONE REQUIREMENTS: 40% OF TOTAL ROOF AREA SECTION CA 103.3 SOLAR-READY ZONE AREA ROOF AREA = 137,476 S.F. X 40% = 54,990 S.F. SOLAR ZONE AREA REQUIRED: 54,990 S.F. SOLAR ZONE PROVIDED: AREA 1 THRU 10 @ 5,679 S.F. EACH = 56,790 S.F. 56,514 S.F. > 54,990 S.F. THEREFORE OK NOTE: SOLAR ZONES SHALL BE SHOWN LOCATED SO AS TO COMPLY WITH THE SHADING PROVISIONS OF 110.10 (b) 3 OF THE ENERGY CODE4TOTAL ROOF AREA 137,476 S.F. 56,514 S.F. 15 WHITE REFLECTIVE COATING TYP. AT ROOF AT OFFICE AND MEZZANINE (HATCHED AREA) PROVIDE 2X6 MIN. SUB-PURLINS 5TYP. AREA OF SLOPE (5,371 S.F.) (2) 6" X 10" OVERFLOW SCUPPER
2 6Ø CAST IRON ROOF DRAIN SKYLIGHT AREA/FLOOR AREA RATIO SKYLIGHTES REQUIRED: SKYLIGHTES PROVIDED: SKYLIGHT AREA: WAREHOUSE AREA: VENT AREA: 84.37 100 32 S.F. 4' X 8' = 32 S.F. 134,995 SQ. FT. (.02) X 134,995 S.F. 2% AC #2 590 LBS 675 13
A240
1 FLOOR PLANS
INDICATED 1" = 25'-0" ROOF PLAN
T.O.W. 38'-0" T.O.L. 36'-6"
T.O.N. 36'-6"
T.O.W. 38'-6" T.O.L. 36'-0"
T.O.W. 38'-6" (HIGH) T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW)
T.O.W. 38'-0" (HIGH) T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW) T.O.W. 39'-0" (HIGH) T.O.W. 38'-0" (LOW) T.O.W. 38'-0" (LOW) T.O.W. 39'-0" (HIGH) T.O.W. 39'-0" T.O.L. 37'-7"
T.O.N. 37'-7"
T.O.W. 38'-0" T.O.L. 36'-6"
T.O.N. 36'-6"
T.O.W. 38'-0" T.O.L. 36'-0"
T.O.W. 40'-0" T.O.L. 35'-4"
T.O.W. 38'-0" (LOW) T.O.W. 40'-0" (HIGH)
T.O.W. 40'-0" T.O.L. 34'-9"
T.O.W. 40'-0" T.O.L. 34'-4" L.P. T.O.W. 38'-0" (LOW)
T.O.W. 40'-0" (HIGH)
T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW)
T.O.W. 38'-0" (HIGH)
T.O.L. 35'-5"
T.O.L. 34'-4" L.P. T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW)
T.O.W. 38'-0" (HIGH)
T.O.W. 37'-0" T.O.L. 35'-5"
T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW)
T.O.W. 38'-0" (HIGH)
T.O.N. 36'-6"
T.O.N. 37'-7"T.O.N. 36'-6"
T.O.N. 36'-6"T.O.N. 37'-7"T.O.N. 36'-6"
T.O.N. 37'-7"
T.O.N. 37'-7"
T.O.N. 36'-6"T.O.N. 37'-7"
T.O.N. 37'-7"
T.O.N. 36'-6"T.O.N. 37'-7"
T.O.N. 36'-6"T.O.N. 37'-7"
T.O.N. 37'-7"
T.O.N. 36'-6"T.O.N. 37'-7"
T.O.N. 37'-7"
T.O.N. 37'-7"
T.O.W. 40'-0" T.O.L. 37'-7"
T.O.W. 39'-0" T.O.L. 36'-0" L.P.

T.O.W. 39'-0" T.O.L. 37'-1"
T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW) T.O.W. 39'-0" (HIGH)
T.O.W. 39'-0" T.O.L. 36'-0" L.P.

T.O.W. 39'-0" T.O.L. 36'-0" L.P.

T.O.W. 39'-0" T.O.L. 37'-1"
T.O.W. 39'-0" T.O.L. 37'-1"
T.O.W. 39'-0" T.O.L. 37'-1"
T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW) T.O.W. 39'-0" (HIGH) 11401 12
T.O.W. 37'-0" T.O.L. 35'-0" L.P.

T.O.W. 38'-6" (HIGH) T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW)
T.O.W. 37'-0" T.O.L. 35'-0" L.P.

T.O.W. 37'-0" T.O.L. 35'-0" L.P.

T.O.W. 37'-0" T.O.L. 36'-1" T.O.W. 38'-6" (HIGH) T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW) T.O.W. 38'-6" (HIGH) T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW) T.O.W. 38'-6" (HIGH) T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW)
T.O.W. 37'-0" T.O.L. 36'-1"
T.O.W. 38'-6" (HIGH) T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW)
T.O.W. 38'-6" T.O.L. 36'-1"
T.O.W. 37'-0" T.O.L. 36'-1"
T.O.W. 37'-0" T.O.L. 36'-1"
T.O.L. 35'-0" L.P.

T.O.W. 38'-6" (HIGH) T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW)
T.O.W. 37'-0" T.O.L. 36'-1"
T.O.W. 40'-0" (HIGH) T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW)
T.O.W. 40'-0" (HIGH) T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW)
T.O.W. 38'-6" (HIGH) T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW)
T.O.W. 38'-6" (HIGH) T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW)
T.O.W. 38'-6" (HIGH) T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW)
T.O.W. 38'-6" (HIGH) T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW)
T.O.W. 38'-6" T.O.L. 35'-5"
T.O.W. 40'-6" T.O.L. 35'-11"
T.O.W. 40'-0" T.O.L. 36'-2"
T.O.W. 40'-6" (HIGH) T.O.W. 39'-0" (LOW)
T.O.W. 40'-0" T.O.L. 36'-6" T.O.W. 40'-0" (HIGH) T.O.W. 39'-0" (LOW) T.O.W. 39'-0" (HIGH) T.O.W. 38'-0" (LOW) T.O.W. 39'-0" (HIGH) T.O.W. 38'-0" (LOW) T.O.W. 40'-0" (HIGH) T.O.W. 39'-0" (LOW)
T.O.N. 36'-6"
T.O.W. 39'-0" T.O.L. 36'-6"
T.O.W. 37'-0" T.O.L. 35'-5"
T.O.L. 34'-4" L.P. T.O.W. 36'-0" (LOW) T.O.W. 37'-0" (HIGH) T.O.W. 36'-0" (LOW) T.O.W. 37'-0" (HIGH) T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW) T.O.W. 38'-0" (HIGH)
T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW) T.O.W. 38'-0" (HIGH)
T.O.W. 37'-0" (LOW) T.O.W. 38'-0" (HIGH) T.O.W. 36'-0" (LOW) T.O.W. 38'-0" (HIGH) T.O.W. 36'-0" (LOW)
T.O.W. 38'-0" (HIGH)
T.O.W. 41'-0" T.O.L. 35'-4"
T.O.W. 40'-0" T.O.L. 36'-0"
T.O.W. 38'-0" T.O.L. 34'-4"
T.O.W. 38'-0" T.O.L. 34'-9" 3
3 T.O.N. 36'-6"
T.O.N. 36'-6"
T.O.N. 36'-6"
T.O.N. 36'-6"
T.O.N. 36'-6"
T.O.N. 36'-6" 13 WHITE REFLECTIVE COATING TYP. AT ROOF AT OFFICE AND MEZZANINE (HATCHED AREA) PROVIDE 2X6 MIN. SUB-PURLINS 3 3 5,679 S.F. 5,679 S.F. 5,679 S.F. 5,679 S.F. 5,679 S.F. 5,679 S.F. 8 5,679 S.F.9 5,679 S.F. 10 5,403 S.F.

T.O.N. 36'-6"
T.O.N. 36'-6"
AREA OF SLOPE (11,110 S.F.)(2) 6" X 10" OVERFLOW SCUPPER 6Ø CAST IRON ROOF DRAIN AREA OF SLOPE (11,592 S.F.) (2) 6" X 10" OVERFLOW SCUPPER 6Ø CAST IRON ROOF DRAIN 2 2 AREA OF SLOPE (5,371 S.F.) (2) 6" X 10" OVERFLOW SCUPPER 26Ø CAST IRON ROOF DRAIN AREA OF SLOPE (5,371 S.F.)
(2) 6" X 10" OVERFLOW SCUPPER
2 6Ø CAST IRON ROOF DRAIN AREA OF SLOPE (11,542 S.F.)
(2) 6" X 10" OVERFLOW SCUPPER 6Ø CAST IRON ROOF DRAIN AREA OF SLOPE (11,052 S.F.) (2) 6" X 10" OVERFLOW SCUPPER 6Ø CAST IRON ROOF DRAIN 2A MIN. 1/4"/ FT.

SLOPE DN.

MIN. 1/4"/ FT. SLOPE DN.

MIN. 1/4"/ FT.

SLOPE DN. RIDGE LINE RIDGE LINE 14 14 15 15
MIN. 1/4"/ FT. SLOPE DN.

MIN. 1/4"/ FT. SLOPE DN.
1 1
4 6
6 6
7 7
8 8 10 10 AREA OF SLOPE (10,656 S.F.) (2) 6" X 10" OVERFLOW SCUPPER 6Ø CAST IRON ROOF DRAIN 2 AREA OF SLOPE (10,735 S.F.) (2) 6" X 10" OVERFLOW SCUPPER 6Ø CAST IRON ROOF DRAIN 2 AREA OF SLOPE (10,735 S.F.) (2) 6" X 10" OVERFLOW SCUPPER 2 6Ø CAST IRON ROOF DRAIN AREA OF SLOPE (10,735 S.F.) (2) 6" X 10" OVERFLOW SCUPPER 2 6Ø CAST IRON ROOF DRAIN AREA OF SLOPE (10,735 S.F.) (2) 6" X 10" OVERFLOW SCUPPER 6Ø CAST IRON ROOF DRAIN 2 AREA OF SLOPE (10,735 S.F.) (2) 6" X 10" OVERFLOW SCUPPER 6Ø CAST IRON ROOF DRAIN 2 AREA OF SLOPE (10,226 S.F.) (2) 6" X 10" OVERFLOW SCUPPER 2 6Ø CAST IRON ROOF DRAIN
MIN. 1/4"/ FT. SLOPE DN.

MIN. 1/4"/ FT. SLOPE DN.

MIN. 1/4"/ FT. SLOPE DN.
2 MIN. 1/4"/ FT. SLOPE DN.

MIN. 1/4"/ FT. SLOPE DN.

MIN. 1/4"/ FT. SLOPE DN.AC #1 590 LBS AC #3 590 LBS AC #4 920 LBS 5 AC #5 350 LBS
5 5
11401
5 4.9 4.4
4 3
2 1.6 1.1 1
38'-0"
14'-0"
1 1.1 1.6
2 3
4 5 DETAIL - C TYP. PANEL JOINT DETAIL - A
3 4
"
2"
3 4
"
3 4
" 1
2 " 3
4 " 2"
3 4
" 1
2 " DETAIL - B 2" HORIZONTAL REVEAL
3 4
"
3 4
" 2" 3
4 " 3
4 " 1
2 " 2" VERTICAL REVEAL 17

GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL
11401 GREENSTONE AVE., SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA - CONRETE TILT UP WAREHOUSE / OFFICE BUILDING 6/16/2021 3:52 PM - Y:\2020\A-20-011 11401 Greenstone Ave\GREEN ARCH\GREEN A300.dwg SHEET OF SHEETS DATE: DRAWN:

SCALE: PROJECT NO.
29MAR21 B.C.
7901 CROSSWAY DRIVE
PICO RIVERA, CA 90660
TEL 562.942.9804
CONTENTS: CLIENT: REVISIONS:
-
-
- architecture
C.E.G.

CONSTRUCTION
7901 CROSSWAY DRIVE
PICO RIVERA, CA 90660
TEL 562.948.4850
A-20-011
MR. BOBBY NASSIR
truckterminalproperties.com

STATE OF CAL FI OR
I N A
C-34996

RENEWAL DATE
10/31/2021

GI NAC IO CRESPO
CI
L

ENSED ARCHITECT
O.C. DESIGN &
ENGINEERING SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION SCALE 1" = 20'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION 38'-6" TOP OF PARAPET GROUND FLOOR
VARIES
PER
GRADING MEZZANINE SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION SCALE 1" = 20'-0" NORTH ELEVATION STOREFRONT GLAZING - TYPICAL 1 CONCRETE TILT-UP WALL - TYPICAL234567 12' X 14' TRUCK DOOR - GRADE LEVEL 9'-0" X 10' TRUCK DOOR - DOCK HIGH - TYPICAL HORIZONTAL REVEAL - TYPICAL VERTICAL REVEAL - TYPICAL8 PANEL JOINT - TYPICAL91011 PROPOSED LOCATION OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT COMPLETELY SCREENED FROM VIEW B
C
A FIELD COLOR ACCENT 1 COLOR COLOR SCHEDULE (EXTERIOR COLORS): SPANDREL GLAZING DE6347 Shining Knight DE6344 Wisp of Smoke PPG SOLAR BLUE LOW-E 12 14'-0" HIGH DECORATIVE CONCRETE PANEL SCREEN WALL 1314 CLERESTORY WINDOW - TYPICAL 15 SPANDREL GLASS - TYPICAL TRUCK WELL - PER GRADING PLAN 1617 WALL PACK LIGHTING FIXTURE - TYPICAL ACCENT 2 COLOR DE6356 Sheet Metal 18 CONCRETE STAIRS WITH HANDRAILS - TYPICAL ALUMINUM FINISH CANOPY TO EXTEND 4' BEYOND FACE OF WALL SOLARBAN 60 W/ BLUE BACKING GLAZING PPG SOLAR BLUE LOW-E SOLARBAN 60 (2) DUAL GLAZING CANOPY CLADDING ALUCABOND ALUMINUM FINISH 10'-0" HIGH WROUGHT-IRON BI-PARTING GATE WITH FIRE DEPT. KNOX-BOX 40'-0" TOP OF PARAPET GROUND FLOOR
VARIES
PER
GRADING 12
1 1
1 1 15 15 17
2 3
3 3
6 5
6 6
6 7
8 8
8 8 20
9 9 10 10 10 11 12 13 13 13 14 14
2 14 14 14 20 14 14 14 15
2 15 20 15 18 16 19 19 19 15 14 14 20 ALUMINUM FINISH CANOPY TO EXTEND 18" 20 20 2 20 MATERIAL ACCENT LONGBOARD ALUMINUM CLADDING: CHARCOAL 21 LONGBOARD CLADDED ACCENT, COLOR: CHARCOAL 21 20 8 8 22
2 13 20 15
1 1
1 8 14
A300 FLOOR PLANS

INDICATED TOP OF PARAPET GROUND FLOOR
41'-0" 38'-6" TYP. TYPICAL F.F. FINISH FLOOR T.O.W. TOP OF WALL P.J. PANEL JOINT TEMPERED VISION GLASS TEMPERED SPANDREL GLASS NOTE: ALL EXTERIOR GLAZING WITHIN 16' FROM GRADE SHALL BE TEMPERED GLASS A ELEVATION LEGEND:BCD
E
FG ELEVATION KEYNOTES: 3' X 7' MAN DOOR PAINTED TO MATCH THE ADJACENT WALL - TYPICAL LINE OF ROOF BEYOND - SHOWN DASHED FOR CLARITY A410 1 -5 A410 2 A410 3 TOP OF PARAPET A410 4 A420 1 A420 2 A420 3 A420 4 2 -
4 -
3 -
1 - WAREHOUSE AREA OFFICE AREA SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" PARTIAL ENLARGED NORTH ELEVATION A430 1 9 A430 2 A430 3 A430 4
38'-6" VARIES
PER
GRADING A440 1 A440 2 A440 3 A440 4 P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. 7 P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. P.J. 19 OVERFLOW SCUPPER, TYPICAL INTERIOR ROOF DRAIN AS SHOWN DASHED FOR CLARITY 22 22 10 10 6 6
6 A450 1 A450 2 A450 4 A450 3 21 21
3 13
8 A440 4 A440 4 SIM. 16 16 16 16 16 16
6 1'-6"
3'-0"
1'-6"
40'-6" 13 13 2219 A430 1 SIM. A460 2
6 21 A460 3 A460 4
8 38'-0" TOP OF PARAPET GROUND FLOOR A460 1
9 9
9 14
1'-0"
2' 13
3 13 19 19 19 22 22 22 22 22 22 19 13 A430 2 SIM. SIM.
2 16
6 11
VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE 1 4 5 LAKELAND RD ARROW HWY SITE PHOTOS 2 1/27/2021 4:34 PM - Y:\2020\A-20-011 11401 Greenstone Ave\GREEN PLANNING\GREEN-S GREENSTONE INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE / OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE, SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA O.C. DESIGN & ENGINEERING

BLOOMFIELD AVE

GREENSTONE AVE
SHOEMAKER AVE 12345678 1 2 3 4 5 6 78
11401 34" 2" 34" 34" 12" 34" 2" 34" 12" 34" 34" 2" 34" 34" 12" SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION @ GREENSTONE AVE 2" HORIZONTAL REVEAL 2" VERTICAL REVEAL TYPICAL PANEL JOINT PPG SOLARBAN 60 BLUE FIELD COLOR DE6344 WISP OF SMOKE ACCENT 1 COLOR DE6347 SHINING KNIGHT ACCENT 2 CLADDING LONGBOARD: CHARCOAL 1 2 3 9 5 879 ALUCABOND ALUMINUM CLADDING 4 PPG SOLARBAN 60 BLUE SPANDREL 6 8 3 6 3/15/2021 5:47 PM - Y:\2020\A-20-011 11401 Greenstone Ave\GREEN PLANNING\GREEN-MB.dw GREENSTONE INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE / OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 11401 GREENSTONE AVE., SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA O.C. DESIGN & ENGINEERING 7 5 2 4 6 1 9 4 5 4 5

Appeal of DPA 980 & Environmental Documents Page 9 of 19 Report Submitted By: Vince Velasco Date of Report: March 28, 2022 Planning and Development Department
Attachment 4: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with Traffic Study

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS PAGE 1

INITIAL STUDY &

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE

SANTA FE SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
LEAD AGENCY:

CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
11710 TELEGRAPH ROAD
SANTA FE SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 90670
REPORT PREPARED BY:

BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
2211 S. HACIENDA BOULEVARD, SUITE 107
HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA 91745
MAY 25, 2021
SFSP 073

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS PAGE 2
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS PAGE 3

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT NAME: Greenstone Avenue Industrial Development.

APPLICANT: Mr. Bobby Nassir, 1820 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, California, 90402.

ADDRESS: 11401 Greenstone Avenue, Santa Fe Springs, CA, 90670. Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 8026-018-023.

CITY/COUNTY: Santa Fe Springs, Los Angeles County.

DESCRIPTION: This Initial Study evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the construction and subsequent development of a 6.63-acre site located in the central portion of the City of Santa Fe Springs. The proposed project site is located at 11401 Greenstone Avenue and the corresponding assessor’s parcel number (APN) is 8026- 018-023. The proposed project would involve the construction of a new 144,434 square foot building that would include a 6,958 square foot mezzanine. Of this total floor area, 134,995 square feet would include warehouse space, 5,421 square feet of office space, and 4,018 square feet of storage space. A total of 16 dock high loading doors will be provided along the building’s north elevation. A total of 205 parking spaces will be provided for employees and visitors. Access to the site will be provided by two, 40-foot wide driveway connections with the west side of Greenstone Avenue.

FINDINGS: The environmental analysis provided in the attached Initial Study indicates that the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse impacts with the implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures. For this reason, the City of Santa Fe Springs determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed project. The following findings may be made based on the analysis contained in the attached Initial Study:
● The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment.
● The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
● The proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, when considering planned or proposed development in the City.
● The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly.

The environmental analysis is provided in the attached Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. The project is also described in greater detail in the attached Initial Study.

Signature Date
City of Santa Fe Springs Planning and Development Department

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................6

1.1 Purpose of the Initial Study .....................................................................................................6

1.2 Initial Study’s Organization..................................................................................................... 7

2.0 Project Description............................................................................8

2.1 Project Overview ......................................................................................................................8

2.2 Project Location........................................................................................................................8

2.3 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................... 12

2.4 Project Description................................................................................................................. 14

2.5 Physical Characteristics of the Proposed Project ………………………………………………………..14

2.6 Construction Characteristics ……………………………………………………………………………………15

2.7 Operational Characteristics ……………………………………………………………………………………..19

2.8 Discretionary Actions............................................................................................................. 19

2.9 Related (Cumulative) Projects …………………………………………………………………………………19

3.0 Environmental Analysis................................................................... 22

3.1 Aesthetics................................................................................................................................23

3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources.....................................................................................26

3.3 Air Quality...............................................................................................................................29

3.4 Biological Resources ..............................................................................................................35

3.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................40

3.6 Energy ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….44

3.7 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................46

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................................................... 51

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................56

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................................ 61

3.11 Land Use and Planning..........................................................................................................65

3.12 Mineral Resources..................................................................................................................69

3.13 Noise ........................................................................................................................................71

3.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................ 75

3.15 Public Services........................................................................................................................ 77

3.16 Recreation.............................................................................................................................. 80

3.17 Transportation and Circulation ............................................................................................82

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................89

3.19 Utilities....................................................................................................................................92

3.20 Wildfire ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..97

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................... 101

4.0 Conclusions ................................................................................... 102

4.1 Findings ................................................................................................................................ 102

4.2 Mitigation Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 102

5.0 References..................................................................................... 104

5.1 Preparers............................................................................................................................... 104

5.2 References............................................................................................................................. 104

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS PAGE 5
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 1 ● INTRODUCTION PAGE 6
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
This Initial Study evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the construction and subsequent development of a 6.63-acre site located in the central portion of the City of Santa Fe Springs. The proposed project site is located at 11401 Greenstone Avenue and the corresponding assessor’s parcel number (APN) is 8026-018-023. The proposed project would involve the construction of a new 144,434 square foot building that would include a 6,958 square foot mezzanine. Of this total floor area, 134,995 square feet would include warehouse space, 5,421 square feet of office space, and 4,018 square feet of storage space. A total of 16 dock high loading doors will be provided along the building’s north elevation. A total of 205 parking spaces will be provided for employees and visitors. Access to the site will be provided by two, 40- foot wide driveway connections with the west side of Greenstone Avenue.1 The City of Santa Fe Springs is the designated Lead Agency for the proposed project and will be responsible for the project’s environmental review.2 The operation of the proposed development is considered to be a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, as a result, the project is subject to the City’s environmental review process.3 The project Applicant is Mr. Bobby Nassir, 1820 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, California, 90402.

As part of the proposed project’s environmental review, the City of Santa Fe Springs has authorized the preparation of this Initial Study.4 The primary purpose of CEQA is to ensure that decision-makers and the public understand the environmental implications of a specific action or project. An additional purpose of this Initial Study is to ascertain whether the proposed project will have the potential for significant adverse impacts on the environment once it is implemented. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, additional purposes of this Initial Study include the following:
● To provide the City of Santa Fe Springs with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or Negative Declaration (ND) for a project;
● To facilitate the project’s environmental assessment early in the design and development of the proposed project;
● To eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and,
● To determine the nature and extent of any impacts associated the proposed project.

Although this Initial Study was prepared with consultant support, the analysis, conclusions, and findings made as part of its preparation fully represent the independent judgment and position of the City of Santa Fe Springs in its capacity as the Lead Agency. The City determined, as part of this Initial Study’s preparation, 1 C.E.G. Construction, Inc. Greenstone Avenue Industrial Site Plan, Sheet A 100-05. December 8, 2020. 2 California, State of. California Public Resources Code. Division 13, Chapter 2.5. Definitions. as Amended 2001. §21067. 3 California, State of. Title 14. California Code of Regulations. Chapter 3. Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. as Amended 2016 (CEQA Guidelines). §15060 (b). 4 Ibid.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 1 ● INTRODUCTION PAGE 7
that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental document for the proposed project’s CEQA review. This Initial Study and the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be forwarded to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the public for review and comment. A 20-day public review period will be provided to allow these entities and other interested parties to comment on the proposed project and the findings of this Initial Study. 5 Questions and/or comments should be submitted
to the following individual:

Vince Velasco, Associate Planner
City of Santa Fe Springs, Planning and Development Department 11710 East Telegraph Road
Santa Fe Springs, California 90670
562-868-0511

1.2 INITIAL STUDY’S ORGANIZATION
The following annotated outline summarizes the contents of this Initial Study:
● Section 1 Introduction, provides the procedural context surrounding this Initial Study's preparation and insight into its composition.
● Section 2 Project Description, provides an overview of the existing environment as it relates to the project area and describes the proposed project’s physical and operational characteristics. ● Section 3 Environmental Analysis, includes an analysis of potential impacts associated with the construction (site improvement) and the subsequent operation of the proposed project. ● Section 4 Conclusions, summarizes the findings of the analysis. ● Section 5 References, identifies the sources used in the preparation of this Initial Study. 5 California, State of. Title 14. California Code of Regulations. Chapter 3. Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. as Amended 2016 (CEQA Guidelines). §15060 (b).

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
This Initial Study evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the construction and subsequent development of a 6.63-acre site located in the central portion of the City of Santa Fe Springs. The proposed project would involve the construction of a new 144,434 square foot building that would include a 6,958 square foot mezzanine. Of this total floor area, 134,995 square feet would include warehouse space, 5,421 square feet of office space, and 4,018 square feet of storage space. A total of 16 dock high loading doors will be provided along the building’s north elevation. A total of 205 parking spaces will be provided for employees and visitors. Access to the site will be provided by two, 40-foot-wide driveway connections with the west side of Greenstone Avenue.6

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located within the central portion of the City of Santa Fe Springs and occupies frontage along the west side of Greenstone Avenue. The City of Santa Fe Springs is located approximately 13 miles southeast of Downtown Los Angeles and 18 miles northwest of Downtown Santa Ana. Santa Fe Springs is bounded on the north by Whittier and an unincorporated County area (West Whittier); on the east by Whittier, La Mirada, and an unincorporated County area (East Whittier); on the south by Cerritos and Norwalk; and on the west by Pico Rivera and Downey.7
Major physiographic features located in the vicinity of the City include the San Gabriel River, located approximately 2.9 miles west of the project site and the Puente Hills, located 3.9 miles northeast of the site.

Regional access to Santa Fe Springs is possible from two freeways: the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) and the San Gabriel River Freeway (I-605). The I-5 Freeway extends along the City’s western and southern portions in a northwest-southeast orientation and the I-605 Freeway extends along the City’s westerly side in a southwest-northeast orientation.8 The location of Santa Fe Springs in a regional context is shown in Exhibit 2-1. A citywide map is provided in Exhibit 2-2.

The project site’s legal address is 11401 Greenstone Avenue, Santa Fe Springs, California, 90670. The project site is located on the west side of Greenstone Avenue approximately 1,350 feet south of Lakeland Road. The corresponding assessor’s parcel number (APN) is 8026-018-023.9 Shoemaker Avenue, located approximately 900 feet to the east of the project site, is the corporate boundary between the City of Santa Fe Springs and the County of Los Angeles. A local map is provided in Exhibit 2-3. The nearest arterial roadways to the project site include Florence Avenue, located approximately 0.84 miles to the north of the site (via Bloomfield Avenue), and Imperial Highway, located approximately 0.86 miles to the south of the project site (via Sunshine Avenue and Shoemaker Avenue).10 6 C.E.G. Construction, Inc. Greenstone Avenue Industrial Site Plan, Sheet A 100-05. December 8, 2020. 7 Google.com/maps. Website accessed April 5, 2021.
8 Ibid.
9 C.E.G. Construction, Inc. Greenstone Avenue Industrial Site Plan, Sheet A 100-05. December 8, 2020. 10 Google.com/maps. Website accessed April 5, 2021.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 2 ● PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 9
EXHIBIT 2-1

REGIONAL LOCATION
SOURCE: QUANTUM GIS

CITYWIDE MAP
SOURCE: QUANTUM GIS

LOCAL MAP
SOURCE: QUANTUM GIS

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 2 ● PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 12

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The 6.63-acre project site is currently being used as a truck trailer parking facility and is occupied by J. B.

Hunt Transport Services, Inc. The project site is surrounded by development on all sides. Exhibits 2-4 is an aerial photograph of the project site. Surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the project site are listed below:
● North of the Project Site. A distribution use, TwinMed, LLC., is located to the north of the site at 11133 Greenstone Avenue. The site is located adjacent to the project site.12 ● South of the Project Site. A manufacturing building, Maruichi American Corp. is located to the south of the site at 13929 Greenstone Avenue. This use is located adjacent to the project site’s south side.13
● East of the Project Site. Greenstone Avenue extends along the project site’s east side. Further east, on the east side of Greenstone Avenue, are other industrial uses. The Rio Hondo Fire Academy is located opposite the project site on the east side of Greenstone Avenue at 11400 Greenstone Avenue. A new FedEx Ground shipping facility is located further south.14 ● West of the Project Site. A railroad right-of-way extends along the site’s west side. Further west, is Kelly Pipe Co.15
As indicated previously, the project site is currently occupied by J. B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. The site is being used as a truck trailer parking facility. An office and a maintenance building occupy the northeast corner of the property and these improvements will be removed when development commences. The majority of site is currently unpaved though the site is level and has been graded. The site’s frontage along Greenstone Avenue is landscaped and includes seven mature evergreen trees in the parkway area. Access to the site is currently provided by a single driveway located along the west side of Greenstone Avenue. 17 The project site is located approximately 1,000 feet, north of the former Kalico Number 1 Landfill which is located at 11801 Greenstone Avenue. According to the City’s methane zone maps, the proposed project site is located within a methane risk zone. Within the project site are a number of extraction monitoring wells that will be relocated to the site’s southwest corner.
18 12 Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site survey. Survey was conducted on April 25, 2021. 13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 City of Santa Fe Springs. Methane Zones. https://www.santafesprings.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx. Website accessed April 27, 2021.

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
SOURCE: QUANTUM GIS

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 2 ● PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 14

2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.4.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project will involve the construction of a new 144,434 square foot warehouse building within the 6.63-acre site. The proposed project will consist of the following elements:
● Site Plan. The project site has a total land area of 6.63 acres (288,935 square feet). The project site is rectangular in shape with a width (north to south) of 337 feet and a depth (east to west) of 857 feet. Once developed, the lot coverage would be 50% and the floor area ratio (FAR) would be

0.499:1.0. The project site, following development would be occupied by the single 144,434 square foot tilt-up concrete building. The loading docks (16 dock high doors) and truck maneuvering areas would be located in the northern portion of the site while the other parking areas would be concentrated along the north and east sides.
● Building. The proposed project would involve the construction of a new 144,434 square foot building that would include a 6,958 square foot mezzanine. The mezzanine would total 6,958 square feet and would include 2,940 square feet of office and 4,018 square feet of storage. Of the total building floor area, 134,995 square feet would include warehouse space, 5,421 square feet of office space, and 4,018 square feet of storage space. The building’s dimensions are 728 feet (east to west) by 216 feet (north to south). The maximum outside height of the building would be 38 feet, 6-inches.19
● Access and Circulation. Access to the site will be provided by two, 40-foot-wide driveway connections located along the west side of Greenstone Avenue. The northernmost driveway will be the nearest driveway to the loading/receiving docks and the truck maneuvering area. The southernmost driveway will also be available for both trucks and vehicles. A 26-foot wide roadway will be located around the building and will also serve as a fire lane.21 ● Parking. A total of 205 parking spaces will be provided for employees and visitors. A total of 139 stalls will be standard size, 8 stalls will be ADA accessible, 16 stalls will be reserved for clean air vehicles, and 10 stalls will be reserved for EV vehicles. Parking areas will be concentrated in the front (eastern) portion of the site, along the northern side, and 32 parallel spaces along the site’s south side.
22 ● Landscaping. A total of 17,425 square feet of land area will be landscaped. Of this total, 6,408 square feet will be located in the Greenstone frontage and the remaining 11,017 square feet will be located around the new building and along the north and west perimeter. All of the landscaping will be drought resistant (xeriscape).24
19 C.E.G. Construction, Inc. Greenstone Avenue Industrial Site Plan, Sheet A 100-05. December 8, 2020. 21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
24 Ibid.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 2 ● PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 15
The proposed project is summarized in Table 2-1. The proposed site plan is provided in Exhibit 2-5 and the building elevations are provided in Exhibits 2-6 and 2-7.

Table 2-1
Summary of Proposed Project
Project Element Total Project
Parcel (Site) Area 288,935 sq. ft. (6.63 acres)
Building Floor Area 144,434 sq. ft.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.499 to 1.0
Lot Coverage 50%
Building Height 38 feet
Parking Stalls 205 parking spaces
Loading Docks 16 truck doors
Landscape Area 17,425 sq. ft.

Source: C.E.G. Construction, Inc. Greenstone Avenue Industrial Site Plan, Sheet A 100-05. December 8, 2020.
.

2.4.2 CONSTRUCTION CHARACTERISTICS
The construction of the phase for the proposed project would take approximately nine months to complete.

The key construction phases are outlined below:
● Grading and Site Preparation. The project site will be readied for the construction of the proposed project. All of the existing onsite improvements will be removed during this phase. This must be done prior to building construction. This phase will take approximately one month to complete.
● Construction. The new building will be constructed during this phase. This phase will take approximately four months to complete.
● Paving. This phase will involve the addition of paving of the roadway and parking areas. This phase will take approximately two months to complete.
● Landscaping and Finishing. This phase will involve the planting of landscaping, painting of the building, and the completion of the on-site improvements. This phase will last approximately two months.

CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
SOURCE: Land Development Consultants
NORTH

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 2 ● PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 17

EXHIBIT
2 -
6 BUILDING
1 ELEVATIONS
SOURCE: C.E.G.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 2 ● PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 18

EXHIBIT
2 -
7 BUILDING
1 ELEVATIONS
SOURCE: C.E.G.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 2 ● PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 19

2.4.2 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
The specific business and/or tenant(s) that would ultimately occupy the proposed building are not known at this time. Any prospective use must be either permitted by right or conditionally permitted under the City of Santa Fe Springs Zoning Ordinance. The operating hours of the potential business or businesses that may ultimately occupy the building are also unknown at this time. The proposed project is anticipated to add up to 95 new jobs based on a ratio of one employee per 1,518 square feet of floor area.27 Nevertheless, the project will have an adequate supply of parking to accommodate demand from new employees.

2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
A Discretionary Action is an action taken by a government agency (for this project, the government agency is the City of Santa Fe Springs) that calls for an exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. The proposed project will require the approval of the following discretionary actions:
● Development Plan Approval (DPA Case No. 980) to construct an industrial buildings on land currently used a truck trailer parking facility; and,
● Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

2.6 RELATED (CUMULATIVE) PROJECTS
Cumulative impacts refer to the combined effect of project impacts with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. As set forth in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, “Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. (a) The individual effects may include changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.
(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” The cumulative project list identified below and on the following page was provided by the City of Santa Fe Springs. The identified related projects include the following:
● Related Project #1 - Lakeland Road Housing Development. This related project would involve the construction of a new 139-unit housing development on a site located near the intersection of Lakeland Road and Laurel Avenue. The proposed project would involve the construction and occupancy of 121 rental units and 18 owner-occupied townhome condominium units. The proposed project would also include the development of a total of four adjacent parcels, all with a Multiple27 The Natelson Company, Inc. Employment Density Study Summary Report. October 31, 2001.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 2 ● PROJECT DESCRIPTION PAGE 20
Family Residential-Planned Unit Development (R3-PD) designation. The total land area to be developed with the construction of the proposed project is 4.68 acres (203,761 square feet). This related project is located approximately 3,200 feet to the northeast of the project site. The project is currently seeking entitlements.
● Related Project #2 - Lakeland Apartments. This related project is a new 128-unit apartment complex within a 5.13-acre (223,421 square feet) site located on the west side of Carmenita Road in between Lakeland Road and Meyer Road. The project site is a remnant of Carmela Elementary School, which is adjacent to the related project site. This related project will consist of seven new apartment buildings and a community/recreation building (amenity building). This related project is located approximately 3,100 feet to the west of the project site. This project has been approved by the City and construction activities have commenced. ● Related Project #3 - Greenstone Trailer Parking Project. The 5.55-acre project site consists of one parcel that is located at 12017 Greenstone Avenue. The proposed parking area would consist of 202,000 square feet and would be designed to accommodate 158 trailer parking spaces. The new parking lot will provide trailer parking for the nearby FedEx facility. This related project is located approximately 2,000 feet to the south of the project site. This related project was recently completed and is now operational.
● Related Project #4 - Rexford Project, 12133 Greenstone Avenue. The proposed project would involve the expansion of an existing truck terminal with a total land area of approximately 4.7- acres. As proposed, the lot will include 80 designated parking spaces for the parking of trucks and trailers as well as 35 standard parking stalls with 15 docking positions. In addition, an existing warehouse and maintenance building consisting of 12,586 square feet of floor area, will be refurbished with a new four-foot-high loading dock with an additional 4,633 square feet as the proposed building will be a total of 17,219 square feet. This related project is located approximately 2,240 feet to the south of the project site. This related project is awaiting approval.

The nearest related projects to the proposed project site include two related projects (Related Projects #3 and #4) located to the south of the project site on Greenstone Avenue. The potential for projects to have a cumulative impact depends on both their geographic location as well as the timing of development. The geographic area affected by cumulative projects will vary depending on the environmental topic. For example, construction noise impacts would be limited to areas directly affected by construction noise, whereas the area affected by a project’s air emissions generally includes the local South Coast Air Basin.

The timing of the future projects is likely to fluctuate due to schedule changes or other unknown factors.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 22
SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section of the Initial Study analyzes the potential environmental impacts that may result from the proposed project’s implementation. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include the following:

Aesthetics (Section 3.1);
Agricultural &Forestry Resources (Section 3.2);
Air Quality (Section 3.3);
Biological Resources (Section 3.4);
Cultural Resources (Section 3.5);
Energy (Section 3.6)
Geology & Soils (Section 3.7);
Greenhouse Gas Emissions; (Section 3.8);
Hazards & Hazardous Materials (Section 3.9);
Hydrology & Water Quality (Section 3.10);
Land Use & Planning (Section 3.11);
Mineral Resources (Section 3.12);
Noise (Section 3.13);
Population & Housing (Section 3.14);
Public Services (Section 3.15);
Recreation (Section 3.16);
Transportation (Section 3.17);
Tribal Cultural Resources (Section 3.18);
Utilities (Section 3.19);
Wildfire (Section 3.20); and,
Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section

3.21).

The environmental analysis included in this section reflects the Initial Study Checklist format used by the City of Santa Fe Springs in its environmental review process (refer to Section 1.3 herein). Under each issue area, an analysis of impacts is provided in the form of questions followed by corresponding detailed responses. For the evaluation of potential impacts, questions are stated, and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of this Initial Study's preparation. To each question, there are four possible responses:
● No Impact. The proposed project will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment.
● Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project may have the potential for affecting the environment, although these impacts will be below levels or thresholds that the City of Santa Fe Springs or other responsible agencies consider to be significant. ● Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project may have the potential to generate impacts that will have a significant impact on the environment. However, the level of impact may be reduced to levels that are less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures.
● Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project may result in environmental impacts that are significant.

This Initial Study will assist the City of Santa Fe Springs in making a determination as to whether there is a potential for significant adverse impacts on the environment associated with the implementation of the proposed project.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 23

3.1 AESTHETICS
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 
B. Would the project 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, would the project 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 a 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. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on aesthetics if it results in any of the following:
● Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
● Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
● Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project 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? or,
● Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ● No Impact.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 24
northeast of the project site) because current development along Greenstone Avenue and other local roads restricts views of the Puente Hills from uses near the project site. In addition, all of the adjacent properties are industrial in nature (the site and the surrounding properties are all zoned M-2). Once occupied, public viewsheds of the surrounding areas would continue to be visible from the public right-of-way.28 The proposed project will facilitate the develop of an existing underutilized site with new development. As a result, no impacts will occur.

B. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ● No Impact.

According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the nearby roadways, including Greenstone Avenue, are not designated State or County designated scenic highway. The closest designated scenic highway to the project site is a 7-mile segment of the Orange Freeway (SR-57), located approximately 12 miles to the east of the project site.29 Two locations in the City are recorded on the National Register of Historic Places and the list of California Historical Resources: the Clarke Estate and the Hawkins-Nimocks Estate (also known as the Patricio Ontiveros Adobe or Ontiveros Adobe). The Clarke Estate is located at 10211 Pioneer Boulevard and the Ontiveros Adobe is located at 12100 Telegraph Road. The proposed project site does not contain any significant heritage trees, significant rock outcroppings or existing historic structures. The project site does not contain any buildings listed in the State or National registrar. As a result, no impacts will occur.

C. In non-urbanized areas, would the project 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 a 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? ● No Impact The project site is currently used as a truck trailer parking facility.30 The project site and the surrounding properties are developed in industrial uses. The proposed new development will conform to the applicable M2 zoning requirements. As a result, no impacts will occur.

D. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ● Less than Significant Impact.

Exterior lighting can be a nuisance to adjacent land uses that are sensitive to this lighting. This nuisance lighting is referred to as light trespass which is typically defined as the presence of unwanted light on properties located adjacent to the source of lighting. There are no light sensitive land uses located within close proximity to the project site. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residential neighborhoods located approximately 950 feet to the east, on the east side of Shoemaker Road. Projectrelated sources of nighttime light would include streetlights, parking lot security lighting, and vehicular headlights. Lighting that will be utilized by the proposed development will be typical of that associated with residential uses and would be provided in order to illuminate the building entrances and parking areas. The 28 Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site Survey. Survey was completed on April 27, 2021. 29 California Department of Transportation. Official Designated Scenic Highways. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/laplandscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways 30 Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site Survey. Survey was completed on April 27, 2021.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 25
project’s exterior lighting would be directed towards the interior of the project site and away from any nearby land uses. Additionally, the proposed project will include directional lighting with shielding to ensure that on-site lighting does not cause light trespass onto the adjacent properties. Any potential light and glare from the parking areas would be required to comply with Section 155.496 of the City of Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code. As a result, less than significant impacts are anticipated to result upon the implementation of the proposed project.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The potential aesthetic impacts related to views, aesthetics, and light and glare are site-specific.

Furthermore, the analysis determined that the proposed project combined with one or more of the related projects would not restrict scenic views along the local streets, damage or interfere with any scenic resources or highways, degrade the visual character of the project site and surrounding areas, or result in light and glare impacts. As a result, no cumulative aesthetic impacts will occur.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of aesthetics indicated that no impact on these resources would occur as part of the proposed project's implementation. As a result, no mitigation is required.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 26

3.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project 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 nonagricultural uses? 
B. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses, or a Williamson Act Contract? 
C. Would the project 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))?

D. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use? 
E. Would the project 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 a non-forest use?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on agriculture and forestry resources if it results in any of the following:
● Would the project 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? ● Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ● Would the project 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))?
● Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ● Would the project 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?

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 27

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project 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 uses? ● No Impact.

B. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses, or a Williamson Act Contract? ● No Impact.

According to the California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection, the project site is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract since the land does not qualify for a Williamson Act Contract.32 There are no agricultural uses located within the site that would be affected by the project’s implementation. As a result, no impacts will occur.

C. Would the project 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.

D. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use? ● No Impact.

No forest lands are located within the project site or surrounding area. No loss or conversion of forest lands to urban uses would result from the proposed project’s implementation. As a result, no impacts will occur. 31 City of Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code. Title XV, Land Usage. Chapter 155, Code 155.241, Principal Permitted Uses. 32 California Department of Conservation. State of California Williamson Act Contract Land. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa/Pages/ Farmland-Security-Zones.aspx

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 28
E. Would the project 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 a non-forest use? ● No Impact.

The project would not involve the disruption or damage of the existing environment that would result in a loss of farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use because the project site is not located in close proximity to farmland or forest land. As a result, no impacts will occur. The proposed project would not involve any changes to the existing environment which could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, or the conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. As a result, no impacts will occur.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The analysis determined that there are no agricultural or forestry resources in the project area and that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts on these resources. In addition, none of the related projects would involve any impacts related to the loss of farmland resources or forestry impacts. As a result, no cumulative impacts on agriculture or forestry resources will occur.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of agricultural and forestry resources indicated that no impact on these resources would occur as part of the proposed project's implementation. As a result, no mitigation is required.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 29

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 
B. Would the project 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. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 
D. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on air quality if it results in any of the following:
● Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ● Would the project 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?
● Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ● Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has established quantitative thresholds for short-term (construction) emissions and long-term (operational) emissions for the following criteria pollutants:
● Ozone (O3) is a nearly colorless gas that irritates the lungs, damages materials, and vegetation.

Ozone is formed by photochemical reaction (when nitrogen dioxide is broken down by sunlight). ● Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless toxic gas that interferes with the transfer of oxygen to the brain. Carbon monoxide is produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels emitted as vehicle exhaust.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 30
● Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a yellowish-brown gas, which at high levels can cause breathing difficulties. Nitrogen dioxide is formed when nitric oxide (a pollutant from burning processes) combines with oxygen.
● Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfurcontaining fossil fuels. Health effects include acute respiratory symptoms and difficulty in breathing for children.
● PM10 and PM2.5 refers to particulate matter less than ten microns and two and one-half microns in diameter, respectively. Particulates of this size cause a greater health risk than larger-sized particles because fine particles can more easily cause irritation.

Projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) generating construction-related emissions that exceed any of the following emissions thresholds are considered to be significant under CEQA:
● 75 pounds per day or 2.50 tons per quarter of reactive organic compounds; ● 100 pounds per day or 2.50 tons per quarter of nitrogen dioxide; ● 550 pounds per day or 24.75 tons per quarter of carbon monoxide; ● 150 pounds per day or 6.75 tons per quarter of PM10;
● 55 pounds per day or 2.43 tons per quarter of PM2.5; or, ● 150 pounds per day or 6.75 tons per quarter of sulfur oxides.

A project would have a significant effect on air quality if any of the following operational emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants are exceeded:
● 55 pounds per day of reactive organic compounds;
● 55 pounds per day of nitrogen dioxide;
● 550 pounds per day of carbon monoxide;
● 150 pounds per day of PM10;
● 55 pounds per day of PM2.5; or,
● 150 pounds per day of sulfur oxides.

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ● No Impact.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 31
● Consistency Criteria 1 refers to a proposed project’s potential for resulting in an increase in the frequency or severity of an existing air quality violation or its potential for contributing to the continuation of an existing air quality violation.
● Consistency Criteria 2 refers to a proposed project’s potential for exceeding the assumptions included in the AQMP or other regional growth projections relevant to the AQMP’s implementation.34
In terms of Criteria 1, the proposed project’s long-term (operational) airborne emissions will be below levels that the SCAQMD considers to be a significant adverse impact (refer to the analysis included in the next section where the long-term stationary and mobile emissions for the proposed project are summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2). The proposed project will also conform to Consistency Criteria 2 since it will not significantly affect any regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared for the City of Santa Fe Springs. Projects that are consistent with the projections of employment and population forecasts identified in the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) prepared by SCAG are considered consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since the RTP/SCS forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. According to the Growth Forecast Appendix prepared by SCAG for the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, the City of Santa Fe Springs is projected to have an employment population of 20,300 job through the year 2045, which is an increase of 2,400 jobs from the 2020 figure.
35 The proposed project’s number of 95 new jobs is well within SCAG’s population projections for the City of Santa Fe Springs and the proposed project will not violate Consistency Criteria 2. As a result, no impacts related to the implementation of the AQMP are anticipated.

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.

According to the SCAQMD, any project is significant if it triggers or exceeds the most appropriate evaluation criteria. The project’s construction period is expected to last approximately nine months and would include site preparation, grading, erection of the new industrial development, and the finishing of the project (e.g., painting, landscaping, paving of parking area). The analysis of daily construction and operational emissions was prepared utilizing the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod V. 2016.3.2). Model defaults were used for construction phase lengths and construction equipment. The model assumed the entire construction period would occur over a nine-month period. It was also assumed that the project would water exposed areas three times daily during construction earthmoving activities to reduce fugitive dust emissions as directed under SCAQMD Rule 403 and would use architectural coatings with a maximum VOC content of 50 g/L, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113. As shown in Table 3-1, daily construction emissions will not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Since the project area is located in a nonattainment area for Ozone and particulates, the contractors will be required to ensure that the grading and building contractors adhere to all pertinent provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403 pertaining to the generation of fugitive dust during grading and/or the use of equipment on unpaved surfaces.36 The contractors will be 34 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 1993. 35 Southern California Association of Governments. Adopted Growth Forecast Regional Transportation Plan 2016-2040. http://gisdata.scag.ca.gov/Pages/SocioEconomicLibrary.aspx 36 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. As Amended June 3, 2005.

Therefore, less than significant impacts will occur.

Table 3-1
Estimated Daily Construction Emissions
Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Demolition (on-site) 3.16 31.44 21.56 0.03 1.55 1.44
Demolition (off-site) 0.06 0.04 0.56 -- 0.16 0.04
Total Demolition 3.22 31.48 22.12 0.03 1.71 1.48
Site Preparation (on-site) 3.88 40.49 21.15 0.03 9.09 5.75 Site Preparation (off-site) 0.07 0.04 0.67 -- 0.20 0.05 Total Site Preparation 3.95 40.53 21.82 0.03 9.29 5.80
Grading (on-site) 2.29 24.73 15.85 0.02 3.54 2.36
Grading (off-site) 0.06 0.04 0.56 -- 0.16 0.04
Total Grading 2.35 24.77 16.41 0.02 3.70 2.40
Building Construction (on-site) 1.90 17.43 16.57 0.02 0.95 0.90 Building Construction (off-site) 0.46 1.70 4.10 0.01 1.22 0.33 Total Building Construction 2.36 19.13 20.67 0.03 2.15 1.23 Paving (on-site) 1.29 10.83 12.26 0.01 0.57 0.53
Paving (off-site) 0.08 0.05 0.75 -- 0.22 0.06
Total Paving 1.27 10.88 13.01 0.01 0.79 0.59
Architectural Coatings (on-site) 20.98 1.52 1.81 -- 0.09 0.09 Architectural Coatings (off-site) 0.08 0.05 0.75 -- 0.22 0.06 Total Architectural Coatings 32.17 1.57 2.97 -- 0.09 0.09 Maximum Daily Emissions 22.46 72.02 43.96 0.08 27.85 16.31 Daily Thresholds 75 100 55o 150 150 55
Source: CalEEMod V. 2016.3.2.

Long-term emissions refer to those air quality impacts that will occur once the proposed development has been constructed and is occupied. These impacts will continue over the operational life of the project. The long-term air quality impacts associated with the proposed project include mobile emissions associated with vehicular traffic. The analysis of long-term operational impacts also used the CalEEMod V. 2016.3.2 computer model. Table 3-2 depicts the estimated operational emissions generated by the proposed project.

Table 3-2
Estimated Operational Emissions in lbs/day
Emission Source ROG NO2 CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area-wide (lbs/day) 1.83 0.11 10.01 -- 0.06 0.06
Energy (lbs/day) 0.04 0.38 0.16 -- 0.31 0.31
Mobile (lbs/day) 1.50 7.71 20.16 0.07 6.35 1.73
Total (lbs/day) 3.37 8.20 30.33 0.07 6.72 2.10
Daily Thresholds 55 55 55o 15o 15o 55
Source: CalEEMod 2016.3.2.

As indicated in Table 3-2, the projected long-term emissions are below thresholds considered to represent a significant adverse impact.

The project site is not located in close proximity to a number of sensitive receptors as shown in Exhibit 3-1.

The potential long-term (operational) and short-term (construction) emissions associated with the proposed project are compared to the SCAQMD's daily emissions thresholds in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, respectively. As indicated in these tables, the short-term and long-term emissions will not exceed the SCAQMD's daily thresholds. While the proposed project would result in additional vehicle trips, there would be a regional benefit in terms of a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) because it is an infill project that is consistent with the regional and the State sustainable growth objectives. Finally, the proposed project would not exceed the adopted projections used in the preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy). As a result, the potential air quality impacts related to the generation of criteria pollutants are less than significant.

D. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? ● No Impact.

The SCAQMD has identified those land uses that are typically associated with odor complaints. These uses include activities involving livestock, rendering facilities, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting activities, refineries, landfills, and businesses involved in fiberglass molding. The proposed project will not result in the generation of any odors. In addition, construction truck drivers must adhere to Title 13 - §2485 of the California Code of Regulations, which limits the idling of diesel-powered vehicles to less than five minutes. Furthermore, the project’s contractors must adhere to SCAQMD rules and regulations that govern fugitive dust during site preparation which will significantly reduce the generation of fugitive dust. As a result, no impacts will occur.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The implementation of the individual related projects would result in both short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) air quality impacts. No demolition or construction activities for the proposed project or the related projects are anticipated to occur simultaneously. The construction periods would range over a four-to-five-year time frame. As a result, no significant cumulative emissions would occur.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of air quality impacts indicated that the projected emissions would be below the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. As a result, no mitigation measures are required.

SENSITIVE AIR RECEPTORS MAP
SOURCE: BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
Area 2

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 35

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 
B. Would the project 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 
C. Would the project 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. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory life corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

E. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

F. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on biological resources if it results in any of the following:
● Would the project 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
● Would the project 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 Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? ● Would the project 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?
● Would the project 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?

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 36
● Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
● Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ● No Impact.

The proposed project would involve the construction and subsequent development of a 6.63-acre site located in the central portion of the City of Santa Fe Springs. The proposed project site is a new 144,434 square foot building that would replace an existing truck trailer storage yard. A review of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Biodiversity Database (CNDDB) Bios Viewer for the Whittier Quadrangle indicated that there are six threatened or endangered species located within the Whittier Quadrangle (the City of Santa Fe Springs is listed under the Whittier Quadrangle).37 These species include:
● The Coastal California Gnatcatcher is not likely to be found on-site due to the existing surrounding development and the lack of habitat suitable for the California Gnatcatcher. The absence of coastal sage scrub, the coastal California Gnatcatcher’s primary habitat, further diminishes the likelihood of encountering such birds.
● The Least Bell’s Vireo lives in a riparian habitat, with a majority of the species living in San Diego County. As a result, it is not likely that any Least Bell’s Vireos will be encountered in the project area due to the lack of riparian habitat in the surrounding area. ● The Santa Ana Sucker will not be found on-site because the Santa Ana Sucker is a fish and there are no bodies of water present on-site. The nearest body of water is the La Canada Verde Creek, located approximately 0.54 miles east of the project site.
● The Bank Swallow lives in a riparian habitat and nests along rivers or streams. The nearest stream or body of water is the La Canada Verde Creek, located approximately 0.54 miles east of the project site; therefore, it is not likely that the Bank Swallow will be found on the project site. Additionally, the current level of development in the surrounding area is not an ideal environment for the Bank Swallow.
● The Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo is an insect-eating bird found in riparian woodland habitats.

The likelihood of encountering a Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo is low due to the level of development present within the City of Santa Fe Springs. Furthermore, the lack of riparian habitat further diminishes the likelihood of encountering populations of Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoos. 37 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Bios Viewer. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/printTablePreview.html.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 37
● California Orcutt Grass is found near vernal pools throughout Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego Counties. As indicated previously, the project site is located in the midst of an urban area.

There are no bodies of water located on-site that would be capable of supporting populations of California Orcutt Grass nor does the site have the capacity to form vernal pools during wet seasons.

The proposed project will have no impact on the aforementioned species because the project site is located in the midst of an urban area. The project site and surrounding areas are not conducive to the survival of the aforementioned species due to the lack of suitable habitat. As a result, no impacts on any candidate, sensitive, or special status species will result from proposed project’s implementation.

B. Would the project 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ● No Impact.

According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the results of the site visits, there are no wetland or migratory bird nesting areas located within the project site.38 In addition, there is no riparian habitat located on-site or in the surrounding areas.8 No offsite wetland or migratory bird nesting areas will be affected by the proposed development since all new development will be confined to the project site. In addition, the proposed development will abide by all migratory and nesting bird protections required by the Migratory Bird Treaty act of 1918. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.

C. Would the project 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.

No wetland areas or riparian habitats (e.g., wetlands, vernal pools, critical habitats for sensitive species, etc.) were observed on the site during the field investigations (refer to Exhibit 3-2).39 The site in its entirety is disturbed. Additionally, no offsite wetland habitats would be affected by the proposed development since the project’s construction would be limited to the proposed project site. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.

D. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory life corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ● No Impact.

The project site has no utility as a wildlife migration corridor due to the proposed site location in the midst of an urban area. According to the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, a wildlife corridor may be defined as:
“Areas of open space of sufficient width to permit larger, more mobile species (such as foxes, bobcats and coyote) to pass between larger areas of open space, or to disperse from one major open space region to another are referred to as “wildlife corridors.” Such areas generally are several hundred feet wide, unobstructed, and usually possess cover, food and water.”40 39 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory. Wetlands Mapper. Website accessed April 14, 2021. 40 Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning. Significant Ecological Areas. http://planning.lacounty.gov/sea/local_and_site_specific_habitat_linkages_and_wildlife_corridors.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 38
11401 Greenstone Ave ISMND
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine DeepwaterEstuarine and Mar ni e Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub WetlandFreshwater Pond
LakeOtherRiverine
May 17, 2021
0 0.3 0.6 0.15 mi0 0.45 0.9 0.225 km
1:17,868
This page was produced by the NWI mapper
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and WildlifeService is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of thebase data shown on this map. All wetlands related data shouldbe used in accordance with the layer metadata found on theWetlands Mapper web site.

EXHIBIT 3-2

WETLANDS MAP
SOURCE: NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 39
Wildlife migration through the proposed project site is inhibited by security fencing, surrounding development, utility lines, and major roadways. Future development of the site will require the removal of limited disturbed ground cover consisting of common grasses and other ruderal overgrowth within the project boundary. Given the disturbed character of the project site, no impacts will occur.

E. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ● No Impact General Regulations of the City of Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code Tree Ordinance establishes strict guidelines regarding the removal or tampering of trees located within any public right-of-way (such as streets and alleys).41 Any plans to cut, trim, prune, plant, remove, injure or interfere with any tree, shrub or plant upon any street, alley or public right-of-way within the city must be approved in advance by the City.

No protected or heritage trees are located within the development area. As a result, no trees will be removed with the implementation of the proposed project. As a result, no impacts will occur.

F. Would the project 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 project sites and the surrounding areas are urban. The proposed project’s implementation would not be in conflict with the provisions of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans. In addition, the Puente Hills Significant Ecological Area (SEA #15) is the closest protected SEA and is located approximately 8½ miles northeast from the project site.42 The construction and operation of the proposed project will not affect the Puente Hills SEA because the proposed development will be restricted to the project site.

Therefore, no impacts will occur.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The proposed project will not involve an incremental loss or degradation of protected habitat. All of the related projects are located on properties that have been developed and are surrounded by urban development. None of the properties contain natural habitats or wetland areas that could lead to potential impacts related to an incremental loss in sensitive habitat. None of the five sites will involve the removal of heritage trees. As a result, no cumulative impacts on biological resources will be associated with the proposed project’s implementation.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The environmental analysis indicated that the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts on biological resources. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. 41 Santa Fe Springs, City of, Municipal Code. Title IX General Regulations, Chapter 96 Streets and Sidewalks, Street Trees. 42 County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning. Significant Ecological Areas and Coastal Resource Areas Policy Map.

February 2015.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 40

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?

B. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?

C. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? 

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources if it results in any of the following:
● Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
● Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
● Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? ● No Impact.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 41
(1) A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).
(2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. (3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code, § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852). (4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.44
Two locations in the City are recorded on the National Register of Historic Places and the list of California Historical Resources: the Clarke Estate and the Hawkins-Nimocks Estate (also known as the Patricio Ontiveros Adobe or Ontiveros Adobe). The Clarke Estate is located at 10211 Pioneer Boulevard and the Ontiveros Adobe is located at 12100 Telegraph Road.45 The proposed project site is not within proximity to either of these historic landmarks and is presently vacant and undeveloped with the exception of a previous asphalt parking area. The project site is not present on the list of historic resources identified by the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO). Since the project’s implementation will not impact any Federal, State, or locally designated historic resources, no impacts will occur.

B. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? ● Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

The greater Los Angeles Basin was previously inhabited by the Gabrieleño people, named after the San Gabriel Mission. The Gabrieleño tribe has lived in this region for around 6,958 years. Prior to Spanish contact, approximately 5,421 Gabrieleño people lived in villages throughout the Los Angeles Basin. Villages were typically located near major rivers such as the San Gabriel, Rio Hondo, or Los Angeles Rivers. Two village sites were located in the Los Nietos area: Naxaaw’na and Sehat. The sites of Naxaaw’na and Sehat are thought to be near the adobe home of Jose Manuel Nietos that was located near the San Gabriel River.46 44 California State Parks, Office of Historic Preservation. Listed California Historical Resources. Website accessed April 22, 2021. 45 California State Parks, Office of Historic Preservation. Listed California Historical Resources. Website accessed January 14, 2020.
46 McCawley, William. The First Angelinos, The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. 1996.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 42
In the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered by construction crews and/or the Native American Monitors, all excavation and grading activities shall be required to stop, and the City of Santa Fe Springs Department of Police Services will be contacted (the Department will then contact the County Coroner).

Title 14; Chapter 3; Article 5; Section 15064.5 of CEQA will apply in terms of the identification of significant archaeological resources and their salvage. Adherence to the abovementioned mitigation will reduce potential impacts to levels that are less than significant.

As part of the AB-52 requirements, the Gabrielino-Kizh responded and indicated that the project area is located within the Tribe’s ancestral territory. The Tribe considers the area to be sensitive for cultural resources, and requested the following mitigation measure be implemented:
● The project Applicant will be required to obtain the services of a qualified Native American Monitor during construction-related ground disturbance activities. Ground disturbance is defined by the Tribal Representatives from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation as activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, auguring, boring, grading, excavation, and trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s) must be approved by the tribal representatives and will be present on-site during the construction phases that involve any ground disturbing activities. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological resources.

In the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered by construction crews and/or the Native American Monitors, all excavation/grading activities shall be halted and the Whittier Police Department (which provides law enforcement services to the City of Santa Fe Springs) will be contacted (the Department will then contact the County Coroner). Title 14; Chapter 3; Article 5; Section 15064.5 of CEQA will apply in terms of the identification of significant archaeological resources and their salvage. Adherence to the abovementioned mitigation will reduce potential impacts to levels that are less than significant.

C. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? ● Less than Significant Impact.

There are no dedicated cemeteries located in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project will be restricted to the project site and therefore will not affect any dedicated cemeteries. Notwithstanding, the following requirement is mandated by the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(b)(4):
“A lead agency shall identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. The lead agency shall ensure that any adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant adverse changes are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.”
Additionally, Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code states:
“In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 43
(b) Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative.

The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.” Adherence to the aforementioned standard condition will ensure potential impacts remain at levels that are less than significant.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The potential environmental impacts related to cultural resources are site-specific. Furthermore, the analysis herein determined that the proposed project would not result in any impacts on cultural resources.

All of the related projects are located on properties that are developed. None of the properties were located on sites that were undisturbed. As a result, no cumulative cultural resources impacts will occur as part of the proposed project’s implementation.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The Gabrielino-Kizh indicated that the project area is located within the Tribe’s ancestral territory.

However, the Tribe considers the area to be sensitive for cultural resources, and requests the following mitigation measure be implemented:

Mitigation Measure No. 1 (Cultural Resources). The project Applicant will be required to obtain the services of a qualified Native American Monitor during construction-related ground disturbance activities. Ground disturbance is defined by the Tribal Representatives from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation as activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, boring, grading, excavation, and trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s) must be approved by the tribal representatives and will be present on-site during the construction phases that involve any ground disturbing activities. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological resources.

In the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered by construction crews and/or the Native American Monitors, all excavation/grading activities shall be halted and the Whittier Police Department (which provided law enforcement services to the City of Santa Fe Springs) will be contacted (the Department will then contact the County Coroner). Title 14; Chapter 3; Article 5; Section 15064.5 of CEQA will apply in terms of the identification of significant archaeological resources and their salvage. Adherence to the abovementioned mitigation will reduce potential impacts to levels that are less than significant.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 44

3.6 ENERGY
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation?

B. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? 

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources if it results in any of the following:
● Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? ● Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? ● Less than Significant Impact.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 45
B. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? ● Less Than Significant Impact.

On January 12, 2010, the State Building Standards Commission adopted updates to the California Green Building Standards Code (Code) which became effective on January 1, 2011. The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards (Title 24) became effective to aid efforts to reduce GHG emissions associated with energy consumption. Title 24 now requires that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant‐emitting finish materials. The 2016 version of the standards became effective as of January 1, 2017. The proposed project will conform to all pertinent energy conservation requirements. As a result, the potential impacts will be less than significant.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The four related projects would consume both electricity and natural gas. Given that all of the related projects must comply with the applicable energy conservation requirements, the cumulative impacts will be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis determined that the proposed project will not result in significant impacts related to energy and mitigation measures are not required.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 46

3.7 GEOLOGY & SOILS
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or, landslides?

B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 
C. Would the project 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. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2012), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? 
E. Would the project 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?

F. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on geology and soils if it results in any of the following:
● Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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); strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; and, landslides?
● Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ● Would the project 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?
● Would the project 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?

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 47
● Would the project 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?
● Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or, landslides? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The City of Santa Fe Springs is located within a seismically active region. Many major and minor local faults traverse the entire Southern California region and earthquakes from several active and potentially active faults in the Southern California region could affect the project site. In 1972, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act was passed in response to the damage sustained in the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults.48 A list of cities and counties subject to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones is available on the State’s Department of Conservation website. The City of Santa Fe Springs is not on the list.49 Nevertheless, the site is within a seismically active region prone to occasional damaging earthquakes. The nearest active fault is the Whittier Fault, located approximately

3.3 miles northeast of the project site. In addition, the project will comply with the 2020 California Building Standards code, which is effective in minimizing any potential seismic-related impacts to structures.

According to the United States Geological Survey, liquefaction is the process by which water-saturated sediment temporarily loses strength and acts as a fluid. Essentially, liquefaction is the process by which the ground soil loses strength due to an increase in water pressure following seismic activity. The project site is not located in an area that is subject to liquefaction. Lastly, the project site is not subject to the risk of landslides because there are no hills or mountains within the vicinity of the project site. As a result, the potential impacts in regard to ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides are less than significant since the risk is no greater in and around the project site than for the rest of the area. Geologic hazards are shown in Exhibit 3-3.
48 California Department of Conservation. What is the Alquist-Priolo Act. http://www.conservation.ca.gov /cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/main.aspx.
49 Ibid.

GEOLOGIC HAZARDS MAP
SOURCE: CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

According to the soil maps prepared for Los Angeles County by the United States Department of Agriculture, the project site is underlain with soils of the Urban Land-Thums-Pierview complex. Soils of this association have a moderate erosion hazard; however, current development and the placement of landscaping have reduced the soil’s erosion risk. The project site is level and limited grading will be required for structural supports, building foundations, and utility lines. All grading activities will require grading permits from the City, which include requirements and standards designed to reduce potential erosion impacts. These requirements will effectively mitigate potential stormwater runoff impacts during construction. The project site is currently level and will remain level following the site’s development. The surface grades within the parking and internal roadways will be designed to facilitate drainage into the nearest curbs and gutters. As a result, the impacts will be less than significant.

C. Would the project 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? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Report and General Soil Map for Los Angeles County were reviewed for this project. The project site is underlain with soils of the Urban landThums-Pierview complex. Soils of this association are at a moderate risk for erosion; however, the project site was previously developed, and the underlying soils have been disturbed in order to facilitate previous construction activities. In addition, these soils are described as being used almost exclusively for residential and industrial development, as evident by the current level of urbanization present within the project site and surrounding areas.50 As previously mentioned, the project site is not located in an area that is subject to liquefaction.51 The soils that underlie the project site pose no threat to development; in addition, the project site will be level once the project is complete. Therefore, the proposed project will not expose any person or structure to risks associated with soil collapse, landslides, or soil expansion. As a result, the potential impacts are less than significant.

D. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2012), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The Web Soil Survey, which is available on the United States Geological Survey website, was consulted to identify the soils that underlie the project site. According to the Web Soil Survey, the project site is underlain with soils of the Urban Land-Thums-Pierview complex, which is partially composed of clay.52 Shrinking and swelling is influenced by the amount of clay present in the underlying soils. Clay and silty clay loam are present in the composition of these soils and these soils associations possess a moderate shrink-swell potential. The project contractors will be required to comply with the structural engineer’s recommendations. As a result, the potential impacts will be less than significant. 50 United States Department of Conservation. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

Website originally accessed September 5, 2020.
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 50
E. Would the project 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 will used for the proposed project since the units will be connected to the sanitary sewer system. As a result, no impacts associated with the use of septic tanks will occur as part of the proposed project’s implementation.

F. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ● Less than Significant Impact.

According to the State of California Geological Survey, the site’s geology is classified as Urban Land-ThumsPierview complex. Alluvium soil deposits that are present in a natural and undisturbed condition may contain paleontological resources, though these resources are more typically found in marine terraces and shales. The on-site soils have undergone disturbance due to the previous development. Furthermore, the on-site soils that underlie the property are Holocene-aged deposits that have a low potential for the discovery of paleontological resources. These soils are recent deposits that do not contain fossil deposits.

Thus, the proposed project is not anticipated to disturb any paleontological resources and the impacts are less than significant.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
A potential project’s geology and soils related impacts are generally site specific. As a result, the four related projects, together with the proposed project, are not anticipated to result in a significant adverse cumulative impact on geology and soils. Both the project site and this nearest related project site, exhibit the same topographical and soil characteristics, and each site was does not have any geotechnical constraints that are unique. As a result, no cumulative impacts will occur.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis determined that the proposed project will not result in significant impacts related to geology and soils and no mitigation measures are required.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 51

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

B. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on greenhouse gas emissions if it results in any of the following:
● Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
● Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The State of California requires CEQA documents to include an evaluation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. Examples of GHG that are produced both by natural and industrial processes include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). The accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere regulates the earth's temperature. Without these natural GHG, the Earth's surface would be about 61°F cooler.53 However, emissions from fossil fuel combustion have elevated the concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere to above natural levels. These man-made GHG will have the effect of warming atmospheric temperatures with the attendant impacts of changes in the global climate, increased sea levels, and changes to the worldwide biome. They major GHG that influence global warming are described below.
● Water Vapor. Water vapor is the most abundant GHG present in the atmosphere. While water vapor is not considered a pollutant, while it remains in the atmosphere it maintains a climate necessary for life. Changes in the atmospheric concentration of water vapor is directly related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 53 California, State of. OPR Technical Advisory – CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. June 19, 2008.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 52
“hold” more water when it is warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a GHG, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal indirect energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. When water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation. This will allow less energy to reach the Earth’s surface thereby affecting surface temperatures.
● Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The natural production and absorption of CO2 is achieved through the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean. Manmade sources of CO2 include the burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Since the industrial revolution began in the mid‐1700’s, these activities have increased the atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Prior to the industrial revolution, concentrations were fairly stable at 280 parts per million (ppm). The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, 2014) Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributed about 78% of the total GHG emissions increase from 1970 to 2010, with a similar percentage contribution for the increase during the period 2000 to 2010. ● Methane (CH4). CH4 is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, although its atmospheric concentration is less than that of CO2. Methane’s lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10 to 12 years), compared to some other GHGs (such as CO2, N2O, and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). CH4 has both natural and anthropogenic sources. It is released as part of the biological processes in low oxygen environments, such as in swamplands or in rice production (at the roots of the plants). Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of methane. Other human-related sources of methane production include fossil‐fuel combustion and biomass burning. ● Nitrous Oxide (N2O). Concentrations of N2O also began to increase at the beginning of the industrial revolution. In 1998, the global concentration of this GHG was documented at 314 parts per billion (ppb). N2O is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel‐fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load. It is also commonly used as an aerosol spray propellant.
● Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC). CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane (C2H6) with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the Earth’s surface). CFCs have no natural source but were first synthesized in 1928. It was used for refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. Due to the discovery that they are able to destroy stratospheric ozone, a global effort to halt their production was undertaken and in 1989 the European Community agreed to ban CFCs by 2000 and subsequent treaties banned CFCs worldwide by 2010. This effort was extremely successful, and the levels of the major CFCs are now remaining level or declining. However, their long atmospheric lifetimes mean that some of the CFCs will remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years.
● Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC). HFCs are synthetic man‐made chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Out of all the GHGs, they are one of three groups with the highest global warming potential. The HFCs with the largest measured atmospheric abundances are (in order), HFC‐23 (CHF3), HFC‐134a (CF3CH2F), and HFC‐152a (CH3CHF2). Prior to 1990, the only significant

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 53
emissions were HFC‐23. HFC‐134a use is increasing due to its use as a refrigerant. Concentrations of HFC‐23 and HFC‐134a in the atmosphere are now about 10 parts per trillion (ppt) each.

Concentrations of HFC‐152a are about 1 ppt. HFCs are manmade and used for applications such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants.
● Perfluorocarbons (PFC). PFCs have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere. High‐energy ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s surface are able to destroy the compounds. Because of this, PFCs have very long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two common PFCs are tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6). Concentrations of CF4 in the atmosphere are over 70 ppt. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. ● Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6). SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas.

SF6 has the highest global warming potential of any gas evaluated; 23,900 times that of CO2.

Concentrations in the 1990s were about 4 ppt. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.

GHG are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Examples of GHG that are produced both by natural and industrial processes include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).

The SCAQMD has adopted interim GHG thresholds for development projects within the South Coast Air Basin. According to the SCAQMD, the interim thresholds for industrial projects are 10,000 MTCO2E per year.54 Table 3-3 summarizes annual greenhouse gas (CO2E) emissions from build-out of the proposed project. Carbon dioxide equivalent, or CO2E, is a term that is used for describing different greenhouse gases in a common and collective unit. As indicated in Table 3-3, the CO2E total for the project is 10,374.34 pounds per day or 4.66 MTCO2E per day. This translates into an annual emission of 1,703.98 MTCO2E, which is below the aforementioned threshold for industrial projects.

Table 3-3
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
Source
GHG Emissions (Lbs/Day)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E
Construction Phase - Demolition 3,747.94 1.05 -- 3,774.31 Construction Phase - Site Preparation 3,685.65 1.19 -- 3,715.45 Construction Phase - Grading 2,871.92 0.92 -- 2,895.14
Construction Phase - Construction 2,533.36 0.61 -- 2,568.76 Construction Phase - Paving 1,804.55 0.56 -- 1,818.72
Construction Phase - Coatings 281.44 0.01 -- 281.93
Long-term Area Emissions 20.64 0.01 -- 21.14
Long-term Energy Emissions 732.06 0.01 0.01 736.41
Long-term Mobile Emissions 9,605.84 0.41 -- 9,616.79
Total Long-term Emissions 10,358.55 0.43 0.01 10,374.34 Source: CalEEMod V.2016.3.2.
54 SCAQMD. Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. Agenda No. 31. December 5, 2008. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significancethresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 54
This figure (1,703.98 MTCO2E) does not take into account the implementation of low impact development (LID) requirements (drought tolerant landscaping, water efficient appliances, and energy efficient appliances) and compliance to Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements. As indicated in the table, the great majority of the GHG emissions will be generated from mobile sources. For this reason, the project’s use of trip reduction incentives (the use of alternative forms of transportation, the installation of electric vehicle charging stations (the project will provide 11 EV stations) and bicycle racks, and other TDM measures will be important). The project is also an infill development within an urban area. Therefore, the project’s GHG impacts are less than significant.

B. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases? ● No Impact.

The City of Santa Fe Springs does not presently have an adopted Climate Action Plan. However, the City’s General Plan includes a Conservation Element that has an air quality focus. In this section, the following policies related to air quality are identified:
● Policy 2.1: Continue to research alternatives and pollution control measures that influence air quality, including trip reductions, carpooling, and local transit services. ● Policy 2.2: Encourage urban infill and land uses and densities that result in reduced trips and reduced trip lengths, and that support non-motorized modes of travel. ● Policy 2.3: Initiate capital improvement programs that allow for bus turnouts, traffic synchronization, and intersection channelization.
● Policy 2.4: Continue to participate and support cooperative programs between cities which will reduce trips and vehicle miles traveled.

The proposed project will not involve or require any variance from the aforementioned policies.

Furthermore, the proposed project will not involve or require any other variance from the adopted plan, policy, or regulation governing GHG emissions. There will also be a regional benefit in terms of a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) because it is an infill project that is consistent with the regional and State sustainable growth objectives identified in the State’s Strategic Growth Council (SGC).55 As a result, no impacts will occur.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The implementation of the related projects would result in the generation of GHG emissions. The other related projects would largely involve replacement or the modernization of existing uses resulting in a limited increase in GHG emissions overall. The new development would be subject to new conservation measures that would translate into a reduction in overall GHG emissions over the life of the project. In addition, GHG emissions are inherently cumulative in nature though the new development will ensure that 55 Promoting and enabling sustainable infill development is a principal objective of the SGC because of its consistency with the State Planning Priorities and because infill furthers many of the goals of all of the Council’s member agencies. Focusing growth toward infill areas takes development pressure off conservation lands and working lands; it increases transit rider-ship and reduces vehicle trips; it requires less per capita energy and water use than less space-efficient development; it improves public health by promoting active transportation and active lifestyles; and it provides a more equitable mix of housing choices, among other benefits. Thus, the SGC has been investigating actions that can be taken to improve the ability of local governments and private developers to successfully plan and build good infill projects.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 55
more modern measures and designs are implemented as a means to reduce GHG emissions. As a result, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of potential impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project’s approval and subsequent implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are required.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 56

3.9 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

B. Would the project 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. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 
D. Would the project 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. Would the project 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. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

G. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on hazards and hazardous materials if it results in any of the following:
● Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
● Would the project 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?
● Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ● Would the project 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?

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 57
● 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? ● Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
● Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ● Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

A Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was previously prepared by Waterstone Environmental Group, Inc. (WEG) for the project site. Waterstone was retained to perform additional site assessment for the project site. Based on historical review, the property was undeveloped until an oil refinery was built in the late 1930s. Based on aerial photograph reviews, the refinery structures and equipment were removed from the site in stages starting in 1953 and ending in 1958. Construction materials including pipe and steel were stored on the site until about 1960. From 1960 until 1991, the Subject property was used by Riverside Steel as a steel fabricating facility.

The site is currently occupied by J. B. Hunt. The previous tenant who occupied the property for approximately ten years was Golden State Specialized Transportation, Inc. which transported and stored steel piping. A portable office trailer resides near the north-eastern section of the property. There are four portable storage units located immediately to the west of the office and tractor/trailer parking in the southeast corner of the property. The remainder of the property consists of pipe storage. The entrance to the property is along the eastern boundary with access from Greenstone Avenue. The property surface is primarily a gravel/asphalt mixture.

A total of 43 boring locations were advanced for the collection of soil samples. Of these, 7 borings were drilled to approximately 60 feet below the ground surface (bgs), 16 borings were drilled to approximately 30 feet bgs, and 20 borings were advanced to approximately 10 feet bgs. Sampling depths varied with each location depending on former chemical use and storage for that location. The results of the investigation indicate that TPH, BTEC, some semiVOCs, and lead have been detected in the subsurface at the property in varying levels. The new monitoring equipment will be installed in the southwest corner of the site. The analysis determined that the following mitigation measures would be required to address potentially significant impacts:
● The project Applicant must retain the services of a qualified professional to oversee the preparation of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) that will focus on the handling, storage, and transport of potentially contaminated soils during grading and excavation activities. The SMP will be reviewed and must be approved by the City of Santa Fe Springs and the Southern California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SMP must be approved by the City prior to commencement of any removal of contaminated soils. The SMP mitigation will end once the project’s construction activities commence.
● The project Applicant will be required obtain the services of a qualified contractor to design and

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 58
install proper ventilation in all enclosed spaces so as to prevent the build-up of methane and carbon monoxide. All of the units must contain methane and carbon dioxide (multi gas) monitors and alarms. All of the monitors must be maintained in good working order. The monitors must be installed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. The City will make the determination as to the type of the vapor intrusion barrier that will be required and whether it will use passive or active venting prior to the approval of the proposed project.

With adherence to the above mitigation, the impacts will be less than significant.

B. Would the project 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.

As indicated in the previous section (Section 3.9.A), the project site has been subject to contamination from historic land uses that will require ongoing monitoring. Due to the nature of the proposed project, the use of any hazardous materials will be limited to those that are commercially available and typically used in a household setting and will be used in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Therefore, the proposed project will not create a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment through the routine use or transport of hazardous materials.

C. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The Carmela Elementary School is located 3,100 feet northeast of the project site. As indicated in the previous section (Section 3.9.A), the project site has been subject to contamination from historic uses.

Adherence to the soil management plan (SMP) requirements will mitigate potential impacts. The previous section describes the location and extent of this contamination and also indicates the required mitigation.

The following mitigation measures cited in the previous section will also be effective in ensuring that these hazardous materials are not released into the general environment. The project Applicant must retain the services of a qualified professional to oversee the preparation of a SMP that will focus on the handling of potentially contaminated soils during grading and excavation activities. The SMP will be reviewed and must be approved by the City of Santa Fe Springs. The SMP must be approved by the City prior to commencement of any removal of contaminated soils. The proposed units, once constructed, would not involve the use of any hazardous materials other than that typically used for routine cleaning and maintenance. As a result, the impacts are anticipated to be less than significant with adherence to the previous mitigation.

D. Would the project 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? ● No Impact.

A search of the Envirostor Hazardous Waste and Substances Site “Cortese” List database identified two Cortese sites within the City: Sonic Plating Co., Inc. (located at 13002 Los Nietos Road) and Kelly Pipe Co.,

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 59
LLC (located at 11700 Bloomfield Avenue). The nearest of these Cortese sites to the project site is Kelly Pipe Co., LLC.56 Since the proposed project will not affect any Cortese site, no impacts will occur.

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 a 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.

Fullerton Airport is located approximately 5.2 miles southeast of the project site and the Long Beach Airport is located approximately 9 miles to the southwest.57 The proposed project will not introduce a building that will interfere with the approach and take-off of airplanes utilizing any of the aforementioned airports and will not risk the safety of the people residing or working in the project area. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.

F. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ● No Impact.

At no time will any adjacent street be completely closed to traffic during the project’s construction. All construction staging must occur on-site. As a result, no impacts are associated with the proposed project’s implementation.

G. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The project site is not located within a “very high fire hazard severity zone.” As a result, the potential impacts are will be less than significant.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials are typically site specific. The analysis herein determined that the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to hazards and/or hazardous materials with the implementation of the required mitigation measures. As a result, no cumulative impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials will result from the proposed project’s implementation.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis determined that the following mitigation measures would be required to address potentially significant impacts:

Mitigation Measure No. 2 (Hazardous Materials). The project Applicant must retain the services of a qualified professional to oversee the preparation of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) that will focus on the handling, storage, and transport of potentially contaminated soils during grading and excavation 56 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostor. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site Cortese List. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES,OPEN,FUDS,CLOS E&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST. 57 Toll-Free Airline. Los Angeles County Public and Private Airports, California. http://www.tollfreeairline.com/ california/losangeles.htm.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 60
activities. The SMP will be reviewed and must be approved by the City of Santa Fe Springs and the Southern California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SMP must be approved by the City prior to commencement of any removal of contaminated soils. The SMP mitigation will end once the project’s construction activities commence.

Mitigation Measure No. 3 (Hazardous Materials). The project Applicant will be required obtain the services of a qualified contractor to design and install proper ventilation in all enclosed spaces so as to prevent the build-up of methane and carbon monoxide. All of the units must contain methane and carbon dioxide (multi gas) monitors and alarms. All of the monitors must be maintained in good working order. The monitors must be installed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. The City will make the determination as to the type of the vapor intrusion barrier that will be required and whether it will use passive or active venting prior to the approval of the proposed project.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 61

3.10 HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?

B. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

C. Would the project 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner in which would result in flooding onor off-site; 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, impede or redirect flood flows?

D. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?  E. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on hydrology and water quality if it results in any of the following:
● Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
● Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
● Would the project 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; 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, impede or redirect flood flows?
● In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 62
● Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? ● Less than Significant Impact.

In the absence of any requirements or regulations, a significant area of impervious surfaces (i.e., buildings, internal driveways, parking areas, etc.) may result in debris, leaves, soils, oil/grease, and other pollutants.

The proposed project would be required to implement storm water pollution control measures pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The contractors would also be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) utilizing Best Management Practices to control or reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP will also identify post-construction best management practices (BMPs) that will be the responsibility of the contractors to implement over the life of the project. Prior to issuance of any grading permit for the project that would result in soil disturbance of one or more acres of land, the Applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under California's General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board, and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number or other proof of filing shall be provided to the Chief Building Official and the City Engineer. In addition, the contactors would be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would be submitted to the Chief Building Official and City Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading permit. With the above-mentioned standard conditions, the impacts would be reduced to levels that are considered to be less than significant.

B. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? ● No Impact.

The proposed project will be connected to the City’s utility lines and will not deplete groundwater supplies.

Since there are no underground wells on-site that would be impacted by the proposed development, no impacts will occur.

C. Would the project 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner in which would result in flooding on- or off-site; 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, impede or redirect flood flows? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The project’s construction will be restricted to the designated project site and the project will not alter the course of any stream or river that would lead to on- or off-site siltation or erosion. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. No significant grading and/or excavation into the local aquifer will occur. No additional undisturbed land will be affected. As a result, the potential impacts will be less than significant.

According to the City of Santa Fe Springs Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, “The 100-year flooding event is a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in magnitude in any given year. Contrary to popular belief, it is not a flood occurring once every 100 years. The 100-year floodplain is the area adjoining a river, stream, or watercourse covered by water in the event of a 100-year flood.” The project site is not located within a designated 100-year flood hazard area, as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).58 According to the FEMA flood insurance map obtained from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, the proposed project site is located in Zone X.59 This flood zone has an annual probability of flooding of less than 0.2% and represents areas outside the 500-year flood plain. Thus, properties located in Zone X are not located within a 100-year flood plain. Therefore, no impacts related to flood flows are associated with the proposed project’s implementation.

The Santa Fe Springs General Plan and the City’s Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan indicates the greatest potential for dam failure and the attendant inundation comes from the Whittier Narrows Dam located approximately five miles northwest of the City. The City of Santa Fe Springs Multi-Hazard Functional Plan states there is a low risk that the City will experience flooding due to dam failure. Nevertheless, in the event of dam failure, the western portion of the City located to the west of Norwalk Boulevard would experience flooding approximately one hour after dam failure. The maximum flood depths could reach as high as five feet in depth, gradually declining to four feet at the southern end of the City's impacted area.60 The project site is located one mile east of Norwalk Boulevard and would not be impacted. As a result, no impacts related to flooding will occur.

The proposed project is not located in an area that is subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. As indicated earlier, there are no rivers located in the vicinity that would result in a seiche. In addition, the project site is located approximately 22 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and the project site would not be exposed to the effects of a tsunami.61 Lastly, the proposed project will not result in any mudslides since the project site is generally level and is not located near any slopes. As a result, no impacts are expected.

E. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? ● Less than Significant Impacts.

The proposed project will be in compliance with the City of Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code that outlines the local requirements for the implementation of the NPDES and MS4 stormwater runoff requirements. In addition, the project’s operation will not interfere with any groundwater management or recharge plan because there are no active groundwater management recharge activities on-site or in the vicinity. As indicated in Section 3.10.A, the proposed project would be required to implement stormwater pollution control measures pursuant to the NPDES requirements. The Applicant would also be required to prepare a WQMP utilizing Best Management Practices to control or reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the Applicant must prepare and implement a Storm Water 58 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Flood Zone Determination Website. http://dpw.lacounty.gov/ wmd/floodzone/. Website accessed April 14, 2021.
59 Ibid.
60 City of Santa Fe Springs. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. October 11, 2004. 61 Google Earth. Website accessed April 22, 2021.

The aforementioned requirements will reduce the potential impacts to levels that are less than significant.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The potential impacts related to hydrology and storm water runoff are typically site-specific. All four of the related project sites were previously developed. The related projects will not be permitted to drain offsite and will be required to impound stormwater runoff onsite. Furthermore, each individual development will be required to implement NPDES and SWPPP requirements. As a result, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.

MITIGATION MEASURES
As indicated previously, hydrological characteristics will not substantially change as a result of the proposed project. As a result, no mitigation is required.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 65

3.11 LAND USE & PLANNING
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project physically divide an established community?  B. Would the project 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?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on mineral resources if it results in any of the following:
● Would the project physically divide an established community? ● Would the project 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?

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project physically divide an established community? ● Less Than Significant Impact.

The 6.63-acre project site is currently being used as a truck trailer parking facility and is occupied by J. B.

Hunt Transport Services, Inc. The project site is surrounded by development on all sides. Exhibits 2-4 shows an aerial photograph of the project site and the adjacent development. Exhibit 2-5 and 2-5 includes photographs of the project site and the surrounding area. Surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the project site are listed below:
● North of the Project Site. A distribution use, TwinMed, LLC., is located to the north of the site at 11133 Greenstone Avenue. The site is located adjacent to the project site.62 ● South of the Project Site. A manufacturing building, Maruichi American Corp. is located to the south of the site at 13929 Greenstone Avenue. This use is located adjacent to the project site’s south side.63
● East of the Project Site. Greenstone Avenue extends along the project site’s east side. Further east, on the east side of Greenstone Avenue, are other industrial uses. The Rio Hondo Fire Academy is 62 Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site survey. Survey was conducted on April 25, 2021. 63 Ibid.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 66
located opposite the project site on the east side of Greenstone Avenue at 11400 Greenstone Avenue. A new FedEx Ground shipping facility is located further south.64 ● West of the Project Site. A railroad right-of-way extends along the site’s west side. Further west, is Kelly Pipe Co.65
As indicated previously, the project site is currently occupied by J. B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. The site is being used as a truck trailer parking facility. An office and a maintenance building occupy the northeast corner of the property and these improvements will be removed when development commences. The majority of site is currently unpaved though the site is level and has been graded. The site’s frontage along Greenstone Avenue is landscaped and includes seven mature evergreen trees in the parkway area. Access to the site is currently provided by a single driveway located along the west side of Greenstone Avenue. 66 The proposed project and the applicable zoning and general plan land use designations will be compatible with the proposed use. As a result, less than significant impacts will occur.

B. Would the project 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? ● No Impact.

As indicated in the previous subsection, the use contemplated for the proposed development will not conflict with any existing General Plan land use designation or zoning designation.67 The Zoning Map is shown in Exhibit 3-4. In addition, the project site is located approximately 22 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and is not subject to a local coastal program.68 The proposed project will not impact an adopted or approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan because the proposed project is located in the midst of an urban area. In addition, the Puente Hills Significant Ecological Area (SEA #15) is the closest protected SEA and is located approximately 8½ miles northeast from the project site.69 The construction and occupancy of the proposed residential development will be restricted to the project site and will not affect the Puente Hills SEA. Therefore, no impacts will result.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The potential cumulative impacts with respect to land use are site-specific. There are no related projects located adjacent to the proposed project site. The proposed project will not require any GPA or ZC and the future use will be consistent with the Santa Fe Springs General Plan, no cumulative land use impacts will result from the proposed project’s implementation.
64 Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site survey. Survey was conducted on April 25, 2021. 65 Ibid.
66 Ibid.
67 City of Santa Fe Springs. General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map. As amended 2010. 68 Google Maps. Website accessed April 14, 2021.
69 County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning. Significant Ecological Areas and Coastal Resource Areas Policy Map.

February 2015.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 67

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis determined that no impacts on land use and planning would result upon the implementation of the proposed project. As a result, no mitigation measures are required.

GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP
SOURCE: BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 69

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project 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. Would the project 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?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on mineral resources if it results in any of the following:
● Would the project 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?
● Would the project 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?

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project 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.

A review of California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources well finder indicates that there are no wells located within the project site boundaries. There is a plugged well located within the property to the north (well API 0403716439 operated by Ridge Hill Oil Company).8 The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) has developed mineral land classification maps and reports to assist in the protection and development of mineral resources. According to the SMARA, the following four mineral land use classifications are identified:
● Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1): This land use classification refers to areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.
● Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2): This land use classification refers to areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists.
● Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3): This land use classification refers to areas where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be evaluated from the available data. Hilly or mountainous areas underlain by sedimentary, metamorphic, or igneous rock types and lowland areas underlain by alluvial wash or fan material are often included in this category. Additional information about

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 70
the quality of material in these areas could either upgrade the classification to MRZ-2 or downgraded it to MRZ-1.
● Mineral Resource Zone 4 (MRZ-4): This land use classification refers to areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other mineral resource zone.

The project site is not located in a Significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Area (SMARA) nor is it located in an area with active mineral extraction activities. A review of California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources well finder indicates that there are no wells located in the vicinity of the project site.

The project site is located within Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ-3A), which means there may be significant mineral resources present. However, the site is in use as a trailer and truck yard and is surrounded on all sides by development. In addition, there are no active mineral extraction activities occurring on-site or in the adjacent properties. As a result, no impacts to mineral resources will occur.

B. Would the project 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? ● No Impact.

As previously mentioned, no mineral, oil, or energy extraction and/or generation activities are located within the project site. Moreover, the proposed project will not interfere with any resource extraction activity. Therefore, no impacts will result from the implementation of the proposed project.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The potential impacts on mineral resources are site-specific. Furthermore, the analysis determined that the proposed project would not result in any impacts on mineral resources. No mineral resources or extraction activities are located within the project site boundaries nor are any such resources found within the boundaries of the four related projects. As a result, no cumulative impacts will occur.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of potential impacts related to mineral resources indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the approval of the proposed project and its subsequent implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are required.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 71

3.13 NOISE
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project result in 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. Would the project result in generation of excessive
ground-borne vibration or ground-borne 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?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on noise if it results in any of the following:
● Would the project result in 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? ● Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
● 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?

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project result in 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.

Noise levels may be described using a number of methods designed to evaluate the “loudness” of a particular noise. The most commonly used unit for measuring the level of sound is the decibel (dB). Zero on the decibel scale represents the lowest limit of sound that can be heard by humans. The eardrum may rupture at 140 dB. In general, an increase of between 3.0 dB and 5.0 dB in the ambient noise level is considered to represent the threshold for human sensitivity. Noise level increases of 3.0 dB or less are not generally

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 72
perceptible to persons with average hearing abilities.70 Typical noise levels related to common activities are illustrated in Exhibit 3-5. The ambient noise environment in the vicinity of the proposed development is dominated by noise emanating from vehicles traveling on Greenstone Avenue.71 Future sources of noise generated on-site will include noise typically associated with industrial uses and noise emanating from vehicles traveling to and from the site. The implementation of the proposed project will not expose any sensitive receptors to excessive noise because the proposed development’s distance and separation from such uses. Furthermore, the proposed use will be required to adhere to all pertinent noise control regulations outlined by the City of Santa Fe Springs. The City of Santa Fe Springs Municipal Code has established the following noise control standards for development within M-2 zones: Absolute maximum of 90 dBA between 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and an absolute maximum of 90 dBA between 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.72 The City’s noise standards are not to be exceeded by five dBA for a cumulative period of 15 minutes in any hour, by ten dBA for a cumulative period of five minutes in any hour, by 15 dBA for a cumulative period of one minute in any hour, or by 20 dBA for any period of time (less than one minute in an hour).

A change in traffic noise levels of between 3.0 dBA and 5.0 dBA is generally considered to be the limit where the change in the ambient noise levels may be perceived by persons with normal hearing. It typically requires a doubling of traffic volumes to register a perceptible change (increase) in traffic noise. As indicated in Section 3.16, the project will generate approximately 333 net one-way PCE trips per average day.

Therefore, the proposed project’s traffic generation will not result in a doubling of traffic volumes. As a result, less than significant impacts will occur.

B. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ● Less than Significant Impact.

Construction activities for the proposed project have the potential to generate low levels of ground-borne vibration. The operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that propagate though the ground and diminishes in intensity with distance from the source. The nearest noise sensitive land uses that may potentially be impacted by ground-borne vibration and noise (primarily from the use of heavy construction equipment) are the residential uses located to the east, east of Shoemaker Avenue. The noisiest phases of construction are anticipated to be 89 dBA as measured at a distance of 50 feet from the construction activity.

The aforementioned homes are more than 900 feet from the project site. The construction noise levels will decline as one moves away from the noise source. This effect is known as spreading loss. In general, the noise level adjustment that takes the spreading loss into account calls for a 6.0 dBA reduction for every doubling of the distance beginning with the initial 50-foot distance. However, construction activities will be in compliance with the City’s noise standards.
70 Bugliarello, et. al. The Impact of Noise Pollution, Chapter 127, 1975. 71 Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning. Site Survey. April 27, 2021. 72 Santa Fe Springs, City of. Municipal Code. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 155 Zoning, Section 155.424.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 73
165
160
155
150
145
140 sonic boom
135
130
125 jet take off at 200 ft.
120
139 music in night club interior
110 motorcycle at 20 ft.
105 power mower
100
95 freight train at 50 ft.
90 food blender
85 electric mixer, light rail train horn
80 75
70 portable fan, roadway traffic at 50 ft.
65 60 dishwasher, air conditioner
55 50 normal conversation
45 refrigerator, light traffic at 100 ft.
40 35 library interior (quiet study area)
30 25
20 15
10 rustling leaves
5 0
EXHIBIT 3-5

TYPICAL NOISE SOURCES AND LOUDNESS SCALE
SOURCE: BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING
Serious
Injury
Pain
Discomfort
Range of
Typical
Noise
Levels
Threshold
of
Hearing
Noise Levels – in dBA

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 74
As previously mentioned, the operation of equipment or the construction of projects is prohibited in between the hours of 7:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day when the project is located within a radius of 500 feet from a residential area. Compliance with City noise standards will decrease any potential adverse impacts to the nearby residential neighborhood. Adherence to the City’s noise control standards will reduce the construction-related noise impacts to levels that are less than significant since the hours of construction will be limited to the daytime periods.

The City of Santa Fe Springs has not adopted policies or guidelines relative to ground-borne vibration resulting from construction. The City Municipal Code (Section 155.428) states, “Every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration generated by said use is not harmful or injurious to the use or development of surrounding properties. No vibration shall be permitted which is perceptible without instruments at any use alone the property line on which said use is located.” However, this threshold applies to ground-borne vibrations from long-term operational activities, not construction. The proposed project is a residential development and would not involve the use of equipment that would result in high vibration levels, which are more typical for large commercial and industrial projects. In addition, the proposed use would not result in the increased use of heavy-duty vehicles on the public roadways. As a result, the potential ground-borne noise impacts are considered to 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.

The project site is not located within two miles of an airport. Fullerton Airport is located approximately six miles southeast of the project site and the Long Beach Airport is located approximately ten miles to the southwest.73 The proposed project is not located within the Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) of any of the aforementioned airports. As a result, the project will not expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels and no impacts will occur.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The related projects are located away from each other so that the cumulative stationary noise impacts would not be audible. None of the related projects are located within 800 feet of the project site. In addition, none of the related projects are located within a direct line of sight of the proposed project. As a result, no cumulative noise impacts will result.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of potential noise impacts indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project’s construction and operation. As a result, no mitigation measures are required. 73 Toll-Free Airline. Los Angeles County Public and Private Airports, California. http://www.tollfreeairline.com /california/losangeles.htm.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 75

3.14 POPULATION & HOUSING

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on population and housing if it results in any of the following:
● Would the project 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)?
● Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project 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)? ● No Impact.

Growth-inducing impacts are generally associated with the provision of urban services to an undeveloped or rural area. Growth-inducing impacts include the following:
● New development in an area presently undeveloped and economic factors which may influence development. The project site is currently being used as a truck trailer parking facility. The site is surrounded on all sides by urban development.
● Extension of roadways and other transportation facilities. No roadway extensions will be required to accommodate the proposed development.
● Extension of infrastructure and other improvements. The installation of any new utility lines will not lead to subsequent offsite development since these utility lines will serve the site only.

Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project 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. Would the project displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?


INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 76
● Major off-site public projects (treatment plants, etc.). The project’s increase in demand for utility services can be accommodated without the construction or expansion of landfills, water treatment plants, or wastewater treatment plants.
● The removal of housing requiring replacement housing elsewhere. There are no housing units located on either property. As a result, no replacement housing will be required. ● Additional population growth leading to increased demand for goods and services. The project’s construction would result in a limited increase in construction employment which can be accommodated by the local labor market.
● Short-term growth-inducing impacts related to the project’s construction. The project will result in temporary employment during the construction phase.

The proposed project is projected to add 95 new jobs. According to the Growth Forecast Appendix prepared by SCAG for the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, the City of Santa Fe Springs is projected to have an employment population of 20,300 job through the year 2045, which is an increase of 2,400 jobs from the 2020 figure.74 The proposed project’s number of 95 new jobs is well within SCAG’s population projections for the City of Santa Fe Springs.
75 The proposed project will not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area. As a result, no impacts will occur.

B. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ● No Impact.

No housing units will be displaced as a result of the proposed project’s implementation. The site is currently being used as a truck and trailer parking facility. As a result, no housing displacement impacts will occur.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The proposed project’s development of would not involve any residential development nor would it result in any displacement of housing units. Two related projects (Related Project #1, Lakeland Road Housing Development and Related Project #2, Lakeland Apartments) would result in potential residential development. The projected employment increase from the proposed project and the population increase resulting from the single related project would be consistent with the Growth Forecast in SCAG's RTP/SCS.

As a result, no cumulative housing and population impacts would result.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of potential population and housing impacts indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project’s approval and subsequent implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are required.
74 Southern California Association of Governments. Adopted Growth Forecast Regional Transportation Plan 2016-2040. http://gisdata.scag.ca.gov/Pages/SocioEconomicLibrary.aspx 75 Southern California Association of Governments. Adopted Growth Forecast Regional Transportation Plan 2016-2040. http://gisdata.scag.ca.gov/Pages/SocioEconomicLibrary.aspx

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 77

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 would cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for: fire protection; police protection;
schools; parks; or other public facilities?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on public services if it results in any of the following:
● 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 significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks or other public facilities?

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
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 would cause significant environmental impacts, in fire protection; police protection; schools; parks; or other public facilities? ● Less than Significant Impact.

Fire Department
The City of Santa Fe Springs Fire Department provides fire prevention and emergency medical services within the City. The department consists of three separate divisions: Operations, Fire Prevention and Environmental Protection. The Operations Division provides fire suppression, emergency medical services (EMS), hazardous materials response, and urban search and rescue. The Fire Prevention Division provides plan check, inspections, and public education. Finally, the Environmental Protection Division is responsible for responding to emergencies involving hazardous materials. The Fire Department operates from four stations: Station No. 1 (11300 Greenstone Avenue), Station No. 2 (8634 Dice Road), Station No. 3 (15517 Carmenita Road), and Station No. 4 (11736 Telegraph Road). The first response station to the site is station No. 1.76 The Fire Department currently reviews all new development plans, and future development will be required to conform to all fire protection and prevention requirements, including, but not limited to, building setbacks and emergency access. The proposed project would only place an incremental demand on 76 Santa Fe Springs Fire Department. Website accessed on August 22, 2020.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 78
fire services since the project will involve the construction of a modern structure that will be subject to all pertinent fire and building codes. Like all development projects within the City, the proposed project will undergo review by the City of Santa Fe Springs Fire Department to ensure that sprinklers, hydrants, fire flow, etc. are adequate in meeting the Department’s requirements. The Department will also review the project’s emergency access and clearance. Compliance with the abovementioned requirement, as well as the pertinent codes and ordinances, would reduce the impacts to levels that are less than significant.

Construction activities also have the potential to affect fire protection services, such as emergency vehicle response times, by adding construction traffic to local roadways and potentially requiring partial lane closures during street improvements and utility installations. However, at no time will Greenstone Avenue be completely closed to traffic. All construction staging areas will be located within the project site. As a result, the project would not impair the implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and less than significant impacts are associated with the proposed project’s implementation
Law Enforcement
The City of Santa Fe Springs Department of Police Services (DPS) is responsible for management of all law enforcement services within the City. The DPS is staffed by both City personnel and officers from the City of Whittier Police Department (WPD) that provide contract law enforcement services to Santa Fe Springs.

The police services contract between the two cities provides for a specified number of WPD patrolling officers though the DPS has the ability to request an increased level of service. WPD law enforcement personnel assigned to the City includes 35 sworn officers and six support personnel.77 The proposed project would only place an incremental demand on police protection services since the project would be secured at all times. The building and layout design would include crime prevention features, such as nighttime security lighting and secure parking facilities. A sliding wrought iron gate will be installed at the entrance to the loading dock area. To ensure the proposed project adheres to the City’s security requirements, the City of Santa Fe Springs Department of Police Services will review the site plan for the proposed project to ensure that the development adheres to the Department requirements, including, but not limited to, photometric plan review. Adherence to the abovementioned requirement will reduce potential impacts to levels that are less than significant.

Schools
The project site is served by the following schools and school districts: Carmela Elementary School (South Whittier School District), Richard Graves Middle School (South Whittier School District), and Santa Fe High School (Whittier Union High School District). The nearest other school district to the project site, the Norwalk-La Mirada School District, does not have any schools within the project area. Pursuant to SB-50, payment of fees to the applicable school district is considered full mitigation for project-related impacts.

The proposed project's school enrollment impacts will be offset by the school fees that will be paid by the developer. As a result, less than significant impacts will result from the proposed project’s implementation.

Recreational Services
Due to the industrial nature of the proposed project, the proposed project will not likely place a demand for recreational open space and services. As a result, the impacts anticipated are less than significant. 77 City of Whittier. http://www.cityofwhittier.org/depts/police/sfs/default.asp.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 79
Governmental Services
No new governmental services will be needed, and the proposed project is not expected to have any significant impact on existing governmental services. The proposed project will not directly increase demand for governmental services. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The projected population increase resulting from the proposed project and the two related projects that are residential would still be within the projected year 2040 population projection developed by SCAG. During the period from 2006-07 through 2015-16, the South Whittier School District enrollments declined by 1,016 students, or 24.9%. In addition, all of the cumulative projects along with the proposed project will be required to pay all pertinent school development fees. As a result, the additional students generated by the proposed project would not result in any adverse cumulative impacts.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of public service impacts indicated that no significant adverse impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required with the implementation of the proposed project.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 80

3.16 RECREATION
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
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. Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on recreation if it results in any of the following:
● 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?
● 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?

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
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? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The City of Santa Fe Springs Parks and Recreation Services Department operates and maintains a wide range of active and passive facilities for local residents. These parks include Los Nietos Park, Little Lake Park, Lake Center Athletic Park, Lakeview Park, Santa Fe Springs Park and Heritage Park. The nearest park to the project site is the Amelia Mayberry Park located approximately 2,100 feet to the northeast. This park is owned and operated by Los Angeles County Department of County Parks and Recreation. Given the industrial nature of the proposed project, there will not be an increase in the demand for recreational use and services. As a result, the impacts anticipated are less than significant.

B. Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ● No Impact.

The proposed project does not involve recreational facilities or the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 81

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The analysis determined that the proposed project would not result in any impacts on recreational services or facilities. These potential residents will utilize the various public services in the City. Two related projects (Related Project #1, Lakeland Road Housing Development and Related Project #2, Lakeland Apartments) would result in potential residential development. These two related projects that are residential will provide recreational amenities as part of their individual developments. As a result, the potential cumulative impacts will be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of potential impacts related to parks and recreation indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project’s approval and subsequent implementation. As a result, no mitigation measures are required.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 82

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?

B. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
§15064.3 subdivision (b)? 
C. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 
D. Would the project result in inadequate emergency
access? 

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on transportation and circulation if it results in any of the following:
● Would the project conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? ● Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
● Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ● Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The project will provide two full-access driveways on Greenstone Avenue for both cars and trucks. The following paragraphs provide a brief description of the existing roadways which comprise the circulation network of the study area, providing the majority of both regional and local access to the project. ● Bloomfield Avenue is a major north-south major arterial highway with two travel lanes in each direction. The street is approximately 84 to 90 feet wide and posted with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. Directional travels are separated by either raised median or a 2-way turn lane along the center of the street. The intersections of Bloomfield Avenue at Florence Avenue, Lakeland Road and Imperial Highway are signalized. Parking is not permitted along the sides of the street. The

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 83
average daily volume on Bloomfield Avenue is approximately 17,610 vehicles per day (assuming PM peak hour volume counted on Bloomfield Avenue represents approximately 10% of its average daily traffic volume).
● Greenstone Avenue is a north-south local street with one travel lane in each direction. The street is approximately 64 feet wide and posted with a speed limit of 35 miles per hour. Directional travels are separated by a yellow line along the center of the street. Parking is permitted along the sides of the street.
● Shoemaker Avenue is a north-south secondary arterial highway per the City’s Circulation Element of General Plan with two travel lanes in each direction. The street is approximately 84 feet wide and posted with a speed limit of 45 miles per hour in the vicinity of the project site. Directional travels are separated by a yellow line along the center of the street. The intersections of Shoemaker Avenue at Florence Avenue, Lakeland Road and Imperial Highway are signalized. Parking is permitted along the sides of the street. The average daily volume on Shoemaker Avenue is approximately 11,460 vehicles per day (assuming PM peak hour volume counted on Shoemaker Avenue represents approximately 10% of its average daily traffic volume). ● Florence Avenue is a major east-west arterial street with two travel lanes in each direction plus left turn lanes at major intersections. Directional travel is separated by raised median islands along the center. The street is approximately 80 feet wide and posted with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour.

Parking is not permitted along the sides of the street. The average daily volume on Florence Avenue is approximately 23,830 vehicles per day (assuming PM peak hour volume counted on Florence Avenue represents approximately 10% of its average daily traffic volume). ● Lakeland Road is a north-south secondary arterial highway with one travel lane in each direction.

Directional travel is separated by a 2-way turn lane along the center of the street. The street is approximately 64 feet wide and posted with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. Parking is partially permitted along the sides of the street. The average daily volume on Lakeland Road is approximately 7,000 vehicles per day (assuming PM peak hour volume counted on Lakeland Road represents approximately 10% of its average daily traffic volume). ● Imperial Highway is a major east-west arterial street with three travel lanes in each direction plus turn lanes at major intersections. Directional travel is separated by raised median islands along the center. The street is approximately 84 feet wide and posted with a speed limit of 45 miles per hour.

Parking is not permitted along the sides of the street. The average daily volume on Imperial Highway is approximately 26,860 vehicles per day (assuming PM peak hour volume counted on Imperial Highway represents approximately 10% of its average daily traffic volume).78 For the purpose of evaluating existing operating conditions as well as future operating conditions with and without the proposed project, the study area was carefully selected in accordance with local traffic study guidelines. Manual turning movement counts for the selected intersections were collected in the field for the morning and evening peak periods during the month of April 2021. 78 Crown City Traffic Engineers. Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report. April, 2021

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 84
The intersections were counted during the peak hours of 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM on a typical weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday) in a non-holiday week. It was determined that the following six (6) key signalized intersections would be analyzed in the study:
● Bloomfield Avenue and Florence Avenue (Signalized);
● Bloomfield Avenue and Lakeland Road (Signalized);
● Bloomfield Avenue and Imperial Highway (Signalized);
● Shoemaker Avenue and Florence Avenue (Signalized);
● Shoemaker Avenue and Lakeland Road (Signalized); and, ● Shoemaker Avenue and Imperial Highway (Signalized).
79 Year 2021 existing traffic conditions were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method of level of service (LOS) analysis for signalized intersections. Table 3-4 presents existing condition intersection level of service (LOS) analysis summary. Detailed calculations relating to the study intersections are included in the Technical Appendix of this report. Based on the results of this analysis, all 6 of the 6 study intersections are operating at an acceptable level of service (i.e., LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Table 3-4.
80 Table 3
Table 3-4
Future Year (2022) Pre-Project Conditions without Level of Service Summary
Intersection Peak Hour
Future Pre-Project Conditions
Level of
Service (LOS)
Volume to
Capacity (V/C)

1. Bloomfield Ave. & Florence Ave. (Signalized)
AM B 0.704
PM D 0.813

2. Bloomfield Ave. & Lakeland Rd. (Signalized)
AM A 0.415
PM A 0.566

3. Bloomfield Ave. & Imperial Hwy. (Signalized)
AM B 0.613
PM B 0.690

4. Shoemaker Ave. & Florence Ave. (Signalized)
AM B 0.607
PM B 0.677

5. Shoemaker Ave. & Lakeland Rd. (Signalized)
AM A 0.326
PM A 0.416

6. Shoemaker Ave. & Imperial Hwy. (Signalized) AM A 0.598 PM B 0.612
Source: Crown City Engineers, Inc.
79 Crown City Traffic Engineers. Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report. April, 2021. 80 Ibid.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 85
In order to accurately assess future traffic conditions with the proposed project, trip generation estimates were developed for the project. Trip generation rates for the project are based on the nationally recognized recommendations contained in “Trip Generation” manual, 10th edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). ITE also provides information on percentage of truck traffic associated with warehouse/storage land use. The vehicle-mix percentages provided for heavy warehouse use in the City of Fontana’s “Truck Trip Generation Study”, August 2003, were used to determine the number of various types of truck trips to be generated. A truck trip is generally equivalent to 2 or 3 passenger car trips depending on the type of trucks. Accordingly, a 2.0 factor was applied to the number of 2-axle and 3-axle truck trips and a 3.0 factor was applied to the number of 4+-axle truck trips to estimate passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips generated by the trucks.81
Table 3-5 shows a summary of trip generation estimates for the project. It is estimated that the project will generate approximately 333 net one-way PCE trips per average day (167 inbound and 166 outbound). The average weekday net new peak hour PCE trips will be approximately 33 trips during the AM peak hour (25 inbound and 8 outbound), and 36 trips during the PM peak hour (10 inbound and 26 outbound).

Table 3-5
Proposed Project’s Trip Generation
ITE
Code/ Land
Use
Size &
Unit
Trip Generation Rate1 Average Traffic Volume
Daily
Total
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Total
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total %IN %OUT Total %IN %OUT IN OUT Total IN OUT Total Total Vehicle Trip Generation
150
Warehouse
150.548
KSF 1.74 0.17 77% 23% 0.19 27% 73% 251 19 6 25 8 21 29
Vehicle Mix2 and Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) Trips
Vehicle Mix Trip %
Vehicle Trips PCE trips
Daily
Total
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Total
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
IN OUT Total IN OUT Total IN OUT Total IN OUT Total
Car
(PCE=1.0) 79.57% 200 15 4 19 5 16 21 200 15 5 20 6 16 22 2-axle Truck
(PCE=2.0) 3.46% 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 17 1 1 2 0 1 1
3-axle Truck
(PCE=2.0) 4.64% 11 1 1 2 0 1 1 23 2 0 2 1 2 3
4+-axle Truck
(PCE=3.0) 12.33% 31 2 1 3 1 2 3 93 7 2 9 3 7 10
TOTAL TRIPS IN PCE: 333 25 8 33 10 26 36
Note: All trip rates are average rates per Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)’s publication manual “Trip Generation”, 10th Edition, 2017.
1 Trip rates for Warehouse (ITE Code 150) from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), "Trip Generation” manual, 10th Edition, 2017
2 Vehicle mix percentages for Heavy Warehouse (ITE Code 150) from the City of Fontana, "Truck Trip Generation Study", August 2003
81 Crown City Traffic Engineers. Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report. April, 2021.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 86
All of the study intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) D or better (i.e., within the range of acceptable thresholds of LOS A through D) during the AM and PM peak hours under future traffic conditions with the project (refer to Table 3-6). The project’s off-site traffic impact would not be considered significant at any of these intersections based on volume to capacity ratio and level of service expected after the project. A project’s impact on the circulation system is determined by comparing the level of service (LOS) and V/C ratios at key intersections under the future pre-project conditions and future postproject conditions. A LOS level D or better is acceptable for urban area intersections. A level of service worse than D (i.e., LOS E or F) is considered deficient and unacceptable. A project’s traffic impact is determined to be significant if the increase in V/C ratio is 0.04 or more at LOS C, or 0.02 or more at LOS D, or 0.01 or more at LOS E and F.82
Table 3-6
Future (2021) Level of Service Summary with and without Project Intersection Peak Hour
Future 2022 Conditions
Increase
in V/C by
Project
Without Project With Project

LOS V/C LOS V/C

1. Bloomfield Ave. & Florence Ave. (Signalized)
AM D 0.714 C 0.706 0.002
PM B 0.813 D 0.816 0.003

2. Bloomfield Ave. & Lakeland Rd. (Signalized)
AM A 0.415 A 0.420 0.005
PM A 0.566 A 0.566 0.000

3. Bloomfield Ave. & Imperial Hwy. (Signalized)
AM B 0.613 B 0.616 0.003
PM B 0.690 B 0.691 0.001

4. Shoemaker Ave. & Florence Ave. (Signalized)
AM B 0.607 B 0.608 0.001
PM B 0.677 B 0.677 0.000

5. Shoemaker Ave. & Lakeland Rd. (Signalized)
AM A 0.326 A 0.327 0.001
PM A 0.416 A 0.416 0.000

6. Shoemaker Ave. & Imperial Hwy. (Signalized) AM A 0.598 A 0.599 0.001 PM B 0.612 B 0.613 0.001
Source: Crown City Engineers, Inc.

As the above results in Table 3-6 indicate, the increases in V/C ratio by project traffic would not exceed the significance thresholds of project-related impacts. Therefore, the project is not expected to significantly impact traffic conditions at any of the key intersections in the vicinity. As a result, the impacts are less than significant.

B. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? ● No Impact.

According to CEQA Guidelines §15064.3 subdivision (b)(1), vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. It is important to note that the project is an 82 Crown City Traffic Engineers. Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report. April, 2021.

The County of Los Angeles is included in the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP), which is prepared and maintained by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). The requirements of the CMP became effective with voter approval of Proposition 111. The purpose of the CMP is to link land use, transportation, and air quality decisions to develop a partnership among transportation decision-makers in devising appropriate transportation solutions that include all modes of travel and to propose transportation projects that are eligible to compete for State gas tax funds. The CMP also serves to consistently track trends during peak traffic hours at major intersections in the Country and identify areas in great need of improvements where traffic congestion is worsening. The CMP requires that intersections which are designated as being officially monitored by the Program be analyzed under the County’s CMP criteria if the proposed project is expected to generate 50 or more peak hour trips on a CMPdesignated facility. The nearest CMP-designated intersection to the project site is Imperial Highway/Carmenita Road. This intersection was not analyzed within the traffic impact analysis and will not experience more than 50 peak hour trips at a freeway intersection.

Based on the results of the traffic impact analysis, the proposed Greenstone Warehouse project would not significantly impact any of the key intersections analyzed in the surrounding roadway system. The addition of project traffic will not increase the volume to capacity (V/C) ratios at these intersections beyond the significance thresholds of project related impacts as defined in the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines.

Therefore, no off-site mitigation measures would be necessary for the development of this project.

C. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact.

The project will provide two full-access driveways along the east side of Greenstone Avenue. A maximum of 19 vehicles (passenger car equivalent) will enter the site during the peak hour through the driveways on Greenstone Avenue from the north by making a right-turn movement. A maximum of 20 vehicles (passenger car equivalent) will exit the site during the peak hour through the driveways to travel north by making a left-turn movement. This low volume of traffic is not expected to cause any significant on-street delays or long queues. Adequate sight distance is available from the driveways along both directions on Greenstone Avenue83. As a result, no impacts will occur.

D. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? ● No Impact.

The project would not affect emergency access to any adjacent parcels. At no time will any local streets or parcels be closed to traffic. As a result, the proposed project’s implementation will not result in any impacts.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Trip generation estimates for these related projects were developed by using nationally recognized and recommended rates contained in “Trip Generation” manual, 10th edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). ITE also provides information on percentage of truck traffic associated with warehouse/storage land use. For warehouse uses, vehicle trips were calculated in terms of passenger car equivalents (PCE) by using vehicle mix percentages provided for warehouse uses in the City of Fontana’s “Truck Trip Generation Study”, August 2003. A truck trip is generally equivalent to 2 or 3 passenger car 83 Crown City Traffic Engineers. Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report. April, 2021.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 88
trips depending on the type of trucks. Accordingly, a 2.0 factor was applied to the number of 2-axle and 3- axle truck trips and a 3.0 factor was applied to the number of 4+-axle truck trips to estimate passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips generated by the trucks.

The traffic study indicated that the related projects will generate approximately 333 PCE trips per average day. The average weekday net new peak hour trips will be approximately 33 PCE trips during the AM peak hour, and 36 PCE trips during the PM peak hour. As the traffic study results indicate, all of the 6 study intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (i.e., LOS D or better) during the AM and PM peak hours.84

MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on the results of the traffic impact analysis, the proposed project would not significantly impact any of the key intersections analyzed in the surrounding roadway system. The addition of project traffic will not increase the volume to capacity (V/C) ratios at these intersections beyond the significance thresholds of project related impacts as defined in the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines. Therefore, no off-site mitigation measures would be necessary for the development of this project. 84 Crown City Traffic Engineers. Greenstone Avenue Warehouse Project: Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report. April, 2021.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 89

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. 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: 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), or 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 Resource 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
Tribe5020.1(k)?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on tribal cultural resources if it results in any of the following:
● 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: 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), or 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 Resource 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?

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. 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: 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), or a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 90
subdivision (c) of Public Resource 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.

A Tribal Cultural Resource is defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 and includes the following:
● Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following: included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1. ● 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 Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. ● A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. ● A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “non-unique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms to the criteria of subdivision (a).

Adherence to the aforementioned mitigation presented above and in Subsection B under Cultural Resources will minimize potential impacts to levels that are less than significant.

All of the related projects are located on properties that are developed. None of the properties were located on sites that were undisturbed. As a result, no cumulative tribal/cultural resources impacts will occur as part of the proposed project’s implementation.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The Gabrielino-Kizh indicated that the project area is located within the Tribe’s ancestral territory.

However, the Tribe considers the area to be sensitive for cultural resources, and requests the following mitigation measure be implemented:

Mitigation Measure No. 4 (Tribal Cultural Resources). The project Applicant will be required to obtain the services of a qualified Native American Monitor during construction-related ground disturbance activities. Ground disturbance is defined by the Tribal Representatives from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians, Kizh Nation as activities that include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, auguring, boring, grading, excavation, and trenching, within the project area. The monitor(s) must be approved by the tribal representatives and will be present on-site during the construction phases that

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 91
involve any ground disturbing activities. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for archeological resources.

In the unlikely event that human remains are uncovered by construction crews and/or the Native American Monitors, all excavation/grading activities shall be halted and the Whittier Police Department (which provided law enforcement services to the City of Santa Fe Springs) will be contacted (the Department will then contact the County Coroner). Title 14; Chapter 3; Article 5; Section 15064.5 of CEQA will apply in terms of the identification of significant archaeological resources and their salvage. Adherence to the abovementioned mitigation will reduce potential impacts to levels that are less than significant.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PAGE 92

3.19 UTILITIES
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

B. Would the project have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?

C. Would the project 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. Would the project 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. Would the project negatively impact the provision of solid waste services or impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

F. Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on utilities if it results in any of the following:
● Would the project 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? ● Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? ● Would the project 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?

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 93
● Would the project 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? • Would the project negatively impact the provision of solid waste services or impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
● Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? ● Less than Significant Impact.

The City of Santa Fe Springs is located within the service area of the Sanitation District 2 of Los Angeles County. The nearest wastewater treatment plant to Santa Fe Springs is the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) located in Cerritos. The Los Coyotes WRP is located at 16515 Piuma Avenue in the City of Cerritos and occupies 34 acres at the northwest junction of the San Gabriel River (I-605) and the Artesia (SR-91) Freeways. The plant was placed in operation on May 25, 1970, and initially had a capacity of 12.5 million gallons per day and consisted of primary treatment and secondary treatment with activated sludge.

The Los Coyotes WRP provides primary, secondary and tertiary treatment for 37.5 million gallons of wastewater per day. The plant serves a population of approximately 370,000 people. Over 5 million gallons per day of the reclaimed water is reused at over 270 reuse sites. Reuse includes landscape irrigation of schools, golf courses, parks, nurseries, and greenbelts; and industrial use at local companies for carpet dying and concrete mixing. The remainder of the effluent is discharged to the San Gabriel River. Treated wastewater is disinfected with chlorine and conveyed to the Pacific Ocean. The reclamation projects utilize pump stations from the two largest Sanitation Districts’ Water Reclamation plants includes the San Jose Creek WRP in Whittier and Los Coyotes WRP in Cerritos.9 The Los Coyotes WRP has a design capacity of

37.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently processes an average flow of 20.36 mgd. As indicated in Table 3-5, the future development is projected to generate 4,333 gallons of effluent on a daily basis which is well under the capacity of the aforementioned WRPs.85 Table 3-5
Wastewater (Effluent) Generation (gals/day)
Use Floor Area Factor Generation
Distribution 144,434 sq. ft. 0.03 gallons/day/sq. ft. 4,333 gals/day Total Consumption 4,333 gals/day
Source: Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning.

In addition, the new plumbing fixtures that will be installed will consist of water conserving fixtures as is required by the current City Code requirements. No new or expanded sewage and/or water treatment

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 94
facilities will be required to accommodate the proposed project and as a result, the impacts are expected to be less than significant.

B. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? ● No Impact.

As indicated in the previous section, the proposed project will generate approximately 21,684 gallons of wastewater a day. The future wastewater generation will be within the treatment capacity of the Los Coyotes and Long Beach WRP. Water in the local area is supplied by the Santa Fe Springs Water Utility Authority (SFSWUA). Water is derived from two sources: groundwater and surface water. The SFSWUA pumps groundwater from the local well and disinfects this water with chlorine before distributing it to customers.

SFSWUA also obtains treated and disinfected groundwater through the City of Whittier from eight active deep wells located in the Whittier Narrows area. The proposed project is projected to consume approximately 7,222 gallons of water on a daily basis.

The existing water supply facilities can accommodate this additional demand. Therefore, no new water and wastewater treatment facilities will be needed to accommodate the excess effluent generated by the proposed project and no impacts are anticipated to occur.

C. Would the project 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 County of Los Angeles, acting as the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), has the regional, County-wide flood control responsibility. LACFCD responsibilities include planning for developing and maintaining flood control facilities of regional significance which serve large drainage areas.

The proposed project will be required to comply with all pertinent Federal Clean Water Act requirements.

The site proposes new internal roadways and hardscape areas that will be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project will also be required to comply with the City's storm water management guidelines. As a result, the potential impacts will be less than significant.

D. Would the project 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.

As previously indicated, Table 3-6 indicates the water consumption estimated for the proposed project. The proposed project is projected to consume approximately 32,526 gallons of water on a daily basis. The Table 3-6
Water Consumption (gals/day)
Use Floor Area Factor Generation
Distribution 144,434 sq. ft. 0.05 gallons/day/sq. ft. 7,222 gals/day Total Consumption 7,222 gals/day
Source: Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 95
existing water supply facilities can accommodate this additional demand. As a result, the impacts are considered to be less than significant.

E. Would the project negatively impact the provision of solid waste services or impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? ● No Impact.

The Sanitation Districts operate a comprehensive solid waste management system serving the needs of a large portion of Los Angeles County. This system includes sanitary landfills, recycling centers, materials recovery/transfer facilities, and energy recovery facilities. The two operational sites are the Calabasas Landfill, located near the City of Agoura Hills, and the Scholl Canyon Landfill, located in the City of Glendale. The Puente Hills Landfill was permanently closed in October 2013 and is only currently accepting clean dirt. The Sanitation Districts continue to maintain environmental control systems at the other closed landfills, which include the Spadra, Palos Verdes, and Mission Canyon landfills. Local municipal solid waste collection services are currently provided by Consolidated Disposal Services, CR&R Waste and Recycling, and Serv-Wel Disposal Company.86 Operational waste that cannot be recycled or taken to area landfills will be transported to the Commerce incinerator. Trash collection is provided by the Consolidated Disposal Service, CR&R Waste and Recycling, and Serv-Well Disposal Company. Table 3-7 indicates the solid waste generation for the proposed project.

The proposed project is projected to generate approximately 1,700 pounds of solid waste on a daily basis.

The proposed project will contribute a limited amount to the waste stream. As a result, the impacts will be less than significant.

F. Would the project comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ● No Impact.

The proposed project, like all other development in Los Angeles County and the City of Santa Fe Springs, will be required to adhere to City and County ordinances with respect to waste reduction and recycling.

As a result, no impacts related to State and local statutes governing solid waste are anticipated.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The nearest related projects to the proposed project site include two related projects (Related Projects #3 and #4) located to the south of the project site on Greenstone Avenue. The potential for projects to have a cumulative impact depends on both their geographic location as well as the timing of development. The 86 Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.
http://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/wwfacilities/joint_outfall_system_wrp/los_coyotes.asp.

Table 3-7
Solid Waste Generation (lbs./day)
Use Floor Area Factor Generation
Distribution 144,434 sq. ft. 8.93 lbs/1,000/sq. ft. 1,290 lbs/day Total Generation 1,290 lbs/day
Source: Blodgett Baylosis Environmental Planning.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 96
geographic area affected by cumulative projects will vary depending on the environmental topic. Both the proposed project and the two related projects will connect to water, and sewer lines located in Greenstone Avenue.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of utilities impacts indicated that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project’s approval and subsequent implementation. As a result, no mitigation is required.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 97

3.20 WILDFIRE
Environmental Issue Areas Examined
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A. If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

B. If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project 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. If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project 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. If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project 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?


THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to the City of Santa Fe Springs, acting as Lead Agency, a project may be deemed to have a significant adverse impact on wildfire risk and hazards if it results in any of the following:
● If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
● If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project 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?
● If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project 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? ● If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or

ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ● No Impact.

The proposed project would not involve the closure or alteration of any existing evacuation routes that would be important in the event of a wildfire. As a result, no impacts will occur.

B. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones would the project 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.

The project site is slated for development. The proposed project may be exposed to particulate emissions generated by wildland fires in the surrounding region. However, the potential impacts would not be exclusive to the project site since criteria pollutant emissions from wildland fires may affect the entire City as well as the surrounding cities and unincorporated county areas. As a result, no impacts will occur.

C. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project 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.

The project will not require, nor will it involve the extension of new utility lines such as gas lines, water lines, etc. other that connections to the site itself. As a result, no impacts will result.

D. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project 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.

There is no risk from wildfire within the project site or the surrounding area given the project site’s distance from any area that may be subject to a wildfire event. Therefore, the project will not result in any impacts related to flooding or landslides facilitated by runoff flowing down barren and charred slopes and no impacts will occur.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The analysis herein determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts with respect to potential wildfire. In addition, none of the four related projects are located within an area located in a geographic area where there is a risk from wild fire. All four related projects occupy properties that are developed and are surround by urban development. As a result, no cumulative impacts related to wildfire will occur.

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS SECTION 3 ● ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PAGE 99

MITIGATION MEASURES
The analysis of wildfires impacts indicated that less than significant impacts would result from the proposed project's approval and subsequent implementation. As a result, no mitigation is required.

FHSZ MAP
SOURCE: BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
GREENSTONE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ● 11401 GREENSTONE AVENUE ● CITY OF SANTA FE SPRINGS

Page 101 ends

Santa Fe Springs City CouncilApril 5, 2022

Santa Fe Springs City Council
April 5, 2022