kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 C. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument the Project Would Result in Significant Noise Impacts C.1 The comment states the City lacks substantial evidence to support the construction noise significance threshold. Refer to Response AA.2, below.
C.2 The commenter claims the Project’s construction noise is significant and unmitigated based on the City’s Municipal Code standards. Refer to Response AA.3, below.
C.3 The comment states the IS/MND fails to adopt enforceable construction noise mitigation measures. Specifically, the commenter notes that the City determined best management practices (BMPs) would be adopted as conditions of approval to reduce construction noise impacts. The referenced BMPs are included in the IS/MND as Standard Condition N-2.
C.4 See Response to Noise Comments from Adam Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Comment Letter Dated November 18, 2024 Regarding the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (GGI Project No. 19618) – Response to Comment 1. The noise analysis did include an analysis of potential operational impacts associated with trucks, including driving and loading/unloading and trucks accessing the loading and unloading docks along project site driveways. The commenter is referred to the referenced response regarding back-up noises.
C.5 See Response to Noise Comments from Adam Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Comment Letter Dated November 18, 2024 Regarding the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (GGI Project No. 19618) – Response to Comment 1.
D. Substantial Evidence Demonstrates that Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures Are Insufficient to Reduce the Impact to a Less than Significant Level
D.1 The Appellant reasserts that MM TRANS-1 fails to mitigate the Project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts to less than significant levels due to the lack of substantial evidence supporting the assumed VMT reduction and alleges that even with the maximum assumed reduction, the Project’s VMT exceeds the threshold of significance. This issue was raised in the October 30, 2024, comment letter and is addressed as Response to Comment No. 2-23. The Appellant does not raise any new issues, nor do they provide any new substantial evidence to support their claim.
Evidence supporting the VMT reduction associated with MM TRANS-1 is contained in the Project’s Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) provided in Appendix F of the IS/MND. As noted on page 56 of the TIA, the VMT assessment was performed using the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) VMT Evaluation Tool. This tool incorporates VMT reduction measures developed by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). The SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool report as well asrelevant excerpts from the CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (August 2021) [“Handbook”] are included in Appendix H of the project TIA. The CAPCOA Handbook is an industry standard resource “prepared in collaboration with academia, agencies, community organizations and leaders, local governments, nongovernmental
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 organizations, and technical experts.” The CAPCOA Handbook further notes that the quantification methods, tools, and recommendations were developed based on the latest science and literature available at the time of publication.
For the voluntary commute trip reduction program required by MM TRANS-1, the CAPCOA Handbook specifically cites research by “Boarnet, M., H Hsu, and S. Handy. 2014. Impacts of Employer-Based Trip Reduction Programs and Vanpools on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” (see TIA page Apx-109). Based on this research, the Handbook establishes the following formula for calculating VMT reduction:
A = B x C, where
A = percent reduction in GHG emissions / VMT
B = percent of employees eligible for the program
C = percent reduction in commute VMT from eligible employees (value = -4% per Boarnet et al.)
Accordingly, the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool incorporates the VMT reduction methodology from the CAPCOA Handbook. Although the CAPCOA Handbook formula would result in a VMT reduction of 4% (A = 100% x -4%), the SGVCOG VMT Evaluation Tool reports a slightly more conservative reduction of 3.7% due to rounding convention (1 - (15.8 / 16.4) = 3.7% reduction).
As noted in the original response, MM-TRANS-1 enables the City to ensure the voluntary commute trip reduction program includes components that are applicable to 100% of employees. Therefore, the effectiveness of MM TRANS-1 is adequately supported by industry standard resources and the latest science and literature available at the time of publication of the CAPCOA Handbook.
The Appellant also asserts that calculating the VMT values to two decimal points is essential to properly evaluate whether the Project complies with the threshold of significance, particularly in cases where small variances could determine whether impacts are deemed significant.
The original response does not dismiss the importance of precision but rather clarifies the importance of significant digits (or significant figures). Significant digits are a fundamental concept in science and necessary for deciding the accuracy and precision of calculations. The original comment added a significant figure to the VMT reduction calculations, implying a false level of precision. Notwithstanding the above, the original response further noted that the correct unmitigated project VMT value is 16.4 VMT per worker, not 16.5 as claimed in the original comment. Regardless of significant digits, the project VMT impact is fully mitigated when starting from the correct unmitigated project VMT value.
E. The City Fails to Analyze Fire Flow Requirements and Public Utility Impacts E.1 The Appellant reasserts that the IS/MND fails to adequately analyze potentially significant public utility impacts related to fire flow improvements. The Appellant alleges that the City attempts to defer the evaluation of fire flow requirements and infrastructure capacity to the Los Angeles
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 County Fire Department (LACFD) Fire Prevention Division’s site review. However, as provided in Response to Comment No. 2-27, the LACFD has reviewed the proposed Project’s site plan and has determined that the Project would meet City fire flow requirements. The Appellant states that LACFD’s process does not encompass the broader environmental evaluation required by CEQA, such as analyzing whether the Project may overburden water supply systems or create cumulative impacts. However, as required by CEQA, the IS/MND evaluated if the Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years and concluded that impact would be less than significant with no mitigation required. The Appellant provides no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project’s water supply analysis provided in the IS/MND is inadequate or provides any reason to believe that there would be inadequate infrastructure capacity to supply adequate fire flow. Therefore, the IS/MND adequately analyzes public utility impacts related to fire flow requirements and an EIR is not warranted.
Conclusion
3 This comment consists of conclusory text. No response is required.
ATTACHMENT A
AA.1 The comment identifies an inconsistency with nighttime truck movement. MM NOI-1 has been updated and incorporated into the IS/MND as follows:
MM NOI-1 Prior to issuance of any demolition or grading the first building permit, the City of South El Monte Public Works Department shall verify that the Project plans and specifications include provisions that either: (1) require the installation of a 10- foot-high concrete masonry noise attenuation wall along the southern property line of the project site; and (2) prohibit truck movement and loading and unloading between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The effectiveness of the 10-foot noise attenuation wall (temporary or permanent) shall be verified to confirm it reduces noise by a minimum of 10 dBA prior to tenant occupancy of the building. If the verification confirms the attenuation wall does not achieve the required 10 dBA reduction, the wall shall be modified to ensure it achieves such reduction.
AA.2 The commenter states that the 80 dBA construction noise threshold is not applicable to the Project. The commenter identifies portions of the FTA Manual’s construction noise guidelines (bolded below) without providing the full summary:
No standardized criteria have been developed for assessing construction noise impact.
Consequently, criteria must be developed on a project-specific basis unless local ordinances apply. As stated earlier in this section, local noise ordinances are typically not very useful in evaluating construction noise. They usually relate to nuisance and
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 hours of allowed activity, and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project.
Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use. While it is not the purpose of this manual to specify standardized criteria for construction noise impact, the following guidelines can be considered reasonable criteria for assessment. If these criteria are exceeded, there may be adverse community reaction.8
As shown above, the FTA Manual states the “guidelines can be considered reasonable criteria for assessment”. The IS/MND construction noise analysis considered the existing noise environment, absolute noise levels during construction activities, duration of construction, and adjacent land uses as required by the FTA Manual. The existing noise environment is summarized on IS/MND Appendix E pages 86 and 87; specifically refer to IS/MND Table 4.13-1: Short-Term Noise Measurement Summary (dBA). The IS/MND also models the absolute construction noise levels in Appendix E, Noise Impact Analysis, Table 11, Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq). Table 11 also accounts for the existing measured noise levels. The duration of construction is identified in IS/MND Section 2.6, Project Construction. Adjacent land uses are described in the Noise-Sensitive Receptors discussion on IS/MND page 87.
The commenter claims that the Project should have applied a lower threshold found in FTA Manual Section 4 and Appendix C. However, Section 4 and Appendix C apply to operational noise as the FTA Manual Section 4 specifically states, “assess construction noise and vibration according to Section 7”. The Project’s construction noise has been analyzed in accordance with FTA Manual Section 7.
The commenter also identifies typical hourly Leq (1-hr) noise levels associated with 80 dBA Leq (1-hr). However, the FTA Manual’s construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq (8-hr) is analyzed over a duration of 8 hours. Therefore, the referenced typical hourly Leq (1-hr) noise levels cannot be compared to the FTA Manual’s construction noise threshold as the units are not comparable.
AA.3 The commenter claims construction noise impacts below 80 dBA would exceed the City’s Municipal Code standards. The commenter cites Municipal Code Section 8.20.020 exterior noise standards specifically, which outline the City’s exterior noise standards generally applicable to stationary sources. The standards cited by commenter are not applicable to construction activities, which are separately regulated by the Municipal Code. It is well-settled that construction noise is a common component of the urban environment, especially in Southern California. Therefore, to assess potential noise impacts from construction, jurisdictions often use the FTA Manual to evaluate construction noise impacts, including the 80 dBA threshold. That 8 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, page 179, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessmentmanual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf, accessed February 2025.
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 threshold reflects the noise level above which construction noise could cause an impact, and is more appropriate to assess construction noise than operational exterior noise limits of municipal codes, which govern operational nuisances. The FTA Manual notes that exceedances of the 80 dBA threshold may show an adverse community reaction. Here, the Project would not exceed the FTA threshold. The FTA Manual even notes, “local noise ordinances are typically not very useful in evaluating construction noise. They usually relate to nuisance and hours of allowed activity, and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels, but are generally not practical for assessing the impact of a construction project.”9
For that reason, the FTA thresholds are widely used to
evaluate potential construction noise impacts.
Reflecting the fact that construction noise is a common component of the urban environment, the City has set allowable hours of construction in Municipal Code Section 8.20.030(D). Temporary construction noise is considered acceptable if it falls within the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. as identified in Municipal Code Section 8.20.030(D). Temporary elevated noise levels due to construction are typical of an urban environment and therefore are allowed under the Municipal Code. The Project is typical of urban construction and includes no unusual noise producing equipment. Regarding human health, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration identified 90 dBA as the permissible exposure limit over a duration of 8 hours.10 The Project’s construction noise would be periodic and temporary and would not be impactful to human health.
To evaluate potential construction noise impacts, the IS/MND used the FTA’s 80 dBA threshold, as discussed above.
The commenter further notes that construction would result in a maximum of 74 dBA at the nearest receptors. However, modeled construction noise levels conservatively do not account for noise reduction associated with Standard Condition (SC) N-2. SC N-2 would further minimize impacts from construction noise as it requires construction equipment to be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State-required noise attenuation devices.
Specifically, SC N-2 would reduce construction noise levels by a minimum of 10 dBA.11 Therefore, the maximum construction noise level would be approximately 64 dBA which is equivalent to normal speech at 3 feet as shown in Comment Letter Figure 3, A-Weighted Comparative Sound Levels.
9 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, page 172, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessmentmanual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf, accessed February 2025. 10 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 1910.95 – Occupational Noise Exposure, https://www.osha.gov/lawsregs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.95#:~:text=Audiometric%20testing%20program.&text=The%20employer%20shall%20establi sh%20and,weighted%20average%20of%2085%20decibels.&text=The%20program%20shall%20be%20provided%20at%20no%20cost%20to %20employees.&text=Audiometric%20tests%20shall%20be%20performed,an%20audiologist%2C%20otolaryngologist%20or%20physician. &text=All%20audiograms%20obtained%20pursuant%20to,appendix%20C:%20Audiometric%20Measuring%20Instruments, accessed January 2025. 11 Federal Highway Administration, Special Report - Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation, Chapter 4 Mitigation, 2017.
kimley-horn.com 1100 W Town and Country Road | Suite 700, Orange, CA 92868 714 939 1030 AA.4 See Response to Noise Comments from Adam Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Comment Letter Dated November 18, 2024 Regarding the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (Ganddini letter February 19, 2025) – Response to Comment 1.
AA.5 Please refer to the response to Comment AA.1 and see Response to Noise Comments from Adam Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Comment Letter Dated November 18, 2024 Regarding the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (Ganddini letter February 19, 2025) – Response to Comment 2.
AA.6 See Response to Noise Comments from Adam Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Comment Letter Dated November 18, 2024 Regarding the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (GGI Project No. 19618) – Response to Comment 2.
AA.7 See Response to Noise Comments from Adam Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Comment Letter Dated November 18, 2024 Regarding the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (Ganddini letter February 19, 2025) – Response to Comment 1, Response to Comment 2, and Attachment B.
AA.8 See Response to Noise Comments from Adam Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Comment Letter Dated November 18, 2024 Regarding the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (Ganddini letter February 19, 2025) Response to Comment 3.
transportation ■ noise ■ air quality | GANDDINI GROUP
555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225, Santa Ana, CA 92705
(714) 795-3100 | ganddini.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dana Privitt | KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
FROM: Roma Stromberg | GANDDINI GROUP, INC.
DATE: February 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Response to Noise Comments from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Comment Letter Dated November 18, 2024 Regarding the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development
(GGI Project No. 19618)
On behalf of Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (CREED LA), the law firm of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo submitted a comment letter dated November 18, 2024 regarding environmental documentation for the proposed 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development project.
This memorandum contains responses to comments relating to the Noise Impact Analysis prepared by Ganddini Group. The following comments begin on page 13 of the comment letter.
COMMENT 1
4. The IS/MND Underestimates Operational Noise Impacts
The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze noise impacts generated by truck operations on the Projects site, including noise from driving, backing up, and idling. Although the IS/MND evaluates roadway noise and loading/unloading activities, it omits critical on-site noise sources associated with operational truck movements.
RESPONSE
Operational noise was modeled using the SoundPLAN noise modeling software. Modeled noise sources included truck and vehicle on-site movements and parking, heating and ventilation, and loading/unloading activities as discussed in Section 5 of the technical noise study prepared for the project (Ganddini Group 2023). Truck and automobile movements were modeled by assigning peak hour trip generation to the internal circulation road with an assumed speed of 15 miles per hour. The original analysis utilized a very generous loading/unloading area source to include trucks backing up. The analysis assumed a noise reference level of 80 dBA per square meter (sound power[Lw]), not 65 dBA Lw per meter. The 70 dB reference in the report was a typo.
In response to the commenter’s concern that the SoundPLAN analysis did not include truck idling, an idling truck was added to the SoundPLAN analysis event, although no TRUs will be allowed and it is unlikely that any trucks will be idling with only two truck trips per hour. The idling truck was assumed to idle for a five minute period because it is illegal for them to idle any longer than that. Any law enforcement department, including air districts and CARB, can fine a 10,000 pound or greater truck owner and driver up to $1,000 per day for illegal idling (13 CCR 2480 & 2485) which would be in excess of five minutes within 100 feet of sensitive receptors.
Dana Privitt
KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
February 19, 2025
2 GGI Project No. 19618
Ganddini Group followed the document reference trail and discovered that the noise reference levels provided by the commenter are sound power levels. The commenter references a CARB informational document which references a noise study prepared by LSA Associates, which references a noise study prepared by Epsilon Associates in 2007, which indicates that the levels are sound power levels. The truck was modeled using a sound power level of 96 dBA Leq for five minutes of a one-hour period.
In response to the comment regarding the lack of truck movements in the model, the model was updated to not only model the truck movement around the facility but also backing up into the loading docks. This movement was previously modeled assuming a generous loading/unloading area instead of just focusing on the actual loading docks. It should be noted here that modeling loading/unloading at new loading docks at all is conservative because they are generally sealed and there is not much noise occurring outside of the warehouse. The SoundPLAN noise model was updated to include a loading/unloading area with a SoundPLAN noise reference level of 92 Lw (sound power) and reduced to a 20 foot depth to be concentrated where the loading and unloading will actually occur, and two truck movements per hour were added to be representative of trucks backing into a loading dock, again, this was to address the commenter’s concern that truck movements were not adequately modeled. As shown in the attached figures, both truck back-up movements were modeled at the center of the loading area as the closest sensitive receptors (mobile home park to the south) are located south of the project site.
In addition, a backup alerter with a sound power level of 105 Lw was added to the peak hour analysis. The backup alerter was conservatively assumed to last for one minute during each truck’s backup movement and backup movements were modeled with a speed of 5 miles per hour. Since the project does not propose coldstorage uses, refrigerated trucks will not be allowed onsite and idling of trucks is not anticipated. Drivers will back their trucks into the loading docks and turn off the engine while loading/unloading occurs.
The HVAC placement and orientation was updated per the current Roof Plan provided in Attachment D.
Regarding comments concerning applicable standards, the City’s Municipal Code includes two tables with noise standards that apply to operational noise (see Attachment A, Table 1, Exterior Noise Levels by Zone, and Table 2, Exterior Noise Levels by Use, Municipal Code 8.20.020). Table 1 includes noise standards for both day and nighttime noise and Table 2 contains noise standards for nighttime noise only. Table 1 includes footnotes that provide additional criteria depending on the measured noise period, including what would be considered to be a maximum noise event (the criteria in Table 1 plus 20 dB). In both tables, daytime hours are defined as 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and nighttime hours are defined as 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
As shown on Figure 6 in the revised Noise Study dated June 15, 2023 (Rev 2), the modeling results show that peak operational noise levels will range between 39 and 58 dBA Leq without any barriers.
As discussed previously, the City’s Ordinance contains two tables in Section 8.20.020, that regulate operational noise. Table 1 applies to the project in regards to how it affects other properties based on what zoning they have and Table 2 applies to the project in regards how it affects other properties during nighttime hours based on what the existing land use is. The property located just south of the project site that has an existing mobile home park zoned Commercial - Manufacturing and the existing use would be considered multiple family. Project operational noise will not exceed the City’s operational daytime noise standard of 60 dBA Leq which applies to the commercially zoned property that the mobile home park is located on. It could however, exceed the nighttime noise standard of 55 dBA Leq for multi-family residential, if truck movements are allowed between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
The City’s operational noise standards that apply to the existing land use of mobile home park is presented in Table 6 (nighttime only). Per Table 2 of Ordinance 8.20.020, the nighttime noise standard of 50 dBA Leq
Dana Privitt
KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
February 19, 2025
3 GGI Project No. 19618
applies to the mobile home park located south of the project site. If truck movements are allowed during nighttime hours, project operation has the potential to exceed this standard.
A barrier ten feet in height constructed along the southern property line would reduce nighttime operational noise levels to 45 dBA Leq at the southern property line shared with the mobile home park, allowing nighttime truck movements without violation of either the commercial zoning nighttime noise ordinance of 55 dBA Leq (see Table 15) or the multi-family residential nighttime noise ordinance standard of 50 dBA Leq (see Table 15).
In an abundance of caution, due to the fact that there is an existing mobile home park located on the property south of the project site which is zoned commercial, we also applied the 55 dBA Leq noise standard to project operation and found that project operational noise would exceed that standard by 3 dBA Leq. The proposed mitigation below will reduce these noise levels to below the 55 dBA Leq noise standard.
Prior to issuance of any demolition or grading permit, the City of South El Monte Public Works Department shall verify that the Project plans and specifications include provisions that: (1) require the installation of a 10-foot-high noise attenuation wall along the southern property line of the project site; and (2) prohibit truck movement and loading and unloading between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The effectiveness of the 10-foot noise attenuation wall (temporary or permanent) shall be verified to confirm it reduces noise by a minimum of 10 dBA prior to tenant occupancy of the building.
If the verification confirms the attenuation wall does not achieve the required 10 dBA reduction, the wall shall be modified to ensure it achieves such reduction.
In order to respond to concerns about maximum noise events, the maximum noise level associated with truck backout alerters was calculated assuming a sound power level of 105 Lw. The sound may be audible at nearby properties at first but will quickly attenuate as trucks back up to the loading docks as the truck itself will block some of the noise from traveling south towards the existing mobile home park. The closest point where a truck back out alerter is expected to be operated is located at approximately 32 feet north of the southern project property line. The noise level at the southern property line would be 77 dBA Lmax and therefore, would not violate the City’s maximum daytime noise standard presented in Section 8.20.020 of 80 dBA Lmax but may exceed the nighttime noise standard of 70 dBA Lmax at the property line. Construction of the above recommended barrier will reduce maximum noise levels by at least ten dB (i.e., 67 dBA Lmax or lower) and, therefore, project maximum noise events will not exceed the applicable day and nighttime maximum noise event standard of 70 dBA Lmax.
COMMENT 2
5. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 Lacks Substantial Evidence
The IS/MND claims that a 10-foot concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the Project site would reduce operational noise impacts to less than significant.59 However, this conclusion is unsupported by substantial evidence due to significant inconsistencies in the analysis and description of Mitigation Measure (“MM”) NOI-1.
RESPONSE
Please see response to Comment 4. The SoundPLAN operational noise analysis was revised in response to submittal of a roof plan and public comments, and the effectiveness of a ten-foot barrier was still shown to be sufficient to mitigate operational noise. As shown in Figure 7, with the ten-foot wall, peak hour operational noise levels will range between 39 and 55 dBA Leq. Noise levels at the property boundary with the mobile home park to the south would be 45 dBA Leq. Therefore, the proposed ten-foot noise barrier will sufficiently lower peak hour operational noise levels to avoid exceeding applicable noise ordinance standards. Maximum
Dana Privitt
KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
February 19, 2025
4 GGI Project No. 19618
noise events will also be mitigated to 67 dBA Lmax or less at the southern property line with construction of the proposed wall.
Regarding flanking, Figure 7 shows that peak operational noise levels immediately east of the proposed barrier would reach 52 dBA Leq and peak operational noise levels immediately west of the proposed barrier would reach 55 dBA Leq and would not exceed the applicable day or nighttime noise standards. Municipal Code
8.20.020 Table 1 (see Attachment A) sets forth a daytime 60 dBA Leq and nighttime 55 dBA Leq thresholds for commercial land uses. The proposed wall is sufficient as proposed.
COMMENT 3
OTHER ISSUES
1) Appendix E pages 37 and 39 appears to be from another project “8388 Beech Avenue Truck-Trailer Storage Facility Noise Impact Analysis 19581.” Table 13 on page 37 and Table 15 o page 39 refer to a “Receptor R-4.” Receptor R-4 is not found anywhere else in Appendix E.
RESPONSE
The references to 8388 Beech Truck-Trailer Storage Facility are labeling errors found only in the footer of pages 37 and 39. The footer should have been updated to match the rest of the report. Similarly, “Receptor R-4 Single Family Residential South of the Project Site” is a labeling error that should have been updated to read “Multiple Family Residential (Mobile home park)”. Both Tables 12 and 13 have been reviewed and corrected. These editorial errors did not change any findings.
CONCLUSION
The Noise Impact Analysis has been updated (Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project Noise Impact Analysis, June 15, 2023 – Rev 2) to incorporate the changes noted above.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you on this project. Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 714-795-3100.
Respectfully submitted,
GANDDINI GROUP, INC.
Roma Stromberg, INCE/MS
Senior Noise Analyst
Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project
Noise Impact Analysis
19618
ATTACHMENT A
City of South El Monte Ordinance 8.20
A. Maximum Permissible Sound Levels by Receiving Land Use.
1. No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased or occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed:
a. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; or b. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus five dbA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour; or c. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus ten dbA for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or d. The exterior noise limit plus fifteen dbA for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
e. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus twenty dbA for any period of time.
2. In the event the alleged offensive noise contains a steady, audible tone such as a whine, screech, or hum, or it is a repetitive noise such as a hammering or riveting, or contains music or speech conveying informational content, the exterior noise limits set forth in Tables 1 and 2 shall be reduced by five dbA.
3. If the measured ambient noise level exceeds that permissible within any of the first four noise limit categories above, the allowable noise limits set forth in Table 1 or 2 shall be adjusted in five dbA increments in each category as appropriate to encompass or reflect the ambient nose level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the exterior noise limit under the fifth category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.
4. Noise Measurement Procedure. The noise level shall be measured as a position or positions at any point on the receivers property utilizing the A-weighting scale of the sound level meter and the "slow" meter response for non-impulsive type noises and "fast" response for impulsive type sounds. When feasible, the microphone shall be located approximately four to five feet above the ground and ten feet or more from the nearest reflective surface. In those cases where the standard elevation is not feasible, the most closely approximate elevation possible shall be utilized. Calibration of the measurement equipment, utilizing an acoustical calibrator, shall be performed immediately prior to recording any noise data.
City of South El Monte, CA
§ 8.20.020 Exterior noise limits. § 8.20.020
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SO5015 on 2025-02-10
(Prior code §5-13-2; Ord. 742 §1, 1985)
§ 8.20.030. Prohibited acts.
Table 1 Exterior Noise Limits by Zone
Receiving Land Zoning Category Time Period
Noise Level
Standard (dbA)
One-or two-family residential zone 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 45 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 55
Multiple dwelling residential zone, public zone 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 50 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 60
Commercial zone or commercial-manufacturing
zone
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 55
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 60
Manufacturing zone any time 70
Table 2 Exterior Noise Limits by Use
Receiving Land Zoning Category Time Period
Noise Level
Standard (dbA)
Property partially or entirely developed for one- or
two-family residential uses
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 45
Property partially or entirely developed for
multifamily residential uses
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 50
B. Vibration. No person shall operate or permit the operation of any device or machine that creates a vibration above the vibration perception threshold when measured at or beyond the property boundary of the source.
A. No person shall offer for sale, sell, or advertise by shouting or outcry within any residential or commercially developed portion of the city. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit the selling by outcry of merchandise, food and beverages at licensed sporting events, parades, fairs, circuses or other similar licensed public entertainment.
B. No person shall permit any animal owned or possessed by that person frequently or for extended periods of time to make any sound or sounds which create a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line.
C. No person shall load, unload, open, close or handle boxes, crates, containers, building materials, metal, equipment or other objects or personal property between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m. in such manner as to cause a noise disturbance across the real property line of an adjacent or nearby property developed entirely or partially for residential use.
D. No person shall operate or cause or authorize the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration or demolition work between the hours of ten p.m. and seven a.m., or at any time on weekends or holidays, such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across the real property line of an adjacent or nearby property developed City of South El Monte, CA
§ 8.20.020 § 8.20.030
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/SO5015 on 2025-02-10
ATTACHMENT B
Figures A & B – Updated Operational Noise Levels
Figure A
Operational Noise Levels Without a Barrier
Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project
Noise Impact Analysis
19618
Figure B
Operational Noise Levels With A 10-FT Barrier
Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project
Noise Impact Analysis
19618
ATTACHMENT C
Updated SoundPLAN Inputs
Traffic values ControlConstr. Affect. Gradient
Station ADT Vehicles type Vehicle name day evening night Speed deviceSpeedveh. Road surface Min / Max km Veh/24h Veh/h Veh/h Veh/h km/h km/h % %
Internal Drive Traffic direction: In entry direction
0+000 24 Total
Automobiles
Medium trucks
Heavy trucks
Buses
Motorcycles
Auxiliary vehicle
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2 -
-
2 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24 -
24 -
-
-
none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 0.0
0+397 288 Total
Automobiles
Medium trucks
Heavy trucks
Buses
Motorcycles
Auxiliary vehicle
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24 22
-
2 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24 -
24 -
-
-
none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 0.0
0+000 288 Total
Automobiles
Medium trucks
Heavy trucks
Buses
Motorcycles
Auxiliary vehicle
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24 22
-
2 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24 -
24 -
-
-
none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 0.0
Truck Movement to Load-Unload Traffic direction: In entry direction 0+000 24 Total
Automobiles
Medium trucks
Heavy trucks
Buses
Motorcycles
Auxiliary vehicle
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2 -
-
2 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8 -
-
-
none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 0.0
Frequency spectrum [dB(A)] Corrections
Source name Reference Level 31 63 125 250 500 1 2 4 8 16 Cwall CI CT dB(A) Hz Hz Hz Hz Hz kHz kHz kHz kHz kHz dB dB dB
1 Lw/unit Day 92.0 - 59.0 69.0 76.1 82.1 85.0 86.0 86.1 84.0 - - - - Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 2 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 3 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 4 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 5 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 6 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 7 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 8 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 9 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 10 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 11 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 12 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - 13 Lw/unit Day 78.7 42.5 46.5 59.5 64.5 58.5 69.5 71.5 70.5 72.5 72.5 - - - Back up Alterter Lw/unit Day 88.2 - 55.3 65.3 72.3 78.3 81.3 82.3 82.3 80.3 - - - - Noise emissions of industry sources
GANDDINI GROUP, INC. 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225 Santa Ana CA 92705 USA Page 607 of 751 Movements Separated Lw,ref
Name Parking lot type Size per hour Road surface method Day Evening Night dB(A)
1 Visitors and staff 10 Parking bays 0.400 0.000 0.000 Asphaltic driving lanes no 73.0 2 Visitors and staff 41 Parking bays 0.400 0.000 0.000 Asphaltic driving lanes no 82.9 3 Visitors and staff 41 Parking bays 0.400 0.000 0.000 Asphaltic driving lanes no 82.9 4 Visitors and staff 34 Parking bays 0.400 0.000 0.000 Asphaltic driving lanes no 81.8 5 Visitors and staff 22 Parking bays 0.400 0.000 0.000 Asphaltic driving lanes no 79.2 6 Visitors and staff 22 Parking bays 0.400 0.000 0.000 Asphaltic driving lanes no 79.2 7 Visitors and staff 2 Parking bays 0.400 0.000 0.000 Asphaltic driving lanes no 66.0 8 Visitors and staff 8 Parking bays 0.400 0.000 0.000 Asphaltic driving lanes no 72.0 Noise emissions of parking lot traffic
GANDDINI GROUP, INC. 555 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 225 Santa Ana CA 92705 USA Page 608 of 751
ATTACHMENT D
Roof Plan
COOK
aceb245
A4.0
1 A4.0
2 1
1 2
2 3
3 4
4 5
5 6
6 7
7 8
8 9
9 10
10 A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
A4.0
4 A4.0
3 A4.0
3A
44' - 8" 43' - 0"
45' - 9"
44' - 6"
43' - 8"
42' - 6"
41' - 2"
42' - 5"
RIDGE RIDGE
47'-4" 50'-2" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 56'-0" 74'-4" 60'-0" 61'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 51'-0" 47'-0" 60'-0"
319'-0"
511'-10"
13'-6" 21'-6" 23'-0" 23'-0" 23'-0" 23'-0" 23'-0" 21'-0" 3'-2 3/4" 14'-1" 14'-1"
4'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
4'-0"
TYP.
2605
R.1
A.1
TYP.
2216
807
TYP.
2216
TYP.
2210
TYP.
860
810
TYP.
2214
4'-0"
D.9 D.9
6.1 6.1
9.1 9.1
44' - 8"
43' - 0"
44' - 8"
44' - 8"
43' - 0"
T.O.P.
48' - 0" T.O.P.
51' - 0"
T.O.P.
48' - 10"
45' - 10"
T.O.P.
46' - 0"
T.O.P.
48' - 0"
45' - 3"
43' - 6"
44' - 6"
T.O.P.
47' - 0"
43' - 9"
T.O.P.
47' - 0"
3'-6" PARAPET
3'-4" PARAPET
2'-3" PARAPET
T.O.P. 45' - 0"
47' - 0" 2'-0" PARAPET
3'-0" PARAPET
T.O.P.
48' - 0"
46' - 9"
2'-9" PARAPET
2'-9" PARAPET
22'-6"
29'-0"
30'-0"
21'-6"
1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN.
1/4" SLOPE MIN.
1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN.
1/4" SLOPE MIN.
1/4" SLOPE MIN.
1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN.1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN.1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN.1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN. 1/4" SLOPE MIN.
1.5 1.5
49' - 6"
44' - 6"
2'-6" PARAPET
T.O.P.
47' - 0"
2'-6" PARAPET
43' - 5"
47' - 0"
T.O.P.
48' - 0"
3'-4" PARAPET
42' - 11"
T.O.C.
47' - 0"
4'-1" PARAPET
T.O.P.
47' - 0"
43' - 6"
3'-6" PARAPET 810
Plan Check Number:
Project Number:
2020 Architects Orange, LLP dba AO These plans are copyright protected. Under such protection unauthorized use is not permitted. These plans shall not be reproduced or used without written permission by Architects Orange. c
SEAL
CONSULTANT
Sheet Plotted:Drawing File Name:
S H E E T
Autodesk Docs://2022-392 Xebec - Rosemead Blvd - South El Monte/2022-392 Xebec- Rosemead Blvd El Monte.rvt 8/6/2024 8:40:38 AM
ROOF PLAN
2022-392 2222 ROSEMEAD BLVD
701 PARKCENTER DRIVE
SANTA ANA, CA, 92705
(714) 562-8688
TAIT & ASSOCIATES ROSEMEAD HOLDINGS SOUTH EL MONTE, CA 91733 Permit Number
A3.0
2023-05-12 50% PROGRESS
2023-06-12 1st CITY SUBMITTAL
2024-05-07
2nd CITY SUBMITTAL
LA CO. FIRE SUBMITTAL
Scale:
1" = 20'-0"
ROOF PLAN 1
North
ROOF PLAN LEGEND
4'x8' FIXED SKYLIGHT TO BE FIBERGLASS SINGLE DOME, IMPACT AND HIGH WIND. TO INCLUDE BURGLAR BARS
RESISTANT AS BISTOLITE DAYLIGHTING SYSTEM (KINGSPAN)/ SUNOPTICS SEE DETAIL 8/A6.2
24" X 30" CURB MOUNTED ROOF HATCH WITH LADDER EXTENSION POST - BILCO, MODEL: S-20 OR APPROVED EQUAL.
INDICATES "SOLAR READY" ZONE ON ROOF AS CALCULATED
FABRICATED, 22 GA., G.I. SCUPPER, RAIN CONDUCTOR, AND DOWNSPOUT
CURB MOUNTED MECHANICAL UNIT - REFER TO MECHANICAL, PLUMBING,
AND ELECTRICAL PLANS
INDICATES TOP OF SHEATHING ELEVATION AS TAKEN FROM FINISH FLOOR
DIRECTLY
BELOW REFERENCE POINT, SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS
T.S. = 37'-1"
INDICATES TOP OF PARAPET ELEVATION, SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND
STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
T.PARAPET = 41'-6"
4'x8' FIXED SKYLIGHT WITH SMOKE AND HEAT VENTS WITH UL 793 LISTING BY BRISOLITE DAYLIGHTING SYSTEMS (KINGSPAN)/ SUNOPTICS). TO BE FIBERGLASS SINGLE DOME, IMPACT AND HIGH WIND. TO INCLUDE BURGLAR BARS. SEE DETAIL 8/A6.2.
ROOF GENERAL NOTES
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SIZES AND LOCATIONS OF ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT PLATFORMS AND
BASES, POWER, WATER AND DRAIN LOCATIONS AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS WITH EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH WORK. CHANGES TO ACCOMMODATE FIELD CONDITIONS OR MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CHARGE TO OWNER.
2. MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING EQUIPMENT PLATFORM DIMENSIONS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 8 INCHES ABOVE ADJACENT ROOF ELEVATION.
3. VENTS THROUGH THE ROOF SHALL BE INSTALLED 10'-0" FROM AND TERMINATED 3'-0" ABOVE ANY FRESH AIR INTAKES.
4. LEAD FLASHING TO BE USED AT ALL ROOF DRAIN AND OVERFLOW PENETRATIONS.
5. SEE PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR ALL ROOF DRAIN SIZES.
6. ALL ROOF SURFACES SHALL SLOPE AT A MINIMUM OF 1/4 INCH PER FOOT IN ALL DIRECTIONS.CRICKETS SHALL BE USED ON THE HIGH SIDE OF ALL SKYLIGHTS, ROOF HATCH AND EQUIPMENT PLATFORMS.
7. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ROOF FRAMING.
8. SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS FOR HVAC EQUIPMENT, SHAFT, AND PENETRATION LOCATIONS.
9. ORIENT SKYLIGHT / SMOKE HATCH HINGES TOWARD THE PREVAILING WIND.
10. ALL INDIRECT WASTE PIPING ON ROOF SHALL BE TYPE "L" COPPER ATTACHED BY PIPE STRAPS NAILED TO 2 x 4 REDWOOD BLOCKING. BLOCKING SHALL BE SET IN MASTIC AT 6'-0" O.C. PIPING SHALL BE SLOPED AND TERMINATE IN AN APPROVED RECEPTOR. PIPING TO BE INSTALLED PARALLEL AND PERPENDICULAR TO BUILDING ELEVATIONS. SEE DETAIL 13/A6.2.
11. ALL ROOFING SHALL BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL CITY AGENCY WIND DESIGN ACCORDANCES.
12. REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS TO CONFIRM ROOF ELEVATIONS.
13. ALL ROOF ELEVATIONS INDICATE BOTTOM OF SHEATHING FROM FINISHED FLOOR, DATUM ELEVATION 0'-0". (FLOOR SLOPES) SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS.
14. ROOFING: UL CLASS A- FIRE RETARDANT RATING AS MANUFACTURE BY GAF, MANVILLE OR EQUAL.
15. OVERFLOW SCUPPERS SHALL BE 3 TIMES THE AREA OF THE ROOF DRAIN INLET, LOCATED 3" ABOVE THE LOW POINT OF THE ADJACENT. FINISHED ROOF PER CBC SEC.1506.3.
16. LEAD FLASHING TO BE USED AT ALL ROOF VENT PENETRATIONS. SEE DETAIL 11,12 & 21/A6.1.
17. FOR ROOF PENETRATIONS, - SEE DETAILS 2, 5, 11, 12, AND 21/A6.1. ### KEYNOTES
807 PREFABRICATED METAL AWNING, REFER TO ELEVATIONS FOR COLOR AND PLACEMENT. 19/A6.3
810 ROOF ACCESS HATCH PER DOOR SCHEDULE
860 SKYLIGHTS SEE LEGEND AND DETAIL 8/A6.2
2210 INTERNAL ROOF DRAIN AND ROOF OVERFLOW DRAIN WITH SEPARATE PIPING SYSTEM. INSTALL PER ROOFING MANUFACTURER WARRANTY REQUIREMENTS AND INSTALLATION RECOMMENDATIONS. SEE DETAIL 17/A6.1 AND 18 WHERE OCCURS ON SITE.
2214 ROOF OVERFLOW DRAIN TO DISCHARGE AT THE FACE OF BUILDING. 2216 EXTERIOR DOWNSPOUT AND OVERFLOW SCUPPER. SEE DETAIL 19,20, 25 /A6.1
2605 SOLAR ZONE: AREA DEDICATED FOR FUTURE SOLAR PANEL
INSTILLATION. INVERTERS, METERING EQUIPMENT, AND CONDUIT
ROUTING TO BE COMPLETED AS PART OF FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT.
SMOKE VENT CALCULATION
WAREHOUSE S.F. X CLEAR HEIGHT = x/9000 = S.F. OF VENTING / 32 S.F. VENT HATCH SIZE 112,377 S.F. X 40 FT. CLEAR = 4,495,080/9000 = 499.45 OR 500 S.F./32 S.F. = 15.625 OR 16 VENTS 2023-10-13 1 PCC1
XX ASSEMBLIES
* SEE SHEETS A7.6 FOR COMPLETE ASSEMBLY INFORMATION AND DETAILS. ** SEE RCP FOR WALL TYPES THAT OCCUR ABOVE THE CEILINGS.
A.1 N.R. EXTERIOR CONC. WALL: 9 1/4" STEEL REINFORCED TILT UP CONCRETE WALL. PER STRUCTURAL .
R.1 N.R. 20 YEAR TPO ROOF: JOHN MANVILLE ( OR APPROVED EQUAL) UL 790 LISTED MIN. 60 MIL. FULLY ADHERED TPO MEMBRANE ROOFING OVER MIN. 1/4" DENSDECK OVER PLYWOOD ROOF DECK. PROVIDE MIN.
ROOFING SYSTEM TO BE UL CLASS A AND MEET FM-190 WIND UPLIFT RESISTANCE REQUIREMENTS PER OWNER SPECS. TOP CAP OF ROOF SYSTEM TO HAVE LEED SOLAR REFLECTIVE INDEX OF 82 OR GREATER.
8.31.25
ATTACHMENT B
7554-001acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper
October 18, 2024
Via U.S. Mail and Email
Guillermo Arreola, Director
Community Development Department
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733
Email: [email protected]
Sabrina A. Muhne, Interim City Clerk
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733
Email: [email protected]
Via Email Only
Gerardo Marquez, Planning Manager
Email: [email protected]
Re: Request for Mailed Notice of Actions and Hearings – 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (SCH No. 2024100046)
Dear Mr. Arreola, Ms. Muhne, and Ms. Marquez:
We are writing on behalf of Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (“CREED LA”) to request mailed notice of the availability of any environmental review document, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, related to the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (SCH No. 2024100046) (“Project”), proposed by Tait & Associates, Inc. (“Applicant”), as well as a copy of the environmental review document when it is made available for public review.
The Project would construct an approximately 156,877 square foot (SF) concrete tilt-up warehouse and 13 dock doors. Of the 156,877 SF, the Project would have 113,703 SF of warehouse space, 7,879 SF of retail use, 20,305 SF of accessory warehouse office use, and 14,990 SF of warehouse storage. The Project site is located at 2200, 2212, 2218, and 2226 Rosemead Boulevard in the northwestern portion of the City of South El Monte, Los Angeles County, California. The approximately 5.14-acre project site includes four parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers 8102-039-029, 8102-039-030, 8102-039-031, and 8102-039-035).
We also request mailed notice of any and all hearings and/or actions related to the Project. These requests are made pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections
ATTACHMENT C
October 18, 2024
7554-001acp
printed on recycled paper
21092.2, 21080.4, 21083.9, 21092, 21108, 21152 and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092, which require local agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.
Please send the above requested items by email and U.S. Mail to our San Francisco office as follows:
U.S. Mail
Sheila M. Sannadan
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080-7037
Email
[email protected]
Please call me at (650) 589-1660 if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
Sheila M. Sannadan
Legal Assistant
SMS:acp
7554-007acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper
November 27, 2024
VIA E-Mail Submission & Overnight Mail
City Council
c/o Adrian Garcia
City Clerk
City of South El Monte
1415 Satna Anita Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733
[email protected]
[email protected]
Via E-Mail Only
Guillermo Arreola, Director
[email protected]
Gerardo Marquez, Planning Manager
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-09, Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program, and Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 21-13 for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project Dear City Council, Mr. Garcia, Mr. Arreola, and Mr. Marquez:
We write on behalf of the Coalition of Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (“CREED LA”) pursuant to South El Monte Municipal Code § 17.03.060 and § 17.03.130 to appeal the City of South El Monte (“City”) Planning Commission’s November 19, 2024 land use and environmental approvals for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2024100046; Conditional Use Permit No. 21-13) (“Project”) as set forth in Resolution No. 24-09.1 The Project is proposed by Tait & Associates (“Applicant”).
1 Exhibit A, City of South El Monte, Planning Commission, Resolution No. 24-09: A Resolution of the South El Monte Planning Commission Approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Prepared in Compliance with the California
ATTACHMENT D
November 27, 2024
7554-007acp
printed on recycled paper
This appeal is timely filed within ten days of the Planning Commission’s decision and is accompanied by the required appeal fee of $750.2 CREED LA respectfully requests that the City Council vacate all Planning Commission approvals, including Resolution 24-09 as amended, adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (“MMRP”), and approval of Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) No. 21-13, and all other related approvals and findings, and remand this matter City staff to prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) that accurately describes the Project and fully disclose, analyzes, and mitigates the Project’s significant air quality, greenhouse gas (“GHG”), public health, energy, noise, transportation, and public utilities impacts before bringing the Project back for a further hearing.
I. STANDING TO APPEAL
Pursuant to South El Monte Municipal Code § 17.03.060, any person aggrieved by the Planning Commission’s decision may appeal to the City Council.
CREED LA and its members are aggrieved persons who would be adversely affected by the Planning Commission’s land use and environmental approvals.
CREED LA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations formed to ensure that the construction of major urban projects in the Los Angeles region proceeds in a manner that minimizes public and worker health and safety risks, avoids or mitigates environmental and public service impacts, and fosters long-term sustainable construction and development opportunities. The association includes South El Monte residents Alejando Ayala and Jose Francis, the Sheet Metal Workers Local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11, Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16, and District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of South El Monte and Los Angeles County.
Individual members of CREED LA live in the City of South El Monte, and work, recreate, and raise their families in the City and surrounding communities.
Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and Environmental Quality Act; Approving Conditional Use Permit 21-13 to Allow for the Development of a New Approximately 156,877 Square Foot Warehouse Building Located at 2222 Rosemead Boulevard (Nov. 19, 2024).
2 City of South El Monte, General Fee Schedule (Sept. 1, 2023), available at https://www.cityofsouthelmonte.org/DocumentCenter/View/4365/General-Fee-Schedule-EffectiveSept-1-2023-PDF-?bidId=.
November 27, 2024
7554-007acp
printed on recycled paper
health, and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist on site.
CREED LA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.
CREED LA supports the development of commercial, mixed use, and medical office projects where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts on public health, climate change, and the environment. These projects should avoid adverse impacts to air quality, public health, climate change, noise, and traffic, and must incorporate all feasible mitigation to ensure that any remaining adverse impacts are reduced to the maximum extent feasible. Only by maintaining the highest standards can commercial development truly be sustainable.
CREED LA presented written and oral comments to the City and to the Planning Commission identifying errors and omissions in the City’s environmental and land use review of the Project which were not resolved prior to Project approval.
CREED LA and its experts also presented substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project has significant, unmitigated impacts on air quality, public health, climate change, noise, energy, transportation and public utilities that the MND fails to accurately disclose or mitigate below levels of significance.
II. DECISIONS BEING APPEALED
On November 19, 2024, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 24-09, as modified in its oral motion following a public hearing. The resolution adopts the MND and MMRP, and approved CUP No. 21-13, as conditioned, for the Project. Pursuant to South El Monte Municipal Code § 17.03.130, CREED LA appeals Resolution No. 24-09 as condition and modified.
III. ERRORS IN THE DECISION AND EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING
REVERSAL
Pursuant to South El Monte Municipal Code § 17.03.130.C., the written appeal must indicate in what ways the appellant feels the Planning Commission’s decision was incorrect or must provide extenuating circumstances which the appellant feels would justify reversal or modification of the Commission’s decision.
CREED LA’s October 30, 2024 comment letter and accompanying expert report prepared by transportation expert, Norm Marshall, as well as CREED LA’s November 18, 2024 comment letter and accompanying expert report prepared by
November 27, 2024
7554-007acp
printed on recycled paper
Neil Shaw, detail the basis for the instant appeal.3 These documents are attached as exhibits to this appeal letter and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
In sum, the City improperly concluded that there is no substantial evidence in the record demonstrating that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Contrary to this finding, CREED LA and other members of the public presented substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will result in potentially significant impacts on public health, air quality, GHG, energy, noise, transportation and public utilities.4 These impacts are neither adequately disclosed nor mitigated by the measures proposed in the MND. The City must prepare an EIR to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and lawfully approve the Project’s entitlements.5
The City consultant’s written and oral responses to CREED LA’s comments ignore or fail to resolve many critical issues and do not constitute substantial evidence supporting Project approval. Consequently, the Planning Commission violated CEQA by adopting the MND and MMRP, and approving the CUP for the Project.
IV. REQUEST TO VACATE APPROVALS, REMAND TO PLANNING COMMISSION, AND
DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN EIR
The record demonstrates that the Planning Commission abused its discretion by finding that the environmental impacts of the proposed Project would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation because it ignored substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project’s environmental impacts are significant and unmitigated.
CREED LA urges the City Council to vacate the Planning Commission’s approval of Resolution No. 24-09, remand this matter to the Planning Commission,6 and direct City staff to prepare an EIR that fully discloses, analyzes, and mitigates 3 Exhibit B, Letter to Guillermo Arreola, City of South El Monte from Aidan P. Marshall, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo re: Preliminary Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (SCH No. 2024100046) (Oct. 30, 2024); Exhibit C, Letter to Planning Commission, City of South El Monte from Andrew J. Graf, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo re: Agenda Item No. 7.c.: 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (Nov. 19, 2024). 4 See generally Exhibit B, Exhibit C.
5 Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq. 6 See South El Monte Municipal Code § 17.03.130 (City Council may remand the matter to the Planning Commission).
November 27, 2024
7554-007acp
printed on recycled paper
the Project’s significant public health, air quality, GHG, energy, noise, transportation and public utilities impacts.
Thank you for your consideration of this appeal.
Sincerely,
Andrew J. Graf
Attachments
AJG:acp
EXHIBIT A
01257.0005/1032934.1
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 24-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTH EL MONTE PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION AND MONITORING
REPORTING PROGRAM PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT;
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 21-13 TO ALLOW
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW APPROXIMATELY
156,877 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE BUILDING LOCATED
AT 2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, Rosemead Holding LLC (“Applicant” filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) for the development of a new 156,877 square foot warehouse building located at 2222 Rosemead Boulevard (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to South El Monte Municipal Code (“SEMMC”) Section 17.03.060, the Project requires Planning Commission review and approval because the Project consists of request for a CUP; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on November 19, 2024, to consider the application. All evidence, both written and oral, presented during said public hearing was considered by the Planning Commission in making its determination.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission hereby adopts an Initial Environmental Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program that was prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and was made available for public review and comment October 1, 2024 to October 30, 2024. The study concluded that there will be less than significant impacts with project mitigation. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program has been prepared. The documents and other material, which constitute the record on which this decision is based, are located in the Department of Community Development and are in the custody of the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 2: A record of the public hearing indicates the following:
A. Pursuant to SEMMC Section 17.03.060, an application for a CUP requires that the Planning Commission find that the proposed Project shall not be detrimental to persons or properties in the immediate vicinity nor to the City in general. State law requires that the Project be compatible with surrounding uses.
B. The General Plan Land Use designation for the Property is “Commercial Manufacturing.” The Zoning Code designation is “CM” (Commercial Manufacturing).
C. The proposed Project promotes the City’s goals and objectives stated in the General Plan. No goal or policy will be impaired.
01257.0005/1032934.1
D. The construction and operation of the warehouse, office, and retail building is not anticipated to become a nuisance to surrounding properties.
SECTION 3: Based on the record of the hearing, including all information presented at the hearing, including the Staff Report dated November 19, 2024, which is hereby incorporated into this Resolution 24-09 by reference, the Planning Commission hereby finds:
A. As conditioned, the Project meets the requirements of SEMMC Section 17.03.060 and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor will it adversely affect property values or the present or future development of the surrounding areas. The conditions that are included in this resolution, as well as the fact that many of the surrounding parcels are industrial uses, ensures that this will hold true in the future.
B. Pursuant to SEMMC Section 17.03.060, the approval of the CUP will not be detrimental to persons or properties in the immediate vicinity nor to the City in general. This is because the Project, as conditioned, will be required to operate in a way that does not negatively impact the area through conditions imposed. as well as many of the surrounding parcels being utilized as industrial and provide similar types of uses in nature.
C. As conditioned, the Project represents a quality establishment that will be compatible with surrounding commercial and manufacturing uses, the surrounding area, and the goals of the City. The proposed Project will contribute to the general well-being of the City in that the Project benefits neighboring uses and will be an asset to the surrounding area, as well as to the rest of the City. Previously, the site was occupied by multiple vehicular repair and sales establishments. The proposed use shall provide a new enclosed facility that will operate entirely within the building. There shall be no outdoor storage or operation of any kind. As a result, approving this application will not adversely affect the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance.
D. As conditioned, the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan.
The proposed Project is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, economic development and programs specified in the General Plan which includes, but is not limited to, the following goals:
Land Use Element
Policy 1.5: Continue to provide opportunities for establishment and expansion of a broad range of industrial businesses within those areas of the City designated for industrial. This Project will serve the area by creating a single location for storage, wholesale, and retail operations for new businesses to establish their operations within the area. This new development along with the newly adopted zoning code will allow new businesses to flourish in the City.
Goal 2: Focus new revenue-generating development in those areas of the City with high visibility.
The proposed Project will in-fill a vacant parcel and provide a new warehouse/wholesale and commercial mixed-use type of development to complement the existing adjacent sites along the already established Rosemead Boulevard.
Goal 3.0: Accommodate new development that is compatible with and complements existing land uses by allowing for the establishment of a warehouse, office, wholesale and retail that fits with the surrounding uses. Adjacent to north, south, and west of the Project site similar uses and types of buildings are already established. Previously, the site was occupied by multiple vehicular repair and sales establishments. The proposed use shall provide a new enclosed facility that will operate entirely within the building. There shall be no outdoor storage or operation of any kind.
01257.0005/1032934.1
Goal 6.0: Provide for the revitalization of deteriorating land uses and properties. The new development will not only provide a new 156,877 square foot building on a property that has remained vacant for many years, but will also provide off-site improvements by restoring existing street pavement along the length of the property frontage to the centerline of the street on Rosemead Boulevard and new sidewalk, curb ramps, curb and gutter, and driveways would be newly constructed as well.
SECTION 4: Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit A), and CUP (No 21-13) to construct a new approximately 156,877 square foot warehouse, and office building with ancillary retail subject to the following conditions:
General Conditions
1. The Applicant and the business entity allowed for hereunder shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from any and all claims, lawsuits, or actions arising from the granting of, or the exercise of, the rights permitted by this approval, and from any and all claims or losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation, or property for damage, injury, or death arising out of, or connected in anyway, with the performance of the use permitted hereby. The Applicant’s obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City shall include, but not be limited to, paying all legal fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City’s choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits, or actions, and any award of damages or attorney’s fees in any such lawsuit or action.
2. The Applicant and the business entity allowed for hereunder shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of these conditions in the presence of a Notary Public and return the Affidavit to the Director of Community Development within ten calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission’s approval.
3. The approval shall lapse and become void if the privilege authorized is not utilized or where some form of construction pursuant to issuance of a building permit has not commenced within two years from the date of this approval.
4. Applicant and its employees, agents and contractors shall comply with all State, Federal, and Municipal Code provisions.
Planning Conditions
5. All buildings and walls must be finished with graffiti resistant materials. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the Property or on any adjacent area under the control of the Applicant shall be removed or painted over within 48 hours of discovery or notice from the City.
6. The Property shall be maintained in a safe and clean condition and the Applicant shall ensure that no trash or litter originating from the site is deposited on neighboring properties or the public right-of-way. At the end of each business day, the Applicant shall pick up any and all litter including but not limited to large, discarded items that may have collected in the Property’s parking area and public right-of-way.
7. The Applicant shall maintain all required permits and licenses in good standing.
01257.0005/1032934.1
8. The Applicant understands that any violation of the foregoing conditions shall be grounds for the suspension or revocation of the CUP.
9. The construction site shall always be kept in a clean manner prior, during, and after construction.
10. The Applicant shall develop the Property as shown in the site plan and landscaping plan approved by the Planning Commission.
11. The Applicant shall provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan, prepared by a registered Landscape Architect to the Community Development Director for review and approval prior to submitting the plans to the Building Division.
12. The Applicant shall install drought tolerant landscaping in strict compliance with a landscape plan prepared by a Landscape Architect drawn at a minimum scale of 1” = 10’ which will include all proposed softscape elements (included areas of ornamental plantings and turf areas), with the perimeter planting design for the exterior of building. The Applicant shall incorporate the following into the landscape plan:
a. Enclose all planters within parking lot areas with raised six-inch P.C.C. curbs, except at sidewalks.
b. Provide an automated underground irrigation system for all landscaped areas. c. Provide adequate landscaping to completely screen all ground mounted mechanical equipment.
13. All exterior doors shall be lit with a minimum of one-foot candle power of intensity and constructed of tamper-resistant fixtures.
14. The Applicant shall have no outside storage of material or equipment during or after hours in the required parking lot areas or near the front entrance of the Property visible from Rush Street.
15. There shall be no loading or unloading of materials on the public right of way (Rush Street).
16. There shall be no queuing or parking of vehicles on or along Rush Street as a result of this development.
17. At no time shall the site store inoperable freight trucks or vehicles in its parking areas either within the vehicle spaces or the freight truck spaces.
18. No repair of vehicles or freight trucks shall occur at any time.
19. All exterior lights on the property shall be LED and shall be directed, positioned, and/or shielded such that they do not illuminate surrounding properties and/or the public right of way.
20. For security purposes, lighting shall be place in such a way as to illuminate the area surrounding the trash enclosure(s), transformer, and all vehicle parking spaces. This lighting shall be un-switched and photo sensor controlled.
21. Any bollards on the site visible from the public right of way shall be decorative in nature and shall be approved by the Director of Community Development or designee.
01257.0005/1032934.1
22. Noise generated from the site shall comply with the South El Monte Municipal Code Chapter 8.20.
23. The applicant must incorporate a copy of these conditions of approval into the approved set of building plans.
24. The consolidation of parcels shall be finalized and recorded prior to the issuance of building permits.
Public Works Conditions
PW1. The second sheet of building plans, grading plans and/or offsite improvement plans is to list all conditions of approval and to include a copy of the Planning Commission Decision letter. This information shall be incorporated into the plans prior to the first submittal for plan check.
PW2. A geotechnical and soils investigation report is required, the duties of the soils engineer of record, as indicated on the first sheet of the approved plans, shall include the following:
a) Observation of cleared areas and benches prepared to receive fill; b) Observation of the removal of all unsuitable soils and other materials; c) The approval of soils to be used as fill material;
d) Inspection of compaction and placement of fill;
e) The testing of compacted fills; and
f) The inspection of review of drainage devices.
PW3. The owner shall retain the soils engineer preparing the Preliminary Soils and/or Geotechnical Investigation accepted by the City for observation of all grading, site preparation, and compaction testing. Observation and testing shall not be performed by another soils and/or geotechnical engineer unless the subsequent soils and/or geotechnical engineer submits and has accepted by the Public Works Department, a new Preliminary Soils and/or Geotechnical Investigation.
PW4. A grading and drainage plan shall be approved prior to issuance of the building permit. The grading and drainage plan shall indicate how all storm drainage including contributory drainage from adjacent lots is carried to the public way or drainage structure approved to receive storm water.
PW5. Low Impact Development (LID) review shall be completed prior submitting grading plans for plan review. Grading plans shall be submitted including the proof of approval of LID or exemption of LID.
PW6. Install new driveway approach in accordance with SPPWC Standard Plan 110-2, and as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
PW7. Remove and replace broken and off grade sidewalk in accordance with SPPWC standard plan 113-2, and as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
PW8. Install an irrigation system and landscape the designated parkway area, and as directed by the City Engineer and/or his/her designee.
01257.0005/1032934.1
PW9. Protect and maintain existing street tree through the duration of the project. Existing street tree must be maintained in healthy condition through the duration of any planning and construction. Trees should be deemed healthy and in good condition upon the conclusion of any construction in order for the project to be accepted as completed by the Public Works Department.
PW10. Remove and replace broken and off grade curb and gutter in accordance with SPPWC Standard Plan 120-2, and as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
PW11. Relocate water meter from the sidewalk as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee.
PW12. Rehabilitate existing AC street pavement along the length of the property frontage to the centerline of the street, and as directed by the City Engineer or his/her designee, PW13. Underground all utility services to the property.
PW14. Protect existing tree(s).
PW15. Sewer Study shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer or his/her designee, prior to the issuance of permits. If sewer is found to be inadequate, sewer improvement plans shall be submitted to the City for approval and required improvements shall be made at the sole cost to the property owner/developer.
PW16. Project shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. Any necessary public improvements determined by Traffic Engineering, shall be made at the sole cost to the property owner/developer.
Building Division Conditions
B3. The second sheet of building plans is to list all conditions of approval and to include a copy of the Planning Commission Decision letter. This information shall be incorporated into the plans prior to the first submittal for plan check.
B4. Fees shall be paid to the County of Los Angeles Sanitation District prior to issuance of the building permit.
B5. The building shall be addressed as 2222 Rosemead Blvd., and an application to assign unit numbers shall be filed with City prior to plan check submittal.
B6. In accordance with paragraph 5538(b) of the California Business and Professions Code, plans are to be prepared and stamped by a licensed architect.
B7. Structural calculations prepared under the direction of an architect, civil engineer or structural engineer shall be provided.
B8. A geotechnical and soils investigation report is required, the duties of the soils engineer of record, as indicated on the first sheet of the approved plans, shall include the following:
a) Observation of cleared areas and benches prepared to receive fill; b) Observation of the removal of all unsuitable soils and other materials; c) The approval of soils to be used as fill material;
d) Inspection of compaction and placement of fill;
e) The testing of compacted fills; and
01257.0005/1032934.1
f) The inspection of review of drainage devices.
B9. The owner shall retain the soils engineer preparing the Preliminary Soils and/or Geotechnical Investigation accepted by the City for observation of all grading, site preparation, and compaction testing. Observation and testing shall not be performed by another soils and/or geotechnical engineer unless the subsequent soils and/or geotechnical engineer submits and has accepted by the Public Works Department, a new Preliminary Soils and/or Geotechnical Investigation.
B10. A grading and drainage plan shall be approved by Engineering Division prior to issuance of the building permit. The grading and drainage plan shall indicate how all storm drainage including contributory drainage from adjacent lots is carried to the public way or drainage structure approved to receive storm water.
B11. Prior submitting grading plans to Engineering Department, LID review shall be completed and approved.
B12. Mechanical ventilation in accordance with Los Angeles County Building Code is required for the enclosed parking garage.
B13. Mezzanine design shall comply with Section 505 of the California Building Code. Each mezzanine area shall also comply with the applicable means of egress requirements of Chapter 10. The aggregate area of all mezzanines within the room shall be not greater than one-third of the floor area of that room or space in which they are located.
B14. Interior exit stairway shall discharge directly to the exterior of the building per Section 1023.3 and 1028 of California Building, unless Exceptions 1 and 2 under Section 1028 are satisfied.
B15. All State of California disability access regulations for accessibility shall be complied with.
B16. The retaining/garden wall design along the property line fronting Rosemead Boulevard shall be designed in such way to provide an accessible route from the public street sidewalks to the accessible building or facility entrance they serve per Section 11B206.2.1 pf the California Building Code.
B17. The number of accessible parking spaces provided on the site shall be calculated according to the number of spaces required for each parking facility per Section 11B208.2 of the California Building Code. Surface parking and underground parking garage are separate parking facilities. Accessible parking spaces shall only be permitted to be located in different parking facilities if Exception 2 under Section 11B-208.3.1 is satisfied.
B18. The number of accessible electrical vehicle charging station (EVCS) provided on the site shall be calculated according to the number required for each parking facility per Section 11B-228.3.2 of the California Building Code. Surface parking and underground parking garage are separate parking facilities. Ambulatory accessible EVCS shall be provided if more than 25 EVCS are provided per Table 11B-228.3.2.1.
B19. The following plan checks are required:
a. Electrical plan check
01257.0005/1032934.1
b. Mechanical plan check
c. Plumbing plan check
B20. Plumbing fixtures shall be provided as required by the Chapter 4 of the California Plumbing Code.
B21. Project shall comply with the CalGreen Non-Residential mandatory requirements.
B22. No form work or other construction materials will be permitted to encroach into adjacent property without written approval of the affected property owner.
B23. Demolition permit is required for any existing buildings which are to be demolished.
B24. Separate plan review and building permit is required for the proposed signs.
B25. All fire sprinkler hangers must be designed, and their location approved by an engineer or an architect. Calculations must be provided indicating that the hangers are designed to carry the tributary weight of the water filled pipe plus a 250-pound point load. A plan indication this information must be stamped by the engineer or the architect and submitted for approval prior to issuance of the building permit.
B26. Separate permit is required for Fire Sprinklers.
B27. The building permit will not be issued until the property has been surveyed and the boundaries marked by a land surveyor licensed by the State of California.
B28. Foundation inspection will not be made until the excavation has been surveyed and the depth of the footings has been determined to be in accordance with the approved plans by a land surveyor licensed by the State of California. THIS NOTE IS TO BE PLACED ON THE FOUNDATION PLAN IN A PROMINENT LOCATION.
B29. Foundation inspection will not be made until setback on all sides of the proposed building has been surveyed and the location of the footings has been determined to be in accordance with the approved plans by a land surveyor licensed by the State of California. THIS NOTE IS TO BE PLACED ON THE FOUNDATION PLAN IN A PROMINENT LOCATION.
B30. Prior to the issuance of building permit, a written consent shall be obtained from the current easement holder(s) for any proposed development encroaching into existing easement(s).
B31. City records indicate the proposed site is a combination of lots under common ownership.
A parcel merger by document shall be processed prior to issuance of the building permit.
B32. Proposed lot line adjustment involving another adjacent parcel shall be executed in such way that the adjusted fire separation distance to any existing buildings as a result shall not impose additional fire-resistance rating requirements to their existing exterior wall or openings in accordance with the current building code requirements.
B33. Building permits shall not be issued until lots merger have been processed to the satisfaction of the Building Official.
01257.0005/1032934.1
Los Angeles County Fire Department Conditions
1. Submitted plans shall correspond with the plans approved by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Fire Prevention Division Land Development Unit.
County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Conditions
1. Installation of security cameras and building lights with motion sensors shall be placed around the proposed development where feasible to reduce opportunities of criminal activities. Cameras and lighting shall be placed in such a way where law enforcement can adequately identify vehicle license plates upon entry/exit to the site.
2. Height of hedge-type plants shall be limited to allow visibility from the street.
Landscaping shall not block building addresses from street patrol car line of sight.
3. Provide numerical addresses in a font size on the corner of the building that can be easily viewed and read from the street.
4. During construction of the project emergency access shall be maintained at all times.
SECTION 5: Exhibit “A” hereto is incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 6: Any interested party may appeal this decision to the City Council pursuant to Section 17.03.060 of the South El Monte Municipal Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of November 2024. _____________________________
Chairman
ATTEST:
________________________________________________
________________________________
Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE )
I, Renee Reyes, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of South El Monte, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 24-09 was duly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South El Monte at a regular meeting of said Commission held on the 19th day of November 2024.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: ____________________________________
Secretary
EXHIBIT B
7554-004acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper
October 30, 2024
Via Email and Overnight Mail
Guillermo Arreola, Director
Community Development Department
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733
Email: [email protected]
Via Email Only
Gerardo Marquez, Planning Manager
Email: [email protected]
Re: Preliminary Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse
Development Project (SCH No. 2024100046)
Dear Mr. Arreola and Ms. Marquez:
We are writing on behalf of Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (“CREED LA”) to provide preliminary comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared by the City of South El Monte (“City”) for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (SCH No. 2024100046) (“Project”), proposed by Tait & Associates, Inc. (“Applicant”).
The Project would construct an approximately 156,877 square foot (“SF”) concrete tilt-up warehouse and 13 dock doors. Of the 156,877 SF, the Project would have 113,703 SF of warehouse space, 7,879 SF of retail use, 20,305 SF of accessory warehouse office use, and 14,990 SF of warehouse storage. The Project site is located at 2200, 2212, 2218, and 2226 Rosemead Boulevard in the northwestern portion of the City of South El Monte, Los Angeles County, California. The approximately 5.14-acre project site includes four parcels (Assessor Parcel Numbers 8102-039-029, 8102-039-030, 8102-039-031, and 8102-039-035).
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
We reviewed the IS/MND with the assistance of transportation expert Norm Marshall.1 The City must separately respond to these technical comments.
Based upon our review of the IS/MND and supporting documentation, the IS/MND’s project description is inaccurate, preventing meaningful review of the Project’s impacts. Further, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project would have potentially significant public health, air quality, energy, GHG emissions, transportation, noise, and public utilities impacts that are not adequately mitigated by the mitigation proposed in the IS/MND. The City cannot approve the Project until the errors in the IS/MND are remedied by preparing an environmental impact report (“EIR”) which fully discloses and mitigates the Project’s potentially significant impacts.
We reserve the right to supplement these comments at later proceedings and hearings related to the Project.2
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CREED LA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations formed to ensure that the construction of major urban projects in the Los Angeles region proceeds in a manner that minimizes public and worker health and safety risks, avoids or mitigates environmental and public service impacts, and fosters long-term sustainable construction and development opportunities. The association includes South El Monte residents Alejando Ayala and Jose Francis, the Sheet Metal Workers Local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11, Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16, and District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of South El Monte and Los Angeles County.
Individual members of CREED LA live in the City of South El Monte, and work, recreate, and raise their families in the City and surrounding communities.
Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health, and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist on site.
1 Mr. Marshall’s comments and curricula vitae and are attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Marshall Comments”). 2 Gov. Code § 65009(b); PRC § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (“Bakersfield”) (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
CREED LA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.
Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.
CREED LA supports the development of commercial, mixed use, and medical office projects where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts on public health, climate change, and the environment. These projects should avoid adverse impacts to air quality, public health, climate change, noise, and traffic, and must incorporate all feasible mitigation to ensure that any remaining adverse impacts are reduced to the maximum extent feasible.
Only by maintaining the highest standards can commercial development truly be sustainable.
I. THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INADEQUATE
The IS/MND does not meet CEQA’s requirements because it fails to include an accurate and complete Project description, rendering the entire analysis inadequate. California courts have repeatedly held that “an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.”3 CEQA requires that a project be described with enough particularity that its impacts can be assessed.4 Without a complete project description, the environmental analysis under CEQA is impermissibly limited, thus minimizing the project’s impacts and undermining meaningful public review.5 Accordingly, a lead agency may not hide behind its failure to obtain a complete and accurate project description.6
CEQA Guidelines section 15378 defines “project” to mean “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.”7 “The term “project” refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental 3 Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1, 17; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (“CBE v. Richmond”) (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 85– 89; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (3d Dist. 1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193. 4 14 CCR § 15124; see, Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376, 192-193. 5 Id.
6 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (“Sundstrom”) (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311. 7 CEQA Guidelines § 15378.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
agencies. The term project does not mean each separate governmental approval.”8 Courts have explained that a complete description of a project must “address not only the immediate environmental consequences of going forward with the project, but also all “reasonably foreseeable consequence[s] of the initial project.”9 “If a[n]…EIR…does not adequately apprise all interested parties of the true scope of the project for intelligent weighing of the environmental consequences of the project, informed decision-making cannot occur under CEQA and the final EIR is inadequate as a matter of law.”10
A. The IS/MND Fails to Analyze Reasonably Foreseeable
Warehouse Uses
The MND explains that the Project is proposed as a speculative warehouse without specific end uses or tenants,11 yet the IS/MND fails to describe or analyze the Project’s reasonably foreseeable end uses, in violation of CEQA. The IS/MND explains that, of the Project’s 156,877 SF, the Project would have 113,703 SF of warehouse space, 7,879 SF of retail use, 20,305 SF of accessory warehouse office use, and 14,990 SF of warehouse storage.12 However, the IS/MND states that “the retail and warehouse end users are unknown at this time.”13 In the absence of more specific information or restrictions on the types of retail and warehouse uses that will occur after Project buildout, the City has a duty to analyze the impacts of all reasonably foreseeable uses of the Project site.14 Instead, the IS/MND limits its analysis to the least intensive categories of warehouse use, thereby omitting an analysis of impacts from common warehouse uses that would result in more severe air quality, transportation, energy and noise impacts.
Transportation expert Norm Marshall explains that warehouse trip generation rates and air quality impacts vary greatly by type of warehouse.15 In order to determine the trips generated by the proposed Project, the IS/MND utilizes statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) Trip Generation Manual for the proposed Project’s land uses.16 The IS/MND 8 Id., § 15378(c).
9 Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 398 (emphasis added); see also Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 449-50. 10 Riverwatch v. Olivenhain Municipal Water Dist. (2009) 170 Cal. App. 4th 1186, 1201. 11 IS/MND, pg. 5. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 311.
15 Marshall Comments, pg. 2.
16 IS/MND, Appendix A, Table 2, PDF pg. 5; Appendix F, pg. 18.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
characterizes this Project as ITE land use code 150 (Warehousing).17 Mr. Marshall explains that this land use code is just one of many land use codes potentially applicable to the Project, and does not reflect all reasonably foreseeable uses of the Project.18 The figure below shows other warehousing land use codes and compares trips generated by each land use.19
The IS/MND lacks evidence to support the City’s assumption that the other warehouse land use codes shown above would be inapplicable to the Project. Rather, it the opposite. The IS/MND lacks sufficient information about the Project’s end uses and configuration for the public and decisionmakers to exclude any of these end uses from its impact analysis. For example, the IS/MND states that “[t]he Project does not propose refrigeration as part of the warehouse operations,” but the IS/MND does not identify any conditions of approval or mitigation measures preventing cold storage uses. Cold storage is therefore a reasonably foreseeable use of the Project site. Similarly, there is no restriction prohibiting subsequent parcel hub or fulfillment center uses. The Project could therefore be used as a parcel hub 17 Id.
18 Marshall Comments, pg. 4.
19 Id. at 2.
1.40 1.71 1.81
2.12 4.63
6.44 1.71
Transload and
Short-Term
Storage
Warehouse
Warehousing Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Non-Sort
Cold Storage
Warehouse
Parcel Hub
Warehouse
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Sort
Rate Used in
DEIR
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
or fulfillment center warehouse – two highly common warehouse uses by large warehouse distributors such as Amazon, Walmart, and grocery chains – which would result in more intensive land uses and impacts than the “Warehouse” category analyzed in the IS/MND. Since the Project’s future uses are broadly described as warehouse and retail, CEQA requires the City to analyze and mitigate the impacts associated with all reasonably foreseeable warehouse and retail uses, including high-intensity uses like those outlined by Mr. Marshall.
Courts have held in situations such as this that “the identity of a tenant is irrelevant to CEQA review.”20 The court in Maintain Our Desert Environment v.
Town of Apple Valley explained that “land use entitlements such as conditional use permits and development approvals run with the land and do not belong to the permittee…. had [the developer] developed the Project and then held it out for sale to any interested buyer, no additional CEQA review would have been necessary for the new owner so long as the use was consistent with that that had already been approved.”21 Here, the project analyzed in the IS/MND is a Conditional Use Permit and Lot Merger to develop an 156,877 sf warehouse, which could be used for many potential warehousing end uses. Because the IS/MND fails to analyze the full range of uses that would be authorized under these entitlements, the IS/MND’s project description is inadequate.
The defects in the project description affect the IS/MND’s environmental impacts, as different types of warehousing have differing severities of environmental impacts. For example, Mr. Marshall explains that the land use code selected by the IS/MND would underestimate the number of car and truck trips generated by the Project. As shown above, the IS/MND applies a rate of 1.71 daily trips per 1000 sq. ft. of warehouse.22 The daily trips would be significantly higher if the Project includes cold storage uses or is developed as a parcel hub or fulfillment center. Mr. Marshall explains that whereas the ITE Warehouse category used in the IS/MND results in an estimated 89 daily truck trips, the Cold Storage Warehouse rate is estimated to generate daily 111.6 truck trips.23 By underestimating the overall trips generated by the Project, the IS/MND underestimates the Project’s health risk, air quality, GHG, and VMT impacts.
20 Am. Canyon Cmty. United for Responsible Growth v. City of Am. Canyon (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 1062, 1074 (citing Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 430, 443–449)). 21 Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 444. 22 Marshall Comments, pg. 2. 23 Marshall Comments, pg. 3.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
The IS/MND’s assumption that the Project will include no cold storage uses results in underestimation of health risk, air quality, energy, GHG, and noise impacts. Cold storage generates more trips per square foot and has higher energy impacts due to the low temperatures required by the facility’s transport refrigeration units (“TRUs”) and on-site storage. TRUs are refrigeration systems powered by integral diesel engines.24 The refrigeration systems are used to control the environment of temperature-sensitive products transported in insulated trucks, trailers, shipping containers, or railcars. The California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) states that TRUs emit diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), fine particulate matter (“PM2.5”), oxides of nitrogen (“NOx”), and GHGs while in transit and during stationary operation at refrigerated warehouses or distribution centers, grocery stores, seaport facilities, intermodal railyards, and other locations of operation.
CARB explains that communities near facilities where TRUs operate bear a disproportionate health burden:
PM2.5 pollution contributes to more fatalities than other air pollutants and can lodge deep in the lungs or pass through the lungs to enter the blood stream and affect the heart, brain, and other organs. Adverse health effects from long-term exposure to PM2.5 pollution include increased risk of heart attacks and heart disease, impaired lung development in children, the development and exacerbation of asthma, and premature death. NOx is a precursor to ozone, which can cause irritation and damage lung tissue, worsen asthma and chronic illnesses including obstructive pulmonary disease and reduce lung function.25
CARB also explains that TRUs’ emissions of GHGs contribute towards climate change,26 and that TRUs generate noise impacts: “TRU operations produce noise that can be problematic when deliveries that often occur late evening or early morning are near residential neighborhoods, hotels, hospitals, and elder care facilities… One study conducted by LSA Associates found that a diesel-powered TRU operating at high idle produces an A-weighted decibel (dBA) noise rating of 104 dBA, while a diesel truck at idle produces a noise rating of 96 dBA.”27 In the California Attorney General’s (“AG”) guidance for warehouse projects, the AG recommends that, if the agency intends to prohibit cold storage, unless a developer adopts mitigation measures limiting cold storage impacts, the developer 24 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 1, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
10/CARB%202022%20TRU%20Technology%20Assessment%2010-14-22.pdf. 25 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 10. 26 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 10. 27 California Air Resources Board, 2022 TRU Technology Assessment, pg. 17-18.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
should record a covenant on the title of the underlying property to ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space.28 No such mitigation or land use covenants are described in the IS/MND. If the City intends to prohibit cold storage during Project operations, the City should include such title restrictions for this Project. Alternatively, the City must prepare an EIR that analyzes and mitigates impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable cold storage uses and all other reasonably foreseeable intensive warehousing uses at the Project site.
B. The IS/MND Is Unclear Regarding the Project’s Hours of Operation
The IS/MND is internally inconsistent regarding whether truck movement, loading, and unloading activities would be authorized between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The IS/MND states:
The retail and warehouse end users are unknown at this time. The hours of operation would be determined by the lessee; however, at this time, the hours are proposed to be seven days a week and operate 24 hours a day. However, all on-site truck movement and loading and unloading activities at the proposed loading docks, which are located behind electronic gates, would be prohibited from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.29
This statement is contradicted by Mitigation Measure (“MM”) NOI-1, which states that the nighttime prohibition of onsite truck activities is optional:
Prior to issuance of any demolition or grading permit, the City of South El Monte Public Works Department shall verify that the Project plans and specifications include provisions that either: (1) require the installation of a 10-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site; or (2) prohibit truck movement and loading and unloading between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.30
28 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Updated September 2022), pg. 9, available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf (“Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the underlying property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space, constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and requiring truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs when at loading docks.”). 29 IS/MND, pg. 5; see pg. 6 (“As previously noted, the gates would be closed between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.”).
30 IS/MND, pg. 97.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
The IS/MND is internally inconsistent because it states that truck movement, loading, and unloading would be prohibited from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM31 while also stating that such activities would be authorized if a masonry wall is constructed. Clarity on whether nighttime truck activities are proposed by the Project is necessary because the noise study shows that nighttime operations would result in significant noise impacts unless mitigation is adopted.32 C. Use of Back-Up Generators is a Reasonably Foreseeable Consequence of the Project that the IS/MND Fails to Describe The IS/MND fails to disclose that the Project would include back-up generators in its discussion of the Project’s air quality and health risk impacts. The IS/MND’s CalEEMod analysis of criteria air pollutants fails to include emissions from backup generators,33 and the IS/MND’s qualitative discussion of health risk impacts fails to disclose use of back-up generators.34 The use of backup generators is a reasonably foreseeable activity during Project operation due to the prevalence of power safety shutoffs, extreme heat events, and other emergencies which lead to temporary losses of power.
In East Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland,35 the Court of Appeal upheld an EIR’s analysis of emissions from backup generators. The EIR’s analysis assumed that generators would operate for 50 hours of testing and maintenance annually, while allocating no time for actual emergency use. In discussing the lead agency’s duty to analyze backup generator emissions, the Court stated that “if the annual need for emergency generator use is reasonably foreseeable, the EIR was not entitled to disregard such use merely because it would occur at unpredictable times.”36 The Court explained that use of a generator was reasonably foreseeable because, “[a]s noted in the EIR, some parts of the Bay Area are subject to predictable, sustained power outages undertaken to reduce the risk of fire.”37 Thus, “[t]he EIR was required to make neither a generally applicable nor a worst-case assumption; rather it was required to make a reasonable estimate of likely annual use of the generators at the project site.”38
31 IS/MND, pg. 5.
32 IS/MND, Appendix E, pg. iii, iv.
33 IS/MND, Appendix A, PDF pg. 160.
34 IS/MND, pg. 40-41; Appendix A, pg. 56.
35 (2023) 889 Cal. App. 5th 1226.
36 Id. at 1252.
37 Id. at 1253.
38 Id.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
Here, as in East Oakland Stadium Alliance, backup generator emissions are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project due to increasingly common Public Safety Power Shutoff (“PSPS”) events and extreme heat events (“EHE”).
EHEs are defined as periods where in the temperatures throughout California exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit.39 From January 2019 through December 2019, Southern California Edison reported 158 of their circuits underwent a PSP event.40 In Los Angeles County, two circuits had 4 PSPS events during that period, lasting an average of 35 to 38 hours. The total duration of the PSPS events lasted between 141 hours to 154 hours in 2019. According to the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) de-energization report41 in October 2019, there were almost 806 PSPS events that impacted almost 973,000 customers (~7.5% of households in California) of which ~854,000 of them were residential customers. The California Air Resources Board estimates that with 973,000 customers impacted by PSPS events in October 2019, approximately 125,000 back-up generators were used by customers to provide electricity during power outages.42 The widespread use of back-up generators to adapt to PSPS and EHE events suggests that back-up generators are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project. In addition to emergency use, any generators included in the Project would be operated for routine testing.
Generators can emit criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and toxic air contaminants. This equipment commonly relies on fuels such as natural gas or diesel,43 and thus can significantly impact public health through DPM emissions.44 39 Governor of California. 2021. Proclamation of a state of emergency. June 17, 2021. 40 SCAQMD. 2020. Proposed Amendment To Rules (PARS) 1110.2, 1470, and 1472. Dated December 10, 2020. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1110.2/1110- 2_1470_1472/par1110-2_1470_wgm_121020.pdf?sfvrsn=6. 41 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/deenergization/ as cited in CARB, 2020. Potential Emission Impact of Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS), Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage associated With Power Outage.
42 California Air Resources Board, Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage Associated with Power Outage (January 30, 2020), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/emissions-impact-generator-usage-during-psps. 43 SCAQMD, Fact Sheet on Emergency Backup Generators, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/emergency-generators (“Most of the existing emergency backup generators use diesel as fuel”).
44 California Air Resources Board, Emission Impact: Additional Generator Usage Associated with Power Outage (January 30, 2020), available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/emissions-impact-generator-usage-during-psps (showing that generators commonly rely on gasoline or diesel, and that use of generators during power outages results in excess emissions); California Air Resources Board, Use of Back-up Engines for Electricity Generation During Public Safety Power Shutoff Events (October 25, 2019), available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/use-back-engines-electricity-generation-during-publicsafety-power-shutoff (“When electric utilities de-energize their electric lines, the demand for back-up
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
This equipment can emit significant amounts of NOx, sulfur dioxides (“SO2”), particulate matter (“PM10”), carbon dioxide (“CO2”), carbon monoxide (“CO”), volatile organic compounds (“VOC”), particulate matter less than 10 microns (“PM10”), PM less than 2.5 microns (“PM2.5”), and air toxins such as DPM.45 the IS/MND’s omission of an impact analysis for an onsite generator system thus results in an underestimation of the Project’s air quality, greenhouse gas, and health risk impacts.46
II. THE CITY MUST PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT TO COMPLY WITH CEQA
CEQA requires that lead agencies analyze any project with potentially significant environmental impacts in an EIR.47 “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR protects not only the environment, but also informed self-government.”48 The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.”49 power increases. This demand for reliable back-up power has health impacts of its own. Of particular concern are health effects related to emissions from diesel back-up engines. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant, composed of carbon particles and numerous organic compounds, including over forty known cancer-causing organic substances. The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs and make them more susceptible to injury.
Much of the back-up power produced during PSPS events is expected to come from engines regulated by CARB and California’s 35 air pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts)”).
45 University of California, Riverside Bourns College of Engineering—Center for Environmental Research and Technology, Air Quality Implications Of Backup Generators In California, (March 2005), pg. 8, available at
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=84c8463118e4813a117db3d768151 a8622c4bf6b; South Coast AQMD, Fact Sheet on Emergency Backup Generators (“Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) from diesel-fired emergency engines are 200 to 600 times greater, per unit of electricity produced, than new or controlled existing central power plants fired on natural gas.
Diesel-fired engines also produce significantly greater amounts of fine particulates and toxics emissions compared to natural gas fired equipment.”), available at http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits/emergency-generators#Fact2. 46 Clark Comments, pg. 5. 47 See Pub. Resources Code, § 21000; CEQA Guidelines, § 15002. 48 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (“Goleta Valley”) (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564, internal citations omitted.
49 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
CEQA’s purpose and goals must be met through the preparation of an EIR, except in certain limited circumstances.50 CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the “fair argument” standard. Under that standard, a lead agency “shall” prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.51
In contrast, a mitigated negative declaration may be prepared only when, after preparing an initial study, a lead agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, but:
(1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.52
Courts have held that if “no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.”53 The fair argument standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR, rather than through issuance of a negative declaration.54 An agency’s decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary.55
50 See Pub. Resources Code, § 21100
51 Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21080, subd. (d), 21082.2, subd. (d); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002, subd. (k)(3), 15064, subds. (f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (“Laurel Heights II”) (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150- 151; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (“Quail Botanical”) (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1601- 1602. 52 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.5 (emphasis added). 53 See, e.g., Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320.
54 Citizens Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754 55 Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th, 1307, 1318; see also Friends of B Street v.
City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002 (“Friends of B Street”) (“If there was substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an EIR and adopt a
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
“Substantial evidence” required to support a fair argument is defined as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.”56 According to the CEQA Guidelines, when determining whether an EIR is required, the lead agency is required to apply the principles set forth in Section 15064, subdivision (f):
[I]n marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR.57
Furthermore, CEQA documents, including EIRs and MNDs, must mitigate significant impacts through measures that are “fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.”58 Deferring formulation of mitigation measures to post-approval studies is generally impermissible.59 Mitigation measures adopted after Project approval deny the public the opportunity to comment on the Project as modified to mitigate impacts.60 If identification of specific mitigation measures is impractical until a later stage in the Project, specific performance criteria must be articulated and further approvals must be made contingent upon meeting these performance criteria.61 Courts have held that simply requiring a project applicant to obtain a future report and then comply with the report’s recommendations is insufficient to meet the standard for properly deferred mitigation.62
With respect to this Project, the IS/MND fails to satisfy the basic purposes of CEQA. The IS/MND fails to adequately disclose, investigate, and analyze the Project’s potentially significant impacts, and fails to provide substantial evidence to conclude that impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level. Because the negative declaration, because it could be ‘fairly argued’ that the project might have a significant environmental impact”).
56 CEQA Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a).
57 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.5.
58 CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(2).
59 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308-309; Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.
60 Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1393; Quail Botanical, supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at pg. 1604, fn. 5.
61 Id.
62 Id.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
IS/MND lacks basic information regarding the Project’s potentially significant impacts, the IS/MND’s conclusion that the Project will have a less than significant impact on the environment is unsupported.63 Moreover, substantial evidence shows that the Project may result in potentially significant impacts that are not reduced to less than significant levels with the mitigation measures included in the IS/MND.
Therefore, a fair argument can be made that the Project may cause significant impacts requiring the preparation of an EIR.
A. The IS/MND Fails to Disclose and Mitigate Significant Health Risk Impacts
Project construction and operation would generate DPM, a type of toxic air contaminant (“TAC”).64 DPM would be emitted during construction by heavy equipment and diesel trucks, and likely during operations by a diesel backup generator or other diesel-fueled stationary equipment.65 DPM has been linked to a range of serious health problems including an increase in respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death. The Project’s emissions of DPM would impact sensitive receptors near the Project site, including residents of a mobile home park directly south of the Project site. The IS/MND fails to analyze and mitigate health risk impacts from construction activities or evaluate the combined lifetime risk of exposure to both the Project’s construction and operational TAC emissions.
CEQA requires analysis of human health impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(4) provides that the City is required to find a project will have a significant impact on the environment and prepare an EIR if the environmental effects of a project will cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings.66 The Supreme Court has also explained that CEQA requires the lead agency to disclose the health consequences that result from exposure to a project’s air emissions.67 Courts have held that an environmental review document must disclose a project’s potential health risks to a degree of specificity that would allow the public to make the correlation between the project’s impacts and adverse effects to human health.68 63 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.5.
64 SCAQMD, Classification of Diesel PM as a Carcinogen, https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/compliance/toxic-hot-spots-ab-2588/iws-facilities/dice/dice-b2; OEHHA, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust (May 21, 2001),
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. 65 Id. 66 PRC § 21083(b)(3), (d). 67 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516, 523. 68 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
In Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, the court found that the EIR’s description of health risks were insufficient and that after reading them, “the public would have no idea of the health consequences that result when more pollutants are added to a nonattainment basin.”69 Likewise, in Sierra Club, the California Supreme Court held that the EIR’s discussion of health impacts associated with exposure to the named pollutants was too general and the failure of the EIR to indicate the concentrations at which each pollutant would trigger the identified symptoms rendered the report inadequate.70 Some connection between air quality impacts and their direct, adverse effects on human health must be made. As the Court explained, “a sufficient discussion of significant impacts requires not merely a determination of whether an impact is significant, but some effort to explain the nature and magnitude of the impact.”71 CEQA mandates discussion, supported by substantial evidence, of the nature and magnitude of impacts of air pollution on public health.72
For development projects like this one, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (“OEHHA”) risk assessment guidelines also recommend a formal health risk analysis (“HRA”) for short-term construction exposures to TACs lasting longer than 2 months and exposures from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project.73 In an HRA, lead agencies must first quantify the concentration released into the environment at each of the sensitive receptor locations through air dispersion modeling, calculate the dose of each TAC at that location, and quantify the cancer risk and hazard index for each of the chemicals of concern.74 Following that analysis, then the City can make a determination of the relative significance of the emissions. Here, the IS/MND states that exposure to TACs would be significant if it would result in an incremental cancer risk of 10 in one million or greater.75 Here, the IS/MND fails to quantify the magnitude of TACs that would be emitted by the Project’s operations and construction. The IS/MND also fails to 69 Id. at 1220.
70 Sierra Club, at 521.
71 Id. at 519, citing Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 514–515.
72 Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at 518–522. 73 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), Risk Assessment Guidelines:
Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015 (OEHHA 2015), Section 8.2.10: Cancer Risk Evaluation of Short Term Projects, pp. 8-17/18; https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf; https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0. 74 Id. 75 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. 25.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
quantify sensitive receptors’ exposure to TACs and whether significance thresholds would be exceeded. As such, the MND fails to adequately connect the Project’s emissions and their direct, adverse effects on human health.76 The IS/MND reasons that health risks from exposure to TACs emitted during operations would be less than significant because “[t]he most recent Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Land Use Projects prepared by CAPCOA (July 2009) recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).”77 The IS/MND states that because the Project is estimated to generate 89 truck trips a day, “significant TAC impacts from the project-related operational DPM sources are not anticipated and no significant long-term operations-related TAC impacts from the proposed project to nearby sensitive receptors would occur.”78
This reasoning is not supported by substantial evidence. First, as explained by Mr. Marshall, the Project could foreseeably generate more than 89 daily truck trips, depending on the warehouse’s ultimate uses. As shown herein, the 89-truck trip estimate assumes that the Project would be used for a relatively low intensity warehousing use (ITE 150). Mr. Marshall shows that the Project’s warehouse component could result in more than 100 daily truck trips if different ITE land use codes are applied.79 And because there is no restriction on cold storage at the Project site, the Project may generate over 40 TRUs. Thus, the Project’s criteria pollutant, TAC, and GHG emissions may be substantially higher than assumed in the IS/MND.
Second, the IS/MND’s focus on daily truck trips ignores that the Project would foreseeably include other sources of TAC emissions. Emissions from a backup generator and fire pump would combine with truck trip emissions to result in potentially significant health risks to nearby sensitive receptors.
Third, the IS/MND fails to properly apply the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”) guidance cited in the IS/MND. CAPCOA’s siting guidance states:
76 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184. 77 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. 43.
78 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. 43.
79 Marshall Comments, pg. 2-3.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).
• Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.80
The IS/MND purports to follow the CAPCOA guidance, but fails to conduct the second half of the CAPCOA’s recommended analysis by failing to take into account existing distribution centers. As will be discussed in more detail below, the IS/MND fails to identify cumulative projects or otherwise characterize the Project’s combined effects with other industrial projects in the area. The IS/MD also fails to consider the location of the Project’s entry and exit points in relation to sensitive receptors. As shown below, the Project’s loading docks would be located near the southern border of the Project site.81 Trucks would access these loading docks via a driveway along the southern property line. Directly across the southern border of the Project site are mobile homes.
80 CAPCOA, Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, Table 2, Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Such As Residences, Schools, Daycare Centers, Playgrounds, or Medical Facilities, available at
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/glsdzpx3/capcoa_hra_lu_guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. 81 Excerpt of Figure 6, Site Plan, IS/MND, PDF pg. 24.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
By locating the loading docks and a driveway by the southern property line, emissions from truck idling and movement would be generated nearby residential sensitive receptors. Per the CAPCOA siting guidance, this Project’s configuration would result in heightened health risk impacts. The Project’s configuration is therefore a factor justifying preparation of an HRA pursuant to the guidance relied upon by the City.
Regarding exposure to construction TACs, the IS/MND states that “[g]iven the temporary and short-term construction schedule (approximately 12 months), the project would not result in a long-term (i.e., lifetime or 30-year) exposure as a result of project construction.”82 This reasoning ignores that OEHHA guidance explains that health risks from construction activities lasting for as little as two months can result in significant health risk impacts. The Project’s one-year construction schedule exceeds OEHHA’s two-month threshold for preparing an HRA. OEHHA’s guidance explains that exposure to TACs is a function of the breathing rate, the exposure frequency, and the concentration of a substance in the air.83 The exposure 82 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. 30.
83 OEHHA, Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, pg. 5-23.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
frequency and concentration of TACs near sensitive receptors increase the closer construction activities occur to sensitive receptors.84 Because emissions of TACs during construction would occur across the property line from residences, sensitive receptors’ exposure to TACs is potentially significant.
The IS/MND states that Project construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable Localized Significance Thresholds (“LSTs”).85 But analysis of LSTs does not address DPM and other TACs that would be emitted by the Project.86 LSTs are based on the number of pounds of emissions per day that can be generated by a project that would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts.
But LSTs only apply to four criteria pollutants: NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. LSTs do not apply to DPM and other TACs, which contain carcinogenic compounds not found in criteria pollutants, and thus do not disclose the magnitude of the Project’s health impacts from exposure to the Project’s air emissions. Thus, the IS/MND’s analysis of LSTs does not answer the question required by CEQA Appendix G as to whether the Project would “expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations”87 and is no substitute for the IS/MND’s failure to analyze health risk impacts from exposure to TACs.
The IS/MND thus fails to meet CEQA’s information and analytical requirements, and the Project’s health risk impacts remain potentially significant and unmitigated. These potentially significant impacts must be analyzed and mitigated in an EIR.
B. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Disclose, Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Cumulative Impacts
84 Id. at 1-3 (“The process by which Districts identify priority facilities for risk assessment involves consideration of potency, toxicity, quantity of emissions, and proximity to sensitive receptors such as hospitals, daycare centers, schools, work-sites, and residences.”). 85 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. iv.
86 SCAQMD, Localized Significance Thresholds, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds; SCAQMD, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (June 2003, revised June 2008), available at www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lstmethodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 87 CEQA Appendix G, III(d).
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
An EIR must evaluate a cumulative impact if the project’s incremental effect combined with the effects of other projects is “cumulatively considerable.”88 This determination is based on an assessment of the project’s incremental impacts “viewed in connection with the effects of past project, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”89 Proper cumulative impact analysis is vital because “the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.”90
1. The IS/MND’s Cumulative Air Emissions Analysis Does
Not Comply with CEQA or Attorney General Warehouse
Guidance
The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze the significance of the Project’s cumulative air quality emissions. The IS/MND asserts that, under South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) guidance, that a project would not have cumulatively-considerable impacts if its individual emissions of criteria air pollutant that fall below SCAQMD’s threshold for individual projects.91 Similarly, the IS/MND provides that projects’ health risk impacts that exceed the projectspecific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable, and vice versa.92
This reasoning contravenes CEQA because projects that do not have significant individual impacts may nonetheless create significant cumulative impacts.93 In addition, a proper cumulative impact analysis considers whether a project has a cumulatively considerable impact in the context of a particular existing cumulative impact.94
88 CEQA Guidelines § 15130(a).
89 Id., §§ 15065(a)(3), 15355(b).
90 Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114.
91 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. 41.
92 Id.
93 See Kings Cty. Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720. 94 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15065, subd. (a)(3). (“The project has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. ‘Cumulatively considerable’ means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”)
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
In People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, the Attorney General’s petition for writ of mandate challenged an MND that erroneously applied SCAQMD guidance in the same way as the instant IS/MND.95 The petition explained:
[T]he MND’s cumulative air quality impact analysis does not account for—or even acknowledge—the multitude of other warehouses near the Project.
Rather than consider the environmental setting within which the Project will be situated, the MND simply states that the Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions because the Project’s individual air quality impacts will be less than significant. The MND even applies this reasoning to its analysis of health impacts from localized emissions, despite making no attempt to determine or disclose the severity of the existing health impacts from localized emissions in the community.96 The Attorney General further explained that merely citing to SCAQMD guidance does not justify a failure to analyze a Project’s cumulative impacts:
The MND cites Appendix D of an August 2003 white paper published by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) entitled “White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution” (“2003 SCAQMD White Paper”). To the extent that the 2003 SCAQMD White Paper asserts that any project with less than significant individual air quality impacts also necessarily has less than significant cumulative air quality impacts, it is inconsistent with CEQA for at least the reasons stated above. Moreover, the 2003 SCAQMD White Paper lacks substantial evidence to support such a contention, and thus the MND’s reliance on it violates CEQA. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.7, subd. (c).) The MND further violated CEQA by failing to provide substantial evidence to support its reliance on the 2003 SCAQMD White Paper, Appendix D as “guidance.” (Ibid.) Finally, even if the MND’s reliance on the 2003 SCAQMD White Paper were proper and supported by substantial evidence, the MND did not consider other evidence—such as public comments and the existence of many other sources of pollution near the Project site—showing that the Project could have a 95 People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, Case No. CIVSB2121829, Petition for Writ of Mandate, available at https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/casedocuments/2021/20210723_docket-CIVSB2121829_petition-for-writ-of-mandate.pdf. 96 People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, Case No. CIVSB2121829, Petition for Writ of Mandate, pg. 9, paragraph 32.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
significant cumulative air quality impact. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064, subd. (b).) [emphasis added]97
The Attorney General’s litigation resulted in a settlement which requires compliance with an ordinance adopted on April 12, 2022, that establishes sustainability standards for warehouses in Fontana, including standards intended to address cumulative air quality impacts. For example, the standards include requirements that rooftop solar panels supply 100% of power for non-refrigerated portions of facilities with buildings over 400,000 square feet, trees in automobile parking areas, zero emission motorized operational equipment, other equipment electrification requirements, and solar-ready buildings roofs.98 The City of Fontana’s decision to suspend its erroneous reliance on SCAQMD’s drop-in-thebucket approach and to address the cumulative impacts of warehouse projects in the City as a component of its settlement with the Attorney General’s office reflects an approach consistent with CEQA. The Fontana settlement also demonstrates that there is feasible mitigation available to reduce cumulative air quality impacts from warehouse projects, in compliance with CEQA.
Here, the IS/MND’s analysis fails to account for health risks resulting from emissions of TACs from existing industrial development in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. The IS/MND acknowledges that there are multiple existing and proposed warehouses in the vicinity of the proposed Project site, but does not describe these projects or consider them in its analysis of the Project’s cumulative impacts.99 The IS/MND discloses the CalEnviroScreen scores for the census tract, which reflect the census tract’s pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state, but fails to account for this information in its cumulative impacts analysis. This census tract scores 78.4 for particulate matter and 91.6 for DPM.100 These are high scores that demonstrate that the Project’s emissions of air pollutants would contribute to cumulative impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.101 The IS/MND’s cumulative impacts analysis violates CEQA by failing to take this context into account.
97 People of the State of California v. City of Fontana, Case No. CIVSB2121829, Petition for Writ of Mandate, pg. 13, paragraph 49.
98 Id., Stipulation For Entry Of Final Judgment On Consent, available at https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2022/20220414_docketCIVSB2121605-CIVSB2121829_stipulation.pdf. 99 IS/MND, Appendix A, pg. 41 (“There are a number of cumulative projects in the project area that have not yet been built or are currently under construction”). 100 IS/MND, Appendix E, pg. PDF pg. 163-164.
101 Id. (The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.).
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
In addition to violating CEQA, the SCAQMD approach used in the IS/MND also directly conflicts with the recent Attorney General guidance document setting forth best practices for evaluating the environmental impacts of warehouse projects like this one under CEQA.102 With respect to cumulative air quality and GHG emissions analysis, the Attorney General’s guidance states that best practices include “[w]hen analyzing cumulative impacts, thoroughly considering the project’s incremental impact in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, even if the project’s individual impacts alone do not exceed the applicable significance threshold [emphasis added].”103 The IS/MND also fails to note that SCAQMD’s cumulative impacts significance thresholds, adopted in 2003, are being revised to reflect current conditions.104 The updates are statedly being prepared in response to recent CEQA cases such as People of the State of California v. City of Fontana.105 The updated cumulative impacts significance thresholds will reflect projects’ existing background MATES cancer risk and additional criteria such as whether the project would generate a high volume of diesel-fueled trucks.106
In sum, the IS/MND’s cumulative air quality impacts analysis does not comply with CEQA. The City must prepare an EIR that properly evaluates and mitigates such impacts.
C. The IS/MND Fails to Include Sufficient Investigation into Energy Conservation Measures
The IS/MND does not include sufficient investigation into energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for the Project. The IS/MND concludes that operational energy impacts of the Project would be less than significant because the buildings would be designed and constructed in accordance 102 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Updated September 2022), available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf . 103 Id., pg. 7. 104 See e.g., http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm-3_20230124.pdf?sfvrsn=6. 105 San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVSB2121829; SCAQMD Working Group Meeting # 4, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects (June 6, 2023) pg. 6 106 SCAQMD Working Group Meeting # 4, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects (June 6, 2023) https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/wgm4_20230602_final.pdf?sfvrsn=16; SCAQMD Working Group Meeting #5, Cumulative Impacts from Air Toxics for CEQA Projects (March 20, 2024) https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/documents/wgm-5-20240320-final.pdf?sfvrsn=20.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
with the State’s Title 24 guidelines and regulations.107 However, compliance with Title 24 regulations alone does not support a conclusion that energy impacts are less than significant, and the IS/MND does not sufficiently consider energy conservation measures like solar facilities, use of alternate fuel sources, or passive energy efficiency measures to ensure the Project’s energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. This lack of analysis violates CEQA.
CEQA requires an environmental document to discuss mitigation measures for significant environmental impacts, including “measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.”108 The CEQA Guidelines require discussion of energy conservation measures when relevant, and provide examples in Appendix F:109
1) Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed. 2) The potential of siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy, increase water conservation and reduce solid waste.
3) The potential for reducing peak energy demand.
4) Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems. 5) Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts.
Courts have rejected CEQA documents that fail to include adequate analysis investigation into energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for a project.110 In California Clean Energy Commission v. City of Woodland (“CCEC”),111 the Court of Appeal reviewed an EIR for a shopping center on undeveloped agricultural land. Similar to the IS/MND here, the EIR in CCEC concluded that, due to the proposed project’s compliance with Title 24 guidelines and regulations, the project would be expected to have a less-thansignificant impact regarding the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. But the lead agency’s EIR did not include discussion regarding the different renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for the project. The Court held “the City's EIRs failed to comply with the requirements of 107 IS/MND, pg. 50.
108 Pub. Resources Code, § 21100(b)(3); Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912, 930. 109 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15126.4(a)(1)(C) (stating “‘Energy conservation measures, as well as other appropriate mitigation measures, shall be discussed when relevant.”). 110 Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 CA4th 256; Spring Valley Lake Ass’n v.
City of Victorville (2016) 248 CA4th 91. 111 (2014) 225 CA4th 173.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
Appendix F to the Guidelines by not discussing or analyzing renewable energy options.”112 The lead agency argued that compliance with the Building Code sufficed to address energy impact concerns for the project.113 But the Court explained:
Although the Building Code addresses energy savings for components of a new commercial construction, it does not address many of the considerations required under Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines… These considerations include whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building's envelope. Here, a requirement that Gateway II comply with the Building Code does not, by itself, constitute an adequate assessment of mitigation measures that can be taken to address the energy impacts during construction and operation of the project.114
The Supreme Court of California agreed with the CCEC court’s decision in League to Save Lake Tahoe Mtn. Area Preservation Found. v County of Placer, holding that even projects that find a less-than-significant energy impact must “discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project.”115 In Save Lake Tahoe, the Court considered an EIR for a land use specific plan and rezoning to permit residential and commercial development and preserve forest land near Truckee and Lake Tahoe. The EIR did not consider whether it was feasible to power the project on 100 percent renewable electrical energy or some lesser percentage, nor evaluate strategies for reducing reliance on fossil fuels, increasing reliance on renewable resources, reducing peak loads, and reducing the impacts of relying on remote generation facilities. The lead agency reasoned that this analysis was not required because energy impacts would be less than significant. Citing CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2, subdivision (b) and the decision in CCEC, the Court held that when an EIR analyzes the project’s energy use to determine if it creates significant effects, it should discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project. The Court found that the EIR violated CEQA for not discussing whether the project could increase its reliance on renewable energy sources to meet its energy demand.
Here, the IS/MND lacks basic analysis of energy consumption measures in violation of CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. The IS/MND fails to analyze the feasibility of onsite solar facilities, such as rooftop, parking lot, or ground-level solar 112 Id. at 213.
113 Id. at 210, 211. 114 CECC (2014) 225 CA4th 173, 213. 115 (2022) 75 CA5th 63, 167–68.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
photovoltaics. This analysis must address considerations such as the technical and economic feasibility of installing solar facilities on the Project site, the potential size of the Project’s solar zone, and the potential magnitude of mitigation provided by installing solar facilities.
The IS/MND also fails to evaluate the extent to which mobile source energy consumption could be reduced during Project operations through electric vehicle charging infrastructure (above what is required by existing regulations).
The IS/MND’s discussion of construction energy conservation measures also violates CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. The IS/MND fails to evaluate the feasibility of utilizing existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
In sum, the IS/MND’s energy analysis fails adequately analyze measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy, and fails to meaningfully address Appendix F’s considerations of whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building's envelope.116 This analysis must be provided in an EIR.
D. The IS/MND Fails to Fully Mitigate the Project’s Significant VMT Impact
The IS/MND states that the Project is anticipated to generate 16.4 (actually
16.5)117 VMT per worker, which exceeds the City-established threshold of 15.83 VMT per worker.118 The IS/MND states that MM TRANS-1 would reduce the Project’s VMT impact to a less than significant level (i.e., 15.80 VMT per worker).119 MM TRANS-1 calls for implementation of a Commute Trip Reduction Program (which is measure T-5 in the CAPCOA Handbook).120
116 Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 CA4th 256, 264. 117 Mr. Marshall explained that IS/MND Appendix F correctly shows that the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) VMT Evaluation Tool shows that the project would result in 16.5 VMT per worker per day, but the number is incorrectly reported as 16.4 VMT per worker per day in the body of the MND. Marshall Comments, pg. 1.
118 IS/MND, pg. 104.
119 Id.
120 CAPCOA) publication Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers (Final Draft, December 2021).
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
Mr. Marshall explains that this measure would not reduce VMT impacts to a less-than-significant level.121 The CAPCOA Handbook states that Measure (T-5) can reduce employee commute VMT by up to 4.0%. However, the IS/MND’s reliance on the maximum 4.0% reduction is unsupported because Measure (T-5) would not apply to Project workers during night shifts, resulting in lower reductions.122 Moreover, even assuming the maximum reduction, Mr. Marshall shows that a 4.0% reduction reduces VMT to 15.84 per worker per day, which still exceeds the threshold value of 15.8.123 Therefore, VMT remains significant and unmitigated.
Additional mitigation must be proposed in an EIR to reduce the Project’s VMT to less than significant levels.
E. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate
Potentially Significant Noise Impacts
1. The IS/MND’s Noise Significance Thresholds Are
Unsupported by Substantial Evidence
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the Project would cause a significant noise impact if it would result in “[g]eneration 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.”124 The IS/MND violates this requirement by failing to correctly apply the noise standards in the municipal code.
The IS/MND states that “[c]onstruction noise is regulated within City of South El Monte Municipal Code Section 8.20.030(D).”125 Section 8.20.030(D) prohibits nighttime operation of construction equipment resulting in noise disturbances.126 The IS/MND incorrectly states that this is the only limitation applicable to construction noise, but Section 8.20.020 of the Municipal Code sets forth standards applying to all sources of noise:
121 Marshall Comments, pg. 4. 122 Id. 123 Id. 124 IS/MND, pg. 25. 125 IS/MND, Appendix E, pg. 29. 126 IS/MND, Appendix E, pg. 16 (“No person shall operate or cause or authorize the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM, or at any time on weekends or holidays, such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across the real property line of an adjacent or nearby property developed entirely or partially for residential use.”)
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased or occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed:
a. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; or
b. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus five dbA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour; or
c. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus ten dbA for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or
d. The exterior noise limit plus fifteen dbA for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
e. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus twenty dbA for any period of time.
The IS/MND states that these noise limits only apply to stationary noise,127 but this interpretation conflicts with the plain language of the code. Section
8.20.020 does not include language limiting its provisions to stationary noise, and Section 8.20.030(D) does not contain language stating that it is the only limit on construction noise. The code is properly read as imposing a prohibition on nighttime construction resulting in noise disturbances, as well as imposing limits on noise generated by daytime construction activities. Because the IS/MND fails to compare the Project’s construction noise impacts to the thresholds in Section 8.20.020, the IS/MND fails evaluate whether noise would exceed standards established in the local noise ordinance, as required by the CEQA Guidelines.
The IS/MND’s reliance on Section 8.20.030 as a significant threshold also fails to meet CEQA’s requirement that lead agencies analyze the increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project.”128 California courts have clearly held that “the lead agency should consider both the increase in noise level and the absolute noise level associated with a project”.129 The courts have held that reliance 127 Appendix E, pg. 30 (“[a]s shown above, the project is exempt from the stationary noise ordinance standards presented in Tables 5 and 6 as long as it is in compliance with the hours outlined in Section 83.20.030(D).”).
128 Id., Appendix E, pg. 30; Section 8.20.030(D).
129 Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 733; see King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 894 (citing Keep Our Mountains Quiet).
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
on a maximum noise level as the sole threshold of significance for noise impacts violates CEQA because it fails to consider whether the magnitude of changes in noise levels is significant.130 In Keep our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara,131 neighbors of a wedding venue sued over the County of Santa Clara’s failure to prepare an EIR for a proposed project to allow use permits for wedding and other party events at a residential property abutting an open space preserve.
Neighbors and their noise expert contended that previous events at the facility had caused significant noise impacts that reverberated in neighbors’ homes and disrupted the use and enjoyment of their property.132 Similar to the City’s thresholds in this case, the County’s EIR relied on the noise standards set forth in its noise ordinance as its thresholds for significant noise exposure from the project, deeming any increase to be insignificant so long as the absolute noise level did not exceed those standards.133 The Court examined a long line of CEQA cases which have uniformly held that conformity with land use regulations is not conclusive of whether or not a project has significant noise impacts134 in holding that the County’s reliance on the project’s compliance with noise regulations did not constitute substantial evidence supporting the County’s finding of no significant impacts.135
In King and Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern,136 the Court of Appeal cited Keep our Mountains Quiet and decisions cited therein when it rejected the use of a single “absolute noise level” threshold of significance (construction and operational noise impacts were only deemed significant if they exceeded 65 dBA CNEL) on the grounds that the sole use of such a threshold fails to consider the magnitude or severity of increases in noise levels attributable to the project in different environments. The Court explained the lead agency failed to “refer to evidence showing why the magnitude of an increase was irrelevant in determining the significance of a change in noise.”137
130 King & Gardiner Farms, LLC, 45 Cal.App.5th at 865.
131 Keep our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714. 132 Id. at 724.
133 Id. at 732.
134 Id., citing Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1338; Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 881–882; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1416 (project’s effects can be significant even if “they are not greater than those deemed acceptable in a general plan”); Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 354, (“CEQA nowhere calls for evaluation of the impacts of a proposed project on an existing general plan”).
135 Id. at 732-734; see also King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 893, as modified on denial of rehearing (Mar. 20, 2020). 136 King and Gardiner Farms, LLC, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th 814. 137 Id. at 894.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
Here, the IS/MND fails to meet CEQA’s requirement that the lead agency consider the increase in noise level. As in King and Gardiner Farms, the IS/MND fails to refer to any evidence showing why the increase in noise over ambient levels is irrelevant to establishing the significance of a noise impact. Per Keep our Mountains Quiet, conformity with the City’s noise ordinance and general plan is not conclusive of whether a project has significant noise impacts. An EIR must be prepared that applies legally adequate noise thresholds.
2. The Project’s Construction Noise Would Be Potentially Significant
The Project’s construction activities would generate noise in excess of standards in Section 8.20.020 of the Municipal Code, as well as result in a significant increase over ambient levels. In Table 12, shown below, the IS/MND applies the standards of Section 8.20.020 to the receptor land uses near the Project site.138
According to the table above, the daytime noise standard for the mobile home park (Receptor #4 in the table above) is 55 dBA. The table shows that the existing 138 IS/MND, Appendix E, pg. 36.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
ambient noise level is 54 dBA. Table 11 in Appendix E of the IS/MND shows the noise levels generated by the Project’s construction.139 As shown above, the noise levels generated by the Project’s construction would exceed the 55 dBA threshold for the mobile home park. These exceedances would occur during each phase of the Project’s construction. These exceedances of the standards in Section 8.20.020 are significant impacts requiring disclosure and mitigation in an EIR.
The noise levels shown in Table 11 would also result in a significant increase over ambient levels. The 54 dBA existing ambient would be exceeded by approximately 20 dBA during demolition, grading, and building construction, 14 dBA during paving, and 7 dBA during architectural coating. Increases of this magnitude would be significant impacts, as the FTA Manual states that “[o]n average, each A-weighted sound level increase of 10 dB corresponds to an 139 Id. at 35.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
approximate doubling of subjective loudness.”140 Further, Figure 3-6 of the FTA Manual presents data from case studies showing that reactions to increases in noise between 5 to 10 dBA above existing levels vary from “widespread complaints” to “threats of legal action.”141 Increases in noise of 20 dBA over existing levels typically results in “vigorous action.” An EIR must be prepared that acknowledges and mitigates this significant noise increase.
F. The Project May Result in Potentially Significant Public Utilities Impacts.
Under CEQA, a public utilities impact is considered significant if a project would “[r]equire 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.”142 The IS/MND states that no off-site water line construction or upsizing of either the existing 6-inch or 10-inch water mains in Rosemead Boulevard and Rush Street would be required to provide water or fire protection service to the Project.143 But this conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence because the IS/MND fails to analyze the Project’s fire flow requirement or the ability of existing infrastructure to supply adequate fire flow.
Without an evaluation of these factors, this public utility impact remains unanalyzed and potentially significant.
III. CONCLUSION
The City lacks substantial evidence to find that the Project will have less than significant impacts. Moreover, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project’s impacts may be significant and unmitigated. Due to the IS/MND’s deficiencies, the City cannot conclude that the Project’s impacts have been mitigated to a less than significant level.
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR be prepared if there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that any aspect of a project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of 140 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise And Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, pg. 206, available at
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. 141 Id. at 18, Figure 3-6 (Community Reaction to New Noise, Relative to Existing Noise in a Residential Urban Environment) 142 IS/MND, pg. 50.
143 IS/MND, pg. 7, 112.
October 30, 2024
7554-004acp
printed on recycled paper
whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial.144 As discussed in detail above, there is a fair argument based on substantial evidence that the Project would result in significant adverse impacts not identified in the IS/MND.
We urge the City to fulfill its responsibilities under CEQA by withdrawing the IS/MND and preparing an EIR to address the issues raised in this preliminary comment letter. This is the only way the City and the public can ensure the Project’s significant environmental impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels.
Sincerely,
Aidan P. Marshall
Attachment
APM:acp
144 CEQA Guidelines § 15063(b)(1).
EXHIBIT C
7554-006acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
agraf @adamsbroadwell.com
printed on recycled paper
November 18, 2024
VIA E-Mail and Overnight Mail
Planning Commission
c/o Renee Reyes
Community Development Department
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, CA 91733
[email protected]
VIA E-Mail Only
Guillermo Arreola, Director
[email protected]
Gerardo Marquez, Planning Manager
[email protected]
Re: Agenda Item No. 7.c.: 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project
Dear Commissioners, Ms. Reyes, Mr. Arreola, and Mr. Marquez:
We write on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (“CREED LA”) regarding Agenda Item No. 7.c., which concerns the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) (SCH No. 2024100046),1 a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), and proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP No. 21-13) for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (“Project”) proposed by Tait & Associates, Inc. (“Applicant”).
The City of South El Monte (“City”) Community Development Department Staff (“Staff”) recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 24- 09, adopt the MND and MMRP, and approve the CUP for a new 156,877 square foot warehousing building.2 Staff’s recommendation is premature and unsupported by 1 City of South El Monte, 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Oct. 2024) (hereinafter “IS/MND”). 2 City of South El Monte, Planning Commission Agenda Report: Agenda Item No. 7.c. re: Approval of Resolution No. 24-09 (Nov. 19, 2024) (“Staff Report”) p. 5, available at
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
the record because the City has not yet complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). CEQA requires the City to prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) when there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that a project has potentially significant environmental or public health impacts that are not fully mitigated by a proposed MND, and where the MND does not contain the information required by law.
In this case, the IS/MND lacks information and analysis required by CEQA, and there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the proposed Project will result in potentially significant impacts on public health, air quality, greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, transportation, noise, and public utilities which are not adequately disclosed and mitigated by the measures proposed in the IS/MND. The City consultant’s responses to CREED LA’s comments included in the Staff Report (“Responses”) ignore or fail to resolve most of these issues, and do not provide substantial evidence supporting Project approval.
Consequently, the Planning Commission cannot adopt the MND or approve the Project’s entitlements at this time.
In its Responses, the City asserts that the comments received on the IS/MND do not raise substantive environmental issues that would necessitate recirculation of the MND or preparation of an EIR.3 The City further claims that the mitigation measures proposed in the MND require no modifications based on public comments.4 These assertions lack merit and include precisely the type of disputes of fact that require preparation of an EIR under CEQA.
Under CEQA, any comments presenting a “fair argument” supported by substantial evidence, including facts or expert opinion, necessitate the preparation of an EIR, regardless of whether the City agrees with those comments.5 As https://www.cityofsouthelmonte.org/DocumentCenter/View/5872/11-19-24-Planning-CommissionRegular-Meeting-Agenda-PDF. 3 Id. at p. 5; see also Kimley Horn, Response to Comment Letter 2: Aidan P. Marshall, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo Attorneys at Law (on behalf of Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles [“CREED LA”]), October 30, 2024 (undated) (hereinafter “Kimley Horn Memorandum”); Memorandum to Dana Privitt, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. from Roma Stromberg, Ganddini Group, Inc. re: Response to Adams Broadwell Joseph &Cardozo Comment Letter Dated October 30, 2024, Regarding IS/MND Technical Studies for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development (GGI Project No. 19618) (Nov. 13, 2024) (hereinafter “Ganddini Memorandum”).
4 Ibid. 5 Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080(d), 21082.2(d); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(k)(3), 15064(f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (“Laurel Heights II”) (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
demonstrated in CREED LA’s preliminary comments on the IS/MND and detailed further below, the issues by CREED LA provide facts and expert evidence demonstrating that the Project has significant, unmitigated impacts that meet the fair argument standard.6
CREED LA respectfully urges the Planning Commission to continue this hearing and direct Staff to prepare an EIR for the Project before bringing the Project back for further consideration.
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CREED LA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations formed to ensure that the construction of major urban projects in the Los Angeles region proceeds in a manner that minimizes public and worker health and safety risks, avoids or mitigates environmental and public service impacts, and fosters long-term sustainable construction and development opportunities. The association includes South El Monte residents Alejando Ayala and Jose Francis, the Sheet Metal Workers Local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11, Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16, and District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of South El Monte and Los Angeles County.
Individual members of CREED LA live in the City of South El Monte, and work, recreate, and raise their families in the City and surrounding communities.
Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health, and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist on site.
CREED LA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.
Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Continued v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150- 151; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v.
City of Encinitas (“Quail Botanical”) (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1601- 1602. 6 Letter to Guillermo Arreola, City of South El Monte from Aidan P. Marshall, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo re: Preliminary Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (SCH No. 2024100046) (Oct. 30, 2024) (hereinafter “CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments”).
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.
CREED LA supports the development of commercial, mixed use, and medical office projects where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts on public health, climate change, and the environment. These projects should avoid adverse impacts to air quality, public health, climate change, noise, and traffic, and must incorporate all feasible mitigation to ensure that any remaining adverse impacts are reduced to the maximum extent feasible.
Only by maintaining the highest standards can commercial development truly be sustainable.
II. AN EIR MUST BE PREPARED BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY
APPROVE THE PROJECT
In most cases, CEQA mandates that lead agencies prepare an EIR for projects that could have significant environmental effects.7 The purpose of an EIR is to ensure that the public and decision-makers are fully informed about potential environmental consequences before decisions are made, thus promoting informed decision-making and protecting the environment.8
The “fair argument” standard underscores a preference for EIR preparation.
Under this standard, an EIR must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in the record indicating a fair argument that the project could significantly impact the environment.9 This standard sets a “low threshold” for triggering environmental review through an EIR, rather than through a mitigated negative declaration, which is only appropriate if all potentially significant effects of the project are avoided or reduced to insignificance.10
“Substantial evidence” under the fair argument standard means “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.”11 In cases where it’s uncertain whether substantial 7 Pub. Res. Code § 21000; 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002. 8 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. 9 Pub. Resources Code §§ 21080(d), 21082.2(d); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(k)(3), 15064(f)(1), (h)(1); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 1501-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.Appl.4th 1597, 1601-02.
10 Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c)(2); CEQA Guidelines § 15070(b). 11 CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a).
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
evidence exists regarding a project’s potential environmental effects, the lead agency must consider expert opinion and facts.12 If there is disagreement among experts about the significance of an effect on the environment, the lead agency must treat the effect as significant and prepare an EIR.13
Here, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may cause significant public health, air quality, GHG emissions, transportation, noise, and public utilities. Therefore, the City must prepare an EIR that thoroughly discloses, analyzes, and mitigates these impacts, while also exploring less environmentally damaging alternatives, before it can approve the Project.
A. The IS/MND Project Description Remains Inadequate
1. The City Fails to Acknowledge or Analyze Reasonably Foreseeable High Intensity Warehouse Uses
CREED LA provided substantial evidence, supported by expert opinion, demonstrating that higher intensity warehouse uses, including high-cube warehouse operations, are reasonably foreseeable uses at the Project site under the proposed CUP.14 In response, the City claims, without supporting evidence, that high-cube warehouse uses are not applicable to the proposed Project simply because it is less than 200,000 square feet in size.15 This assertion ignores CREED LA’s comments, which described the range of feasible high-intensity warehouse uses at the Project site.
The Project’s operational characteristics and the severity of its environmental and public health impacts are not determined solely by size but by allowable uses.
In the absence of binding restrictions – such as conditions of approval, a covenant on the title of the underlying property, or mitigation measures – which prohibit future high intensity retail, warehouse (and cold storage uses, as discussed below) at the Project site, there is no evidence supporting the City’s assertion that these activities would not occur.
The City has a duty under CEQA to analyze the impacts of all reasonably foreseeable uses of the Project site.16 High-cube warehouses are defined by their 12 Id. § 15064(g).
13 Ibid. 14 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 4-6. There is nothing in the General Plan or Municipal Code prohibiting high intensity or cold storage warehouse uses under the proposed CUP. 15 Ganddini Memorandum at pp. 1-2. 16 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
function, such as the storage and distribution of goods, often involving high levels of truck traffic, energy consumption, and GHG emissions. These characteristics can apply to warehouses smaller than 200,000 square feet, particularly if the facility is designed or intended to support logistics operations requiring frequent truck trips or intensive energy use. By focusing solely on square footage, the IS/MND failed to analyze the Project’s impacts resulting from potential operation as a higher intensity warehouse. This oversight results in inadequate disclosure and mitigation of the Project’s potential environmental impacts.
The City’s unsupported dismissal of higher intensity uses is inconsistent with the allowable uses under the Project’s proposed CUP, which do not restrict the type of warehouse operations that can occur at the Project site. CEQA’s mandate is to analyze all reasonably foreseeable impacts of a Project. Given the feasibility of high intensity use at the Project site, and the substantial evidence in the record from CREED LA and its experts demonstrating that the impacts from high intensity use would be significant and unmitigated, the City’s decision to ignore these uses is unsupported and contrary to law. There is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may operate in a manner consistent with high-cube warehouse uses. An EIR is required to fully evaluate and mitigate these potentially significant impacts.
2. The City Fails to Describe and Analyze Reasonably Foreseeable Cold Storage Warehouse Use
CREED LA provided substantial evidence, supported by expert opinion, demonstrating that cold storage warehouse uses are reasonably foreseeable for the proposed Project and would result in significant, unmitigated impacts.17 In response, the City asserts that the Project can be conditioned to prohibit cold storage.18 However, this claim is misleading, as none of the Project’s proposed conditions of approval explicitly prohibit cold storage.19 Without an enforceable condition prohibiting this use, there is no guarantee that cold storage operations – which could significantly increase energy consumption, GHG emissions, and other environmental impacts – will not occur as part of the Project. 17 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 5-8. 18 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 2. 19 See Staff Report, attach. A (Draft Resolution No. 24-09: A Resolution of the South El Monte Planning Commission Approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Prepared in Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; Approving Conditional Use Permit 21-13 to Allow for the Development of a New Approximately 156,877 Square Foot Warehouse Building Located at 2222 Rosemead Boulevard) (hereinafter “Draft Resolution No. 24-09”).
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Under CEQA, a mitigation measure or condition of approval must be enforceable and clearly articulated to ensure that environmental impacts are adequately mitigated.20 The Attorney General also recommends that, if an agency intends to prohibit cold storage at warehouse projects, the project must either adopt mitigation measures limiting cold storage impacts or record a covenant on the title of the underlying property to ensure that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space.21 No such mitigation or land use covenants are included in the IS/MND or Responses.
The absence of a specific and enforceable prohibition against cold storage renders the City’s response insufficient and undermines the credibility of the environmental review process. The potential for unmitigated impacts from cold storage operations further supports the need for a full EIR to analyze and disclose these potential impacts comprehensively.
B. The City Fails to Analyze Public Health Impacts Associated with Exposure to the Project’s Emissions
CREED LA commented that the IS/MND failed to analyze public health impacts associated with toxic air contaminants (“TACs”), particularly diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), generated during Project construction and operation on nearby sensitive receptors, including residents of a mobile home park directly south of the Project site.22 In response to comments, the City claims that it is not required to perform a quantitative health risk analysis (“HRA”), arguing that is a recommendation rather than a mandate by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”), or the City itself.23 In addition, the City asserts the SCAQMD did not request a construction or operational HRA.24 However, these arguments overlook CEQA’s core requirement to fully disclose and analyze significant environmental impacts, including those related to public health.25 The California Supreme Court 20 Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6(b); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2). 21 Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Updated September 2022), pg. 9, available at https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf (“Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the underlying property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space, constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and requiring truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs when at loading docks.”). 22 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 14-19. 23 Ganddini Memorandum at pp. 2-3. 24 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 3. 25 CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(4); Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516, 523.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
has interpreted this requirement to include a specific duty to disclose the health effects posed by exposure to a project’s air emissions.26 While preparation of an HRA may not be explicitly mandated by OEHHA or SCAQMD, CEQA requires that lead agencies evaluate whether a project has the potential for significant impacts, including health risks from exposure to TACs and DPM generated during construction and operation of the Project. To comply with CEQA, the City must assess whether exposure to the Project’s TACs/DPM emissions would result in exceedances of appliable health-based CEQA significance thresholds. Here, the SCAQMD significance thresholds for TAC exposure include:
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment).27 A quantitative HRA is a standard methodology for assessing these risks and ensuring compliance with CEQA’s requirement for a good-faith, evidence-based environmental analysis. The City failed to perform this analysis in the IS/MND.
The City’s reliance on SCQAMD’s lack of a project-specific request for an HRA is a red herring. CEQA does not allow the lead agency to delegate its responsibility for a comprehensive environmental review to other entities.28 The City must independently evaluate the Project’s health risks based on substantial evidence in the record.29 By declining to perform an HRA, the City fails to provide the quantitative analysis necessary to compare exposure to Project emissions to applicable significance thresholds, or to assess whether additional mitigation measures are required to reduce those impacts.
The City also improperly relies on SCAQMD’s localized significant thresholds (“LSTs”).30 LSTs are designed to prevent exceedances of federal or state air quality 26 Sierra Club v County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 518–522. 27 See South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, available at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.aqmd.gov/docs /default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significancethresholds.pdf%3Fsfvrsn%3D25&ved=2ahUKEwj_2MnOOaJAxWaMzQIHRAJNiwQFnoECAoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw07n1OZu8Nvvtfq0AnstLMG (last visited Nov. 18, 2024).
28 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308. 29 Pub. Res. Code § 21082.2(a); CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a). 30 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 3.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
standards, not to assess the health risks of TACs such as DPM.31 Unlike criteria pollutants with established ambient air quality standards, DPM has no known safe exposure threshold. Therefore, the use of LSTs as a proxy for DPM impacts is not only scientifically inappropriate but also legally insufficient under CEQA.
Finally, public health impacts are often cumulative in nature, particularly in areas already burdened by poor air quality or high concentrations of diesel emissions. Indeed, the CalEnviroScreen scores for the Project’s census tract are in the 78th percentile for particulate matter and the 92nd percentile for DPM.32 Without an HRA, the City cannot adequately assess the cumulative health risks posed by this Project in conjunction with other existing and planned developments in the area. This failure leaves a critical gap in the environmental review, undermining the validity of the IS/MND.
To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR that includes a comprehensive HRA. This analysis is essential for disclosing the Project’s potential health impacts, evaluating cumulative risks, and identifying feasible mitigation measures to protect public health.
C. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument the Project Would Result in Significant Noise Impacts
1. The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Support the Construction Noise Significance Threshold
The City’s reliance on an 80 dBA Leq threshold for construction noise, as derived from the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (“FTA Manual”), is inappropriate and constitutes a misapplication of the manual’s guidance.33 The FTA Manual emphasizes that construction noise impact assessments should consider several contextual factors, including existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels anticipated during construction activities, the duration and timing of construction, and the sensitivity of adjacent land uses.34 By adopting a blanket 80 dBA Leq threshold without 31 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (July 2008), available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 32 IS/MND, appen. E, PDF pp. 163-64. 33 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 7.
34 Attachment A, Letter to Aidan P. Marshall, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo from Neil P.
Shaw, Menlo Scientific Acoustics, Inc. re: 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Acoustic Review (Nov. 15, 2024) pp. 2-3 (hereinafter “Shaw Comments”).
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
accounting for these critical factors, the City fails to ensure that its analysis reflects site-specific conditions and potential impacts as required under CEQA.
The FTA Manual does not prescribe the use of an 80 dBA Leq as a universal standard but instead recommends tailoring the threshold to the specific circumstances of a project.35 CEQA similarly requires agencies to evaluate noise impacts in context, considering the significance of an impact in relation to the environment’s baseline conditions and the characteristics of the affected receptors.36 The City’s rigid application of the FTA Manual’s threshold without such contextual considerations undermines the adequacy of the noise analysis and fails to comply with CEQA’s mandate for a thorough and accurate environmental review.
Furthermore, when contextual factors are appropriately considered, it is evident that the 80 dBA Leq threshold is inapplicable. As CREED LA’s acoustical expert Neil Shaw explains, residential mobile trailers do not fall within Land Use Category 3, which is defined by the FTA Manual as a land use category subject to severe noise impact thresholds.37 Residential mobile trailers are more acoustically sensitive and align more closely with Land Use Categories 1 and 2, which are afforded stricter noise thresholds under the FTA Manual.38 These categories impose absolute limits of 65 dBA for moderate impact and 70 dBA for severe impact, reflecting the need for greater noise protection for sensitive receptors.39 The City’s application of an 80 dBA Leq threshold fails to account for this critical distinction, effectively misclassifying residential mobile trailers under a land use category with inapplicable thresholds. This oversight not only disregards the heightened sensitivity of residential receptors, but also demonstrates a broader failure to align the noise analysis with the FTA Manual’s guidance. By neglecting to apply the appropriate thresholds for more acoustically sensitive land uses, the City’s analysis underestimates the potential noise impacts of construction activities, resulting in unsupported significance conclusions and further undermining compliance with CEQA’s requirements for a thorough and accurate environmental review.
35 Id. at pp. 2-3.
36 Pub. Res. Code § 21060.5; CEQA Guidelines § 15360, appen. G; King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v.
County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 884.
37 Shaw Comments at p. 3. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
2. The Project’s Construction Noise Is Significant and Unmitigated CREED LA’s preliminary comments and Mr. Shaw’s expert opinion demonstrate that the Project’s construction noise would exceed the applicable daytime noise standards in Section 8.20.020 of the Municipal Code, causing significant impacts that require mitigation.40 These comments highlight that the construction noise levels would exceed the 55 dBA daytime standards set forth in Section 8.20.020 for the mobile homes located south of the Project site.41 Specifically, Table 11 of Appendix E shows that construction noise impacts at the mobile homes would reach 74 dBA Leq during demolition, grading, and building construction, 68 dBA Leq during paving, and 61.2 dBA Leq during architectural coating, constituting a significant impact under CEQA.42 In addition to violating the quantitative standards, Mr. Shaw’s comments demonstrate that the Project’s construction activities would also violate Section
8.20.010’s qualitative standards for “intrusive noise” causing a “noise disturbance.”43 “Intrusive noise” is defined as “noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location.”44 “Noise disturbance” is defined as “any sound which (i) endangers or injures the safety or health of human beings or animals, or (ii) annoys or disturbs reasonable persons of normal sensitivities, or (iii) endangers or injures personal or real property or (iv) violates the limits set forth in Section 8.20.020.”45
The Project’s noise levels exceed ambient noise levels at the mobile homes by wide margins, qualifying as “intrusive noise” under the Municipal Code.46 These noise levels also constitute a “noise disturbance” because, as illustrated in Figure 3 of Appendix E,47 they are equivalent to a vacuum cleaner at 10 feet.48 Such levels would undoubtedly annoy or disturb reasonable people of normal sensitivity.49 40 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 30-32; Shaw Comments at pp. 4-5. 41 Ibid. 42 IS/MND, appen. E, p. 35; CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 30-32; Shaw Comments at pp. 4-5; Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 (exceedance of established significance threshold is a significant impact); Endangered Habitats League v. Orange (2005) 131 CA4th 777, 783-4; CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7. 43 Shaw Comments at pp. 4-6. 44 Municipal Code § 8.20.010(E). 45 Municipal Code § 8.20.010 (emphasis added).
46 Shaw Comments at p. 5. 47 IS/MND, appen. E at p. 7. 48 Shaw Comments at pp. 5-6. 49 Ibid.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
CREED LA’s preliminary comments cite Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”) data showing that noise increases of 5 to 10 dBA typically result in “widespread complaints,” and 10 dBA or more can provoke “threats of legal action.”50 The Project’s construction noise, which exceeds ambient noise by as much as 20 dBA,51 clearly supports a fair argument that the Project will result in significant noise impacts requiring analysis in an EIR.
Substantial evidence, including expert comments, demonstrates that the Project’s construction noise would exceed both quantitative and qualitative noise thresholds, causing significant impacts under CEQA. These impacts must be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in an EIR. Without such analysis, the IS/MND is deficient and does not provide the Commission with substantial evidence to support approval findings.
3. The IS/MND Fails to Adopt Enforceable Construction Noise Mitigation Measures
In response to comments, the City asserts that certain best management practices (“BMPs”) would be adopted as conditions of approval to reduce construction noise impacts.52 However, none of these BMPs are explicitly included in the conditions of approval or referenced in a manner that ensures their enforceability.53
Under CEQA, mitigation measures must be specific, enforceable, and committed to by the lead agency.54 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2) states that mitigation measures “must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.” BMPs that are vaguely described or omitted entirely from the conditions of approval fail to meet this requirement.
The City’s failure to incorporate the promised BMPs into the conditions of approval creates a significant gap in the environmental review process. Without enforceable conditions: (1) there is no assurance that the BMPs will be implemented during the Project’s construction, (2) the purported benefits of these BMPs in reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts cannot be credited in the 50 CREED LA Preliminary Comments, pg. 32-33; Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, pg. 18, Figure 3-6 (Community Reaction to New Noise, Relative to Existing Noise in a Residential Urban Environment) 51 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 31-32; Shaw Comments at p. 5. 52 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 8. 53 See Draft Resolution No. 24-09.
54 Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6(b); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(2).
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
environmental analysis, and (3) the omission undermines the credibility of the City’s claim that potential impacts have been adequately mitigated.
This omission is not merely procedural but has substantive implications for the adequacy of the IS/MND under CEQA. Without enforceable commitments to implement the BMPs, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will result in significant environmental impacts that have not bene mitigated to a less than significant level. Courts have consistently held that vague or unenforceable mitigation measures cannot support the finding of less than significant impacts.55
The City’s reliance on unenforceable BMPs to mitigate potentially significant impacts is a clear violation of CEQA. An EIR must be prepared to fully analyze the Project’s impacts and include enforceable mitigation measures to address them.
4. The IS/MND Underestimates Operational Noise Impacts
The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze noise impacts generated by truck operations on the Projects site, including noise from driving, backing up, and idling.
Although the IS/MND evaluates roadway noise and loading/unloading activities, it omits critical on-site noise sources associated with operational truck movements.56 This omission is particularly significant given the Project’s proximity to sensitive receptors, such as the residences immediately south of the property line, where noise from truck operations could exceed thresholds of significance and cause substantial impacts.
Studies by the California Air Resources Board highlight the severity of these potential impacts. Diesel trucks at idle generate noise levels of approximately 96 dBA, while diesel-powered TRUs operating at high idle produce 104 dBA.57 Trucks accessing the loading docks via the southern driveway would expose nearby residences to these elevated noise levels. Without analysis or mitigation of these impacts, the IS/MND fails to disclose potentially significance noise effects as required under CEQA.
In addition, the IS/MND’s discussion of loading/unloading noise is inconsistent and underestimates impacts. While the Appendix E claims to rely on a 55 Federation of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261. 56 Shaw Comments at p. 7.
57 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Technology Assessment: Non-Truck Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) (Oct. 2022) pp. 17-18, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 10/CARB%202022%20TRU%20Technology%20Assessment%2010-14-22.pdf.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
70 dBA Leq reference level for these activities, the included SoundPLAN worksheet instead shows a 65 dBA reference level.58 This discrepancy undermines the validity of the IS/MND’s findings. Even if the 70 dBA reference level were used consistently, it still significantly underestimates potential impacts, given that truck idling noise levels range from 96 to 104 dBA. The failure to account for these higher, more realistic noise levels renders the IS/MND’s conclusion that operational noise impacts are less than significance unsupported.
By omitting on-site truck noise from its analysis and underestimating loading/unloading noise impacts, the IS/MND fails to meet CEQA’s requirement to disclose and evaluate all potentially significance environmental impacts. Given the proximity of sensitive receptors and the likelihood of noise levels significantly exceeding ambient thresholds, the Project could result in unmitigated significant noise impacts.
An EIR must be prepared to provide a comprehensive analysis of operational noise impacts from all on-site truck activities, including idling, driving, and backing up. Additionally, the EIR should identify and implement feasible mitigation measures, such as operational restrictions, noise barriers, or buffer zones, to ensure impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. Without this analysis and mitigation, the IS/MND does not satisfy CEQA’s requirements for transparency and impact reduction.
5. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 Lacks Substantial Evidence
The IS/MND claims that a 10-foot concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the Project site would reduce operational noise impacts to less than significant.59 However, this conclusion is unsupported by substantial evidence due to significant inconsistencies in the analysis and description of Mitigation Measure (“MM”) NOI-1.
Mr. Shaw identifies numerous inconsistencies in the IS/MND and Appendix E regarding the proposed barrier wall height.60 These discrepancies create confusion and prevent meaningful analysis of whether the proposed mitigation is adequate to reduce noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. Critically, there is no evidence in the record to confirm that a 10-foot wall would provide sufficient noise reduction.61 Without clarity on the height and configuration of the proposed 58 Shaw Comments at p. 7.
59 IS/MND at pp. 91, 97.
60 Shaw Comments at pp. 7-8.
61 Id. at p. 8.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
barrier, the City cannot demonstrate that the Project’s significant operational noise impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
The noise analysis in Appendix E fails to clarify which barrier height – 10 feet or 14 feet – was used in its calculations.62 This lack of transparency undermines the reliability of Table 14, which purports to show mitigated daytime noise levels, and Table 15, which purports to show nighttime noise levels.63 If the analysis relied on a 14-foot barrier, but the IS/MND ultimately proposes a 10-foot barrier, the mitigation is demonstrably insufficient.
Additionally, Figure 7 in Appendix E reflects operational noise levels mitigated by a 14-foot barrier, further casting doubt on whether a 10-foot barrier would meet stationary noise standards.64 The City lacks substantial evidence to conclude that a 10-foot barrier is adequate to mitigate the Project’s significant operational noise impacts.
Even assuming a 14-foot barrier, Mr. Shaw identifies critical design flaws in MM NOI-1 that would render the mitigation inadequate. Specifically, the proposed wall does not account for flanking, a phenomenon where sound travels around the edges of a barrier.65 To address flanking, Mr. Shaw recommends extending the barrier northward by at least 30 feet at the east and west ends of the southern property line.66 This configuration would help block sound from bypassing the wall and reduce noise impacts to sensitive receptors.67 Simply specifying the height of the wall is insufficient to ensure the noise reduction estimates in Appendix E are achieved.68
The failure to resolve inconsistencies regarding the barrier’s height and to account for critical design flaws violates CEQA’s requirement for substantial evidence and enforceable mitigation measures.69 Without a clear, accurate, and enforceable noise mitigation plan, the IS/MND cannot support its conclusion that operational noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR to (1) resolve the inconsistencies regarding the barrier height, (2) re-evaluate the Project’s 62 Id. at pp. 7-8.
63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Id. at p. 8.
66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. 69 CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1).
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
operational noise impacts based on realistic and enforceable mitigation measures, and (3) address flanking and other design flaws to ensure the mitigation measures are effective.
D. Substantial Evidence Demonstrates that Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Measures Are Insufficient to Reduce the Impact to a Less than Significant Level
CREED LA commented that MM TRANS-1 fails to mitigate the Project’s vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) impacts to less than significant levels.70 This failure is due to the lack of substantial evidence supporting the assumed VMT reduction and the fact that, even with the maximum assumed reduction, the Project’s VMT exceeds the threshold of significance.71 The City’s response to comments does not resolve these deficiencies.
The City asserts that the maximum assumed VMT reduction is appropriate because MM TRANS-1 includes components that are applicable to 100% of employees.72 However, broad applicability does not inherently ensure that the measure will achieve the claimed reductions. CEQA requires that mitigation measures be supported by substantial evidence demonstrating their feasibility and actual effectiveness.73 The City’s response fails to provide any evidence that 100% applicability translates to achieving the assumed VMT reduction. Without such data, studies, or other substantial evidence to validate the effectiveness of MM TRANS-1, the mitigation measure remains speculative and legally inadequate.
The City also argues that calculating the VMT values to two decimal points introduces an inappropriate level of precision by adding a significant digit.74 This argument is misplaced. Accurate and precise calculations are essential to properly evaluate whether the Project complies with the threshold of significance, particularly in cases where small variances could determine whether impacts are deemed significant. By dismissing the importance of precision, the City fails to substantively address CREED LA’s concern that VMT impacts remain above the threshold, even under the maximum reduction assumptions.
In sum, MM TRANS-1 fails to adequately mitigate the Project’s significant VMT impacts to less than significant levels, as required by CEQA. The lack of 70 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at pp. 26-27. 71 Id. at p. 27. 72 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 6. 73 King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 866. 74 Ganddini Memorandum at p. 7.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
substantial evidence supporting the assumed VMT reduction, combined with the Project’s exceedance of the significance threshold, demonstrates the inadequacy of the mitigation measure. Furthermore, the City’s responses to comments do not resolve these deficiencies. To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR that provides substantial evidence supporting the feasibility and effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures, identifies and evaluates additional feasible measures to reduce VMT impacts to less-than-significant levels, and ensures transparent and precise VMT calculations to accurately assess compliance with thresholds of significance.
E. The City Fails to Analyze Fire Flow Requirements and Public Utility Impacts
The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze potentially significant public utility impacts related to fire flow requirements.75 Fire flow requirements, which refer to the volume and pressure needed to combat fires, are critical for public safety and ensuring that existing infrastructure can accommodate the increased demands of new development.
In response to CREED LA’s comment, the City attempts to defer the evaluation of fire flow requirements and infrastructure capacity to the Los Angeles County Fire Department (“LACFD”) Fire Prevention Division’s site review.76 However, deferring this analysis is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement that the environmental review document provide sufficient analysis to determine whether a project may result in significant impacts, including impacts on public utilities and infrastructure.77 Deferral to another agency’s technical review process fails to meet CEQA’s requirement for a transparent and comprehensive analysis of environmental consequences.
Moreover, while LACFD is responsible for ensuring compliance with fire safety codes, its review is limited to regulatory and technical standards. LACFD’s process does not encompass the broader environmental evaluation required by CEQA, such as analyzing whether the Project may overburden water supply systems or create cumulative impacts. Courts have consistently held that deferring environmental review to a later stage or another agency violates CEQA.78 75 CREED LA Preliminary IS/MND Comments at p. 32. 76 Kimley Horn Memorandum at pp. 4-5. 77 CEQA Guidelines §§ 15063, 15070. 78 Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412.
November 18, 2024
7554-006acp
printed on recycled paper
By failing to analyze the Project’s fire flow requirements or the infrastructure’s capacity to supply adequate fire flow, the IS/MND omits a crucial aspect of environmental review. To ensure compliance with CEQA and adequately address these concerns, the City must prepare an EIR that thoroughly evaluates, discloses and mitigates potential public utility impacts.
III. CONCLUSION
The City cannot approve the proposed Project without first addressing the numerous deficiencies in the IS/MND identified by CREED LA and members of the public. To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare a legally adequate EIR that thoroughly discloses, analyzes, and mitigates all potentially significant impacts.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Andrew J. Graf
Attachment
AJG:acp
ATTACHMENT A
POT OFFICE BOX1610, TOPANGA, CALIFORNIA 90290 TEL: 310-455-2221 MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
Consultants in Acoustics and Communication Technologies 15 November 2024
Mr. Aidan P. Marshall
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Acoustic Review
Dear Mr. Marshall,
Menlo Scientific Acoustics, Inc., reviewed the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration a (MND), Appendix E Noise Impact Analysisb, and the City of South El Monte Municipal Codec (MC) in regards to the subject project, concerning the proposed development in the City of South El Monte of an approximately 156,877-sf concrete tilt-up warehouse with 13 dock doors. Sensitive receptors near the project site include a mobile home park located directly to the south of the proposed project. This report addresses deficiencies in the MND’s analysis of impacts on the mobile home park during both the construction and operational phase.
Our review of these documents finds the following items of concern that call into question the findings contained in Appendix E and thus the findings in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of no significant impact.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS
1) It is unclear whether a nighttime prohibition on truck movement is part of the unmitigated Project Description.
The IS/MND states that all on-site truck movement and loading and unloading activities at the proposed loading docks, which are located behind electronic gates, would be prohibited from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.d Appendix E MM NOI-1 states: “Install a 14-foothigh concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site as shown in Figure 7.” Yet MND MM NOI-1 states “…(1) require the installation of a 10-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site; or (2) prohibit a Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. b Prepared by Ganddini Group Inc. c http://southelmonte-ca.elaws.us/code/coor_title8
d IS/MND, page 6 (“As previously noted, the gates would be closed between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.”).
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 2 truck movement and loading and unloading between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.” Italics and bold for “or” added. Due to this inconsistency, it is unclear whether a nighttime prohibition on truck movement is part of the unmitigated project. 2) The 80 dBA Construction Noise Threshold Is Inapplicable to the Project Appendix E, Noise Impact Analysis, states that the project’s construction noise has been analyzed using a maximum noise threshold contained in the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (“FTA Manual”).e Appendix E, on page 30, says “Based on the FTA criteria, project construction noise would be considered significant if it exceeds 80 dBA Leq for an 8-hour period at residential and noise-sensitive outdoor areas.” Appendix E concludes that since the calculated impacts would be below 80 dBA, and so the calculated impacts would be less than significant.
However, this threshold is inapplicable to the subject project.
The FTA Manual prefaces its discussion of construction noise thresholds by cautioning that “criteria must be developed on a project-specific basis,” and that “it is not the purpose of this manual to specify standardized criteria for construction noise impact.”f The FTA Manual also cautions, “Project construction noise criteria should account for the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land use.”g The MND misapplies the FTA Manual’s guidance because it has not set a construction noise significance threshold with consideration of any of these factors. Careful application of recommendations in the FTA Manual demonstrates that a lower maximum noise threshold is appropriate for this Project and the nearby receptors.
The FTA manual section 4.1 Determine Noise Impact Criteria, starting on page 20, states “This section describes the procedure for determining the appropriate criteria for assessing project noise impact based on the type of project and project noise source.” Step I: Identify Project Type, on page 21, provides three types of projects:
Option A: Transit Project Only, Option B: Multimodal Project (Transit and Highway Noise), and Option C: Other Multimodal Projects.
The subject project does not include new transit rail and similar sources (Option A), does not include transit and highway sources (Option B), and does not include, on page 23, “components from other modes.”
e Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise And Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. f FTA Manual, pg. 179.
g Id.
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 3 The manual then discusses Land Use Categories, on page 23, in Table 4-3, Table 4-3 Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria. The table presets the land use category, land use type, the noise metric (dBA), and a description of land use category.
Land Use Category 2 in Table 4-3 is “Residential”, the noise metric is “Outdoor Ldn,” and the description is “This category is applicable all residential land use and buildings where people normally sleep, such as hotels and hospitals.”
FTA manual Appendix C: Background for Transit Noise Impact Criteria, in section C.3: Equations for Noise Impact Criteria Curves, on page 220, states “For land use category 1 and 2, the absolute limit is 65 dBA for moderate impact and 70 dBA for severe impact. For land use category 3, the absolute limit is 75 dBA for moderate impact and 80 dBA for severe impact.”
The residential mobile trailers are not in Land Use Category 3 with a severe impact.
The 80 dBA criteria used in the MND is inapplicable to the project as:
1) The project is not a transit project.
2) The project is not in Land Use Category Type 3, Institutional, per Table 4-3. 3) The project is in Land Use Category 2, Residential, per Table 4-3. 4) The calculated levels in the MND exceed the criteria in the South El Monte MC.
Now, Leq(t) is described in the FTA manual in section B.I.4.4, on page 210, the Equivalent Sound Level, and is described in the manual as follows:
“The metric for cumulative noise exposure over a specific time interval is the equivalent sound level. It is a single decibel value that accounts for total sound energy from all sound levels over a specified time interval (or time period). The time period associated with the equivalent sound level metric can vary for different types of analyses. This metric is abbreviated as Leq(t), where “t” is the duration of the time period. Leq(t) represents a hypothetical constant sound level and contains the same overall sound energy as the actual varying sound energy during the time period “t”. For most transit noise analyses, an A-weighted, hourly equivalent sound level is used, abbreviated here as Leq(1hr). Leq(1hr) is expressed in the unit, dBA.”
Figure B-9, Typical Hourly Leq(1 Hr)’s, in the FTA manual, notes for non-transit sources, 80 dBA is the Hourly Noise Level (HNL) for an 8-Lane Highway – see figure below.
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 4 Figure B-9 - Typical Hourly Leq(1 Hr)’s
3) Noise Impacts Below 80 dBA Would Exceed South El Monte Municipal Code Standards, Resulting in Significant Impacts on Residents MC Section 8.20.020 A, Exterior Noise Limits, Maximum Permissible Sound Levels by Receiving Land Use, Table 1, Exterior Noise Limits by Zone, specifies noise limits for various land use or zones, shown below.
Table 1 Exterior Noise Limits by Zone
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 5 Further, 8.20.020 A states:
1. No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased or occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed:
a. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; or
b. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus five dBA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour; or
c. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus ten dBA for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; or
d. The exterior noise limit plus fifteen dBA for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
e. The exterior noise limit for that land use or zone as specified in Table 1 or Table 2 plus twenty dBA for any period of time.
The proposed 80 dBA FTA limits exceed all the criteria in 8.20.020 1. The calculated noise level in Appendix E, Table 11, Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) for the residences south of the proposed project also exceed all the criteria in 8.20.020 1. This is a significant impact requiring mitigation.
The Project’s construction noise levels would also be significant pursuant to MC
8.20.010 (defining “Intrusive noise” and “Noise disturbance”). Section 8.20.010 E provides that “‘Intrusive noise’ means noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency and time of occurrence, and tonal or information content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.” And 8.20.010 provides that “‘Noise disturbance’ means any sound which (i) endangers or injures the safety or health of human beings or animals, or (ii) annoys or disturbs reasonable persons of normal sensitivities, or (iii) endangers or injures personal or real property or (iv) violates the limits set forth in Section 8.20.020.” Italics added.
The Project’s anticipated construction noise levels, as presented in Table 11 of Appendix E, would constitute intrusive noise and would cause a noise disturbance. For example, construction noise impacts at the mobile homes would reach 74 dBA Leq during demolition, grading, and building construction, 68 dBA Leq during paving, and 61.2 dBA during architectural coating. As shown in Appendix E Figure 3 (A-weighted Comparative Sound Levels), below, these noise levels are equivalent to noise sources shown below. These noise levels would annoy or disturb reasonable persons of normal sensitivities.
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 6 Figure 3 - A-weighted Comparative Sound Levels
OPERATIONAL NOISE LIMITS
1) Appendix E does not account for mobile noise sources on the proposed project site.
Appendix E page 32, under Project Operational Mobile Noise Source, states:
“Roadway noise levels were calculated for the following scenarios:
● Existing (without Project): This scenario refers to existing year traffic noise conditions.
●Existing Plus Project: This scenario refers to existing year plus project traffic noise conditions.”
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 7 But this analysis of roadway noise levels does not reflect noise generated by mobile sources on the Project site. A review of the Appendix E appendices does not find any worksheet or calculations for the truck traffic on the proposed project site nor the impact of same on the mobile home residences to the south of the project. Appendix E does not discuss the impact of trucks entering and leaving the proposed project site on the residential property to the south (see MND Figure 3) to access the loading docks in the daytime or nighttime. Appendix E does not address the noise from trucks backing up to the docks, pulling away from the docks, nor the noise from the trucks idling while at the docks.
Appendix E’s analysis of loading/unloading noise is internally inconsistent. Although Appendix E under Truck/Drive, on page 23, says “The proposed loading area was modeled using a SoundPLAN sound reference level for loading/unloading adjusted to be a sound level equivalent of 70 dBA Leq at any point within the loading area,” no worksheet was found in Appendix E’s Appendix E, SoundPLAN Worksheets (pages aPx-62 to aPX- 66) that reflect a 70 dBA sound reference level. Rather, on page aPx-63, a SoundPLAN Worksheet shows that the reference level used for “Area Source - Loading/Unloading” is 65 dBA.
Appendix E’s Appendix E, page aPx-63, Noise emissions of industry sources, mentions Area Source – Loading/Unloading, with entries that are HVAC equipment, but this noise level is very quiet compared to the HVAC units. There is no description of this loading/unloading activity.
2) Appendix E is not consistent in regards to the height of the proposed barrier at the south property line of the proposed project.
The MND concludes that a 10-foot concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site would bring the Project into compliance with stationary noise standards. This conclusion is not supported by the analysis in Appendix E, which inconsistently references both a 10-foot and 14-foot barrier.
MM NOI-1 is described inconsistently. In the executive summary of Appendix E, MM NOI-1 calls for a 14-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site (Appendix E, page iv). On page 31 of Appendix E, MM NOI-1 calls for a 10-foot-high wall. In the MND, MM NOI-1 calls for a 10-foot-high concrete masonry wall along the southern property line of the project site. Appendix E fails to provide worksheets, calculations, or spreadsheets resolving this inconsistency.
Tables and figures in Appendix E are internally inconsistent. Appendix E Table 14 is titled on page 38 as “Project Compliance with Stationary Noise Standards – Daytime With 10-foot Barrier,” but is titled in Appendix E’s List of Tables as “Table 14. Project Compliance With Stationary Noise Standards – Daytime, With 14-Foot Barrier” (page ii).
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 8 There is no evidence in the record that Table 14 contains data reflecting a 10-foot wall.
Table 14 itself shows, in the column titled “Operational Noise levels1” the number “45” for Receptor 4. The superscript 1 in the column title refers to note 1 of the table, “(1) See Figure 6.” The citation to Figure 6 is erroneous, as Figure 6 shows the unmitigated noise levels – there is no entry for a 10-foot fence under Signs and Symbols on Figure 6. Table 14 may have intended to refer to mitigated noise levels shown in Appendix E Figure 7. But Figure 7 also does not clearly reflect noise levels with a 10-foot wall – although Figure 7 has an entry for a 10-foot fence under Signs and Symbols, Figure 7 is titled: “Operational Noise Levels (dBA, CNEL) with 14-Foot Barrier.”
Appendix E states: “With construction of a ten-foot concrete barrier along the southern property line where the project site abuts single family land uses operational noise levels would be 45 dBA Leq and no nighttime standards would be exceeded (see Tables 14 and 15, and Figure 7).” There is no evidence in Appendix E supporting the adequacy of a 10-foot wall due to the inconsistent references to 10-foot and 14-foot walls. There is no information in Appendix E showing that Appendix E calculated noise reductions for a 10- foot wall, as are no worksheets, calculations, or spreadsheets for the noise levels noted in Table 14, Figure 6, or Figure 7.
3) The noise barrier must be conditioned to reduce noise flanking.
The noise barrier proposed by MM NOI-1 needs to continue to the north for at least 30 feet at the east and west ends of the barrier to reduce flanking. Flanking refers to when a sound passes around a partition separating two spaces. Simply specifying the height of a wall between adjacent spaces fails to guarantee the noise reductions estimated in Appendix E. 4) Appendix E improperly compares noise metrics.
The noise metric in Figure 6 is “Leq” but, according to the Figure 7 title, the noise metric in Figure 7 is “CNEL”. MC 08.20.010 does not list CNEL and Appendix E, page 31, under “Mobile Source Noise” states “California courts have rejected use of what is effectively a single “absolute noise level” threshold of significance (e.g., exceed 65 dBA CNEL) on the grounds that the use of such a threshold fails to consider the magnitude or severity of increases in noise levels attributable to the project in different environments.
OTHER ISSUES
1) Appendix E pages 37 and 39 appears to be from another project “8388 Beech Avenue Truck-Trailer Storage Facility Noise Impact Analysis 19581.” Table 13 on page 37 and Table 15 on page 39 refer to a “Receptor R-4.” Receptor R-4 is not found anywhere else in Appendix E.
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT - ACOUSTIC REVIEW 9
CONCLUSION
Due to the errors in the analysis as described above, the conclusion that the project impact is less than significant is unsupported.
Sincerely,
MENLO SCIENTIFIC ACOUSTICS, INC.
Neil A. Shaw, FASA, FAES
NAS:sk
RESUME - NEIL A. SHAW
Education: University of California, Los Angeles
B. S. Engineering, 1977, cum laude
M. S. Engineering, 1977
Cooper Union, New York, 1968 - 1970
Honors: Kenward S. Oliphant Memorial Fellowship in Acoustical Engineering (awarded by Consulting Engineers Association of California)
Tau Beta Pi
Experience: Menlo Scientific Acoustics, Inc., Topanga
Designer and manager for acoustic design projects including audio-visual systems, sound reinforcement systems, television and radio production systems, architectural room acoustics, electromagnetic compatibility system design and criteria development, electroacoustic and electronic signal processing equipment product performance criteria development, product design and development, environmental noise surveys and analysis, noise and vibrations control, sound isolation, and machine noise control.
1992 to present.
Principal.
University of Southern California, Thornton School of Music 2008 - 2010.
Southern California Institute of Architecture, Los Angeles 2003.
WEAL, Santa Monica
Design and construction services for sound reinforcement systems, television systems, A/V systems, paging systems, and masking noise systems for various production facilities, convention centers, airport terminals, auditoriums, places of worship, concert halls, athletic facilities, courtrooms, multipurpose rooms, gymnasiums, museums, banquet halls, lecture rooms and other facilities.
Transportation ambient noise surveys and analysis, construction site noise measurements, and field STC and NIC measurements per ASTM E 336-84.
Lead member of team to install, run and maintain database manager computer software for company projects and clients. Part of design, implementation and enhancement team for computer controlled laboratory data acquisition and processing for laboratory tests performed per ASTM E 90-85 and ASTM C 423-84a.
1975 to 1992.
Aero-acoustics Laboratory, UCLA
Responsibilities include computer programming, aero-acoustic measurements, acoustic measurements, database search and statistical processing, A/D antialiasing filter design and prototyping, multi-channel data acquisition and processing, post processing and display.
1978 to 1984.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume 2
©2012 Neil A. Shaw
Affiliations: Fellow, Acoustical Society of America
Chairman, Los Angeles Chapter, 1991 to 2001.
Organizer and Co-Chair, Joint ASA/ASJ meeting 1996, Auralization Special Session.
Organizer and Chair, ASA meeting, 1997, Engineering Acoustics Special Session.
Organizer and Co-Chair, ASA meeting, 1999, Engineering Acoustics Special Session.
Organizer and Co-Chair, ASA meeting, 2000, Student Loudspeaker Design Competition.
Chairman, ASA meeting, 2001, Architectural Acoustics Modeling and Imaging Special Session.
Organizer and Chair, ASA meeting, 2001, Architectural Acoustics Cruise Ship Acoustics Special Session.
Tutorial on Architectural Acoustics, Joint ASA/ICA/MCA Cancun meeting, December 2002.
Invited Paper, November 2003 ASA meeting, “Sound Quality and Loudspeakers,” Special Session on Sound Quality - When Sound is the Essential Quality.
Organizer and Co-Chair, ASA meeting, 2004, Special Session on the Bell Laboratories and Acoustics.
Invited Paper, June 2004 ASA meeting, “Textbooks on Acoustics,” On the Occasion of His 90 Birthday, To Honor the Contributions of Leo th
L. Beranek to Acoustics and Teaching Special Session sponsored by all the Technical Committees and ASA Committees.
Chairman, June 2004 ASA meeting, General Topics in Architectural Acoustics
Invited Paper, June 2005 ASA meeting, “Barnum Hall - The Continuing Renovation of a Streamline Moderne Theater,” Special Session on Preserving Acoustical Integrity in the Course of Renovation.
Invited Paper, Winter 2007 ASA meeting, “Sound Systems for Large Scale Venues,” with John Monitto, Special session on Sound Systems in Large Rooms and Stadia
Member, Technical Committee on Architectural Acoustics, 1996 - 2010 Member, Technical Committee on Engineering Acoustics, 1998 - 2010 Member, Technical Committee on Physical Acoustics, 2000 - 2010 Member, Books+ Committee, 1996 - present
Fellow, Audio Engineering Society
Member, Technical Committee on Acoustics and Sound Reinforcement, 1988 to 2005.
Chairman, Large Array Systems Session and Special JAES issue, 1987 Chairman, Workshop on Auralization, 1993
Co-Chairman, Workshop on Weather-Related Issues in Outdoor Sound Reinforcement, 1998
Tutorial on Loudness, Los Angeles Chapter, March 2003
Senior Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Member, Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers Member, Standards Community TC-20F Film, TC-20F-30 WG Film Audio, TC-20F-40 Theatrical Projection, ST-SG Theater B-chain 1990 to present.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume 3
©2012 Neil A. Shaw
Member, Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Licenses: Electrical Contractor's License, CA #342710
EIT, CA #37673
Publications: Preface to the Reprint Edition, “Principles and Applications of Room Acoustics”, Lothar Cremer and Helmut A. Muller (translated by Theodore J.
Shultz), Peninsula Publishers, Los Altos Hills, CA, reprint edition, to be republished.
Patent reviews, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2004 -present.
Shaw, Neil A, “Up in Knudsen’s Attic: Some Private papers of Vern O.
Knudsen,” Acoustics Today, 7(1), 29ff, January 2011
Shaw, Neil A., “Seeing, Hearing & Listening - Part II”, Live Sound International, 17(4), 58ff, April 2008
Shaw, Neil A., “Seeing, Hearing & Listening - Part I”, Live Sound International, 17(3), 12ff, March 2008
Shaw, Neil A., “The Pre-history and Early History of Loudspeakers”, part 4 of 4, Live Sound International, 16(8), 66ff, August 2007
Shaw, Neil A., “The Pre-history and Early History of Loudspeakers”, part 3 of 4, Live Sound International, 16(7), 54ff, July 2007
Shaw, Neil A., “The Pre-history and Early History of Loudspeakers”, part 2 of 4, Live Sound International, 15(12), 12ff, December 2006 Shaw, Neil A., “An Early History of Modern Power Amplifiers,” Live Sound International, 15(2), 10ff, February 2006
Shaw, Neil A., “The Pre-history and Early History of Loudspeakers”, part 1 of 4, Live Sound International, 14(4), 38ff, November 2005 “Audio” monthly column, Club System International magazine, 2000 - 2003.
Shaw, Neil A.., "The Pre-History and Early History of Loudspeakers", Sound and Communications, 41(4), 118ff, April 1995.
Shaw, Neil A.., "Acoustical Design and Auralization", Sound and Communications, 40(8), 44ff, August 1994.
Shaw, Neil A., Klapholz, Jesse and Gander, Mark R., "Books and Acoustics, Especially Wallace Clement Sabine's Collected Papers on Acoustics," Proceedings of the Sabine Centennial Symposium, Acoustical Society of America, Cambridge, MA, June 1994.
Shaw, Neil A., "Digital Delays, Part Three - Real World Applications for Real World Delay Units," Sound and Communications, 39(10), 16ff, October 1993.
Shaw, Neil A., "Digital Delays, Part Two - Testing Specific Products for Specific Uses," Sound and Communications, 39(5), 62ff, May 1993.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 4
Shaw, Neil A., "Digital Delays, Part One - Reviewing the Basics," Sound and Communications, 393(4), 96ff, March 1993.
Meecham, W. C. and Shaw, Neil, "Increase in Disease Mortality Rates Due to Aircraft Noise", Proceedings of the International Symposium on Noise and Disease, Berlin, 1991
Meecham, W. C. and Shaw, Neil, "Increase in Disease Mortality Rates Due to Aircraft Noise," Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Stockholm, 351-356, 1988
Shaw, Neil A., "A Historical Profile: Stereophonic Sound Systems, Part Two," Sound and Communications, 33(7), 24ff, July 1987.
Shaw, Neil A., "A Historical Profile: Stereophonic Sound Systems, P a r t One," Sound and Communications, 33(6), 22ff, June 1987.
Shaw, Neil A., "Exhibit Hall and Theater Sound Reinforcement Systems at the Metro Toronto Convention Center," Proceedings 12th International Congress of Acoustics, E9-5.1 - E9-5.2, 1986.
Meecham, W. C. and N. A. Shaw, "Jet Plane Noise Effects on Mortality Rates," Proceedings Internoise 86 Progress in Noise Control, Volume II, 1451-1455, 1986.
Shaw, N. A., "Effects of Jet Noise on Mortality Rates," Los Angeles County Department of Health, The Effects of Aircraft Noise on Health, June, 1981 Meecham, W. C. and N. A. Shaw, "Effects of Jet Noise On Mortality Rates," British Journal of Audiology, 13, 77-80, 1979.
Book Reviews: "Acoustical Engineering," Harry F. Olson - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, No. 5, May 1992, Sound and Communications, Vol. 38, No. 4, April 27, 1992.
"Concert Sound - Tours, Technologies and Techniques," David Trubitt - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.
"Hearing - An Introduction to Psychological and Physiological Acoustics," Stanley A. Gelfand - Sound and Communications, Vol. 37, No. 3, March 22, 1991.
"Room Acoustics," Henrich Kuttruff - Sound and Communications, Vol. 38, No. 2, February 28, 1992.
"The Science of Sound," Thomas D. Rossing - Sound and Communications, Vol. 37, No. 10, October 22, 1991.
"AIP Handbook of Condenser Microphones," George S. K. Wong and Tony F. W. Embleton, Editors - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 43, No. 6, June 1995.
"The ASA Edition of Speech and Hearing in Communication", Harvey Fletcher - Sound and Communication, Vol. 41, No. 9, September 25, 1995.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 5
"The Nature and Technology of Acoustic Space", Mikio Tohyama, Hideo Suzuki and Yoichi Ando - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 44, No. 3, March 1996.
"Concert and Opera Halls - How They Sound", Leo Beranek - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 44, No. 9, September 1996. "Acoustics and Noise Control Handbook for Architects and Builders", Leland K. Irvine and Roy L. Richards - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 46, No. 5, May 1998.
"Encyclopedia of Acoustics", Edited by Malcolm J. Crocker - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 46, No. 9, September 1998. "The New Stereo Soundbook, Ron Streicher and Alton Everest - Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Vol. 105, No. 6, June 1999. "Introduction to Electroacoustics and Audio Amplifier Design," W. Marshall Leach, Jr. - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 47, No. 7/8, July/August 1999, Sound and Communications, Vol. 45, No. 9, September 20, 1999.
"Architectural Acoustics - Principles and Design," Madan Mehta, Jim Johnson, and Jorge Rocafort - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 47, No. 10, October 1999.
"Architectural Acoustics: Blending Sound Sources, Sound Fields, and Listening," Yoichi Ando - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 48, No. ½, January/February 2000.
"Fundamental of Physical Acoustics," David T. Blackstock - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 48, No. 9, September 2000. "The Science and Applications of Acoustics," Daniel R. Raichel - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 48, No. 10, October 2000. "Sounds of Our Times," Robert T. Beyer - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 48, No. 11, November 2000.
"Acoustics: Basic Physics, Theory and Methods," Paul Filippi, Dominique Habalt, Jean-Pierre Lefebvre and Aime Bergassoli - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 49, No. 1+2, January/February 2001. "Active Noise Control Primer," Scott D. Snyder - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 49, No. 5, May 2001.
“The Microphone Book,” John Eargle - Sound & Communications, November 2001.
“Computer Speech Recognition, Compression, Synthesis,” Manfred R.
Schroeder - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 49, No. 12, December 2001.
“Audio Engineering For Sound Reinforcement,” John Eargle and Chris Foreman - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. Vol. 50, No. 12,
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 6
December 2002.
“Pro Audio Reference,” Dennis Bohn - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 51, No. 7/8, July/August 2003.
“Concert Halls and Opera Houses - Music, Acoustics, and Architecture,” Leo L. Beranek - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 52, No. 5, May 2004
“Acoustic Absorbers and Diffusers- Theory, Design and Application,” Trevor J. Cox and Peter D’Antonio - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 53, No. 10, October 2005
“Formulas of Acoustics,” F. P. Mechel - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 53, No. 12, December 2005
“Communication Acoustics,” Jens Blauert (editor) - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 54, No.½, January/February 2006 “Acoustics and Psychoacoustics,” David M. Howard and Jamie Angus- Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 54, No. 11, November 2006 “Pro Audio Reference,” Second Edition, Dennis Bohn, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 54, No. 4, April 2007
“Worship, Acoustics, and Architecture,” Ettore Cirillo and Francesco Martellotta - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 55, No. 11, November 2007
“Sound FX Unlocking the Creative Potential of Recording Studio Effects,” Alexander U. Case - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 55, No. 12, December 2007
“Surround Sound Up and Running,” Tomlinson Holman - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 56, No. 9, September 2008
“Sound Reproduction Loudspeakers and Rooms,” Floyd E. Toole - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 57, No.½, January/February 2009 “Handbook for Sound Engineers,” 4 Edition, Glenn Ballou - Journal of the th Audio Engineering Society, Volume 57, No. 7/8, July/August 2009 “Acoustics and the Performance of Music Manual for Acousticians, Audio Engineers, Musicians, Architects and Musical Instrument Makers,” 5 Edition th Jürgen Meyer (translated by Uwe Hanson) - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 58, No. 3, March 2010
“Sound for Film and Television” 3 Edition, Tomlinson Holman - Journal of rd the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 58, No. 11, November 2010 “The Acoustics of Performance Halls Spaces for Music from Carnegie Hall to the Hollywood Bowl,” J. Christopher Jaffe - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Volume 59, No. 4, April 2011
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 7
“Acoustics and Audio Technology,” Mendel Kleiner - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, to be published
“Grounds for Grounding,” Elya B. Joffee and Kai-Sang Lock - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, to be published
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 8
Selected Product Development Projects - Neil A. Shaw
Aura Systems 1992 - 2005 Technical support for audio projects using inherently shielded neodymium speakers.
Peavey 1995 - 1997 Loudspeaker engineering for professional woofers and compression drivers, out-sourcing of electronics and speaker manufacturing, joint venture liaison.
Armstrong World Industries 1999 - 2002 Conception and product definition for active acoustic initiative. Product definition and development of ceiling tile speaker, and other projects.
Microsoft 1999 - 2000 Headset and headset element design for voice recognition product.
Cisco 1999 - 2000 Telephone and speaker-phone design for Internet telephone.
Intel 2000 Internet appliance sound system product
RPG 2001 - 2020 Technical and marketing support for this vendor of acoustical devices for architectural spaces.
Bohlender-Graebener 2001 - 2004 Technical support and loudspeaker engineering for planar diaphragm loudspeaker products.
Johns Manville 2002 Strategic product and market research and analysis.
Tri-path 2002 - 2006 Technical support and system engineering for digital audio power amplifiers.
Extron 2002 - 2003 Technical and material support for loudspeaker development and research.
Microsoft 2003 - 2006 Anechoic chamber design. Electroacoustic product testing protocol development.
University of Illinois 2008 - 2009 Transducer and power amplifier design and selection for food industry processing equipment.
Microsoft 2008 - 2009 Anechoic chamber design. Electroacoustic product testing protocol development.
KLA-Tencor 2010 Vibration isolation engineering for scanning electron microscope semiconductor wafer inspection equipment.
Microsoft 2011 Acoustic measurement and analysis for Kinect manufacturing end-of-line 100% test chamber.
ETC 2011 Noise analysis and noise control for electrically operated variable speed theater hoist equipment.
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw
9 Selected Projects - Neil A. Shaw:
Arcadia City Council Chambers Arcadia, California
Grossmont Civic Auditorium El Cajon, California
Center for Faith and Life, Luther College Decorah, Iowa Concert Hall, University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky Swimming Pool, University of Riyad Riyad, Saudi Arabia
Oakland-Piedmont Municipal Courts Oakland, California
2500 seat Auditorium, 700 seat Auditorium,
250 seat Library Hall, Mosque and Minaret,
Gymnasium, Fine Arts Recital Hall, 100 seat
Museum Hall, 500 seat Lecture Rooms, 250
seat Lecture Rooms, 1000 seat Banquet Hall,
200 seat Meeting Rooms, 100 seat Meeting
Rooms, University of Riyad Riyad, Saudi Arabia
Des Moines Civic Auditorium Des Moines, Iowa
California School For the Blind Hayward, California
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Hearing Room El Monte, California
First United Methodist Church Santa Monica, California
George R. Moscone Convention Center San Francisco, California H. J. Kaiser Convention Center Oakland, California
Carson Community Center Carson, California
LAX Terminal One Los Angeles, California
Crocker Bank Auditorium Los Angeles, California
Wilshire Auditorium, Fullerton College Fullerton, California Salt Palace Convention Center Expansion Salt Lake City, Utah Metro Toronto Convention Center and TheaterToronto, Ontario Orpheum Theater Restoration Davenport, Iowa
Athanaeum, Claremont College Claremont, California
San Jose Federal Office Building San Jose, California
Fairmont Hotel San Jose, California
LAX Terminal Five Los Angeles, California
First Presbyterian Church Upland, California
Royal Saudi Air Force Hush Houses Saudi Arabia
NCO Training Facility, March AFB Riverside, California
Veterans Administration Out Patient Clinic Los Angeles, California Lied Center for the Performing Arts,
University of Nebraska Lincoln, Nebraska
MaMaison Hotel Los Angeles, California
Escondido City Council Chambers Escondido, California
Mercy Hospital San Diego, California
Mercy Hospital Sacramento, California
Jain Bhavan Worship Center Santa Ana, California
Ojai Valley Inn Ojai, California
Simon Wiesenthal Center and Holocaust Museum Los Angeles, California New Otani Hotel Los Angeles, California
Oceanside City Council Chambers Oceanside, California
Santa Monica Beach Hotel Santa Monica, California
Greenwood RacetrackToronto, Ontario
Woodbine RacetrackToronto, Ontario
Mohawk Racetrack Campbellville, Ontario
Toyota Training CenterTorrance, California
Fresno Art Center Fresno, California
McLaren Children's Center Los Angeles, California
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 10
Lindbergh Field West Terminal Expansion San Diego, California Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library Yorba Linda, California Carnation Headquarters Glendale, California
Los Angeles County Bar Association Los Angeles, California Los Angeles Federal Office Building Los Angeles, California Intercontinental Hotel Los Angeles, California
Lake Avenue Congregational Church Pasadena, California
Hewlett Packard Presentation Center North Hollywood, California Dance Recital Hall and Auditorium,
California State University Long Beach, California
Inyo County Superior Court Independence, California
Adele Platt Conference Center,
City of Hope Medical Center Duarte, California
Los Angeles County Emergency Operation Center Los Angeles, California Antonio B Won Pat International Airport Tamuning, Guam
Temple Adat Sholam Westwood, California
Sound Stage 29/30, Paramount Pictures Hollywood, California Executive Screening Room, Theater,
Dubbing Theater, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Santa Monica, California Lakeview Terrace Rehabilitation
Facility, Phoenix House of Los Angeles Lakeview Terrace, California Physiological Acoustics Research
Facility, UCLA Medical Center Westwood, California
Performing Arts Center Lancaster, California
Crystal Harmony, Crystal Cruise Lines Los Angeles, California Integrated Service Facility,
NASA/Dryden Research Facility Edwards, California
Theater, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer New York, New York
Santa Ana Theater Santa Ana, California
Sammy Davis Jr. Festival Plaza Las Vegas, Nevada
City Hall, Council Chamber Santa Monica, California
Video Conference Facility, Sony Music New York, New York Legend of the Seas, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines Miami, Florida Orange County Branch Library Aliso Viejo, California
Screening Room, Warner Brothers Animation Glendale, California Screening Room, Turner Feature Animation Glendale, California Las Vegas Motor Speedway North Las Vegas, Nevada
Large Screening Room, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Santa Monica, California Japanese American National Museum Los Angeles, California Carson City Courthouse Carson City, Nevada
St. Mel Parish Center Woodland Hills, California
Congregation Ner Tamid Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Old Town Temecula Streetscape Temecula, California
Grandeur of the Seas, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines Miami, Florida Disney Magic, Disney Cruise Lines Orlando, Florida
Coral Sky Amphitheater West Palm Beach, Florida
First Chinese Baptist Church Los Angeles, California
St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church Los Angeles, California C-17 Assembly Facility, Douglas Aircraft
Division, The Boeing Corporation Long Beach, California Crisci's Restaurant Brooklyn, New York
JamSync Studios Nashville, Tennessee
New Standard Post Hollywood, California
Media Artists, Pty Madras, India
The Lobster Santa Monica, California
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 11
International Rectifier Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico Antelope Valley Courthouse Lancaster, California
Fe Bland Forum, Santa Barbara City College Santa Barbara, California Arizona Humane Society Phoenix, Arizona
Cartoon Network Glendale, California
Santa Monica High School Santa Monica, California
Malibu High School Malibu, California
Barnum Hall Auditorium Santa Monica, California
Sobrato High School Morgan Hill, California
Temple Beth El Aliso Viejo, California
Sacramento East End Project Sacramento, California
Gold Circle Films Beverly Hills, California
Denver City Hall Extension Denver, Colorado
Fullerton City Hall Fullerton, California
Union Station Improvement Los Angeles, California
Intimate Theater, California State University Los Angeles, California San Diego Convention Center, Sails Pavilion San Diego, California Temple Shir Ha-Ma'A Lot Irvine, California
United States Courthouse Fresno, California
Department of Education Office Complex,
State of California Sacramento, California
MGM Constellation Headquarters Century City, California Ketchum Advertising Venice, California
Orange County Register Santa Ana, California
28 Church of Christ, Scientist Westwood, California
th
Temple Solel Escondido, California
NT Audio Mixing and QC Rooms Santa Monica, California
River Cats Restaurant Sacramento, California
Caltrans District 7 Headquarters Los Angeles, California 1221 Ocean Avenue Santa Monica, California
Memorial Assembly Hall Manhattan Beach, California
City of Manhattan Beach Annex Manhattan Beach, California Twohy Building San Jose, California
Widget Post Production Culver City, California
1 Church of Christ, Scientist Beverly Hills, California st
Sunrise Assisted Living Pacific Palisades, California
Sunrise Assisted Living Santa Monica, California
Sunrise Assisted Living Woodland Hills, California
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences Boardroom Beverly Hills, California
Getty Villa Outdoor Amphitheater Los Angeles, California Ressler Residence Beverly Hills, California
American Honda Torrance, California
Community Baptist Church Manhattan Beach, California
Bernard Hodes Agency Marina Del Ray, California
Houston’s Restaurant Santa Monica, California
Café R&D Newport Beach, California
Getty Center Auditorium Los Angeles, California
Mid-City Police Station Los Angeles, California
College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
Instruction and Research Facility,
University of California Riverside, California
Genomics Research Facility,
University of California Riverside, California
Panasonic Hollywood Laboratory Universal City, California
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 12
Sports Spectrum Club Pacific Palisades, California
Sunrise Assisted Living Simi Valley, California
Rose Bowl Pasadena, California
First Presbyterian Church Santa Monica, California
Los Angeles Fire Department Headquarters Los Angeles, California New York City Transit No. 7 Line Extension New York, New York Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority Goldline Los Angeles, California
South Lawn Project, University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia Shangri-La Hotel Santa Monica, California
Pacific Star, Princess Cruise Lines Santa Clarita, California Allied Post Santa Monica, California
Jet Propulsion Laboratory von Karman Auditorium Pasadena, California Self Realization Fellowship Los Angeles, California
Temple Beth Am Los Angeles, California
Broome Library, California State University,
Channel Islands Camarillo, California
California High-Speed Train Project State of California Morongo Band of Mission Indians Administrative
Complex Banning, California
The Buddy Group Irvine, California
Café R&D Santa Monica, California
Club 7969 West Hollywood, California
Brent’s Deli Westlake Village, California
Santa Cruz County Criminal Justice Complex Nogales, Arizona Porto’s Bakery Burbank, California
Microsoft Hardware Group Audio Test Laboratories Redmond, Washington University of California, Irvine, Arts Building Irvine, California Los Angeles Unified School District High
School No. 9 South Gate, California
Notre Dame High School Sherman Oaks, California
St. Mark Presbyterian Church Newport Beach, California
Fame Academy Poly High School Sun Valley, California
FAA Sonic Boom Simulator (with the
Pennsylvania State University) State College, Pennsylvania Metropolitan Transit District Hearing Room Los Angeles, California St. Peter and St. Paul Coptic Church Santa Monica, California Lifehouse Properties Pacific Palisades, California
Wilson Well No.2 San Gabriel, California
Habitat for Humanity Lynwood Housing Lynwood, California Whole Foods Plaza Malibu, California
Habitat for Humanity Burbank Housing Burbank, California The Cork Los Angeles, California
Cove Way Residence Beverly Hills, California
Habitat for Humanity Lawndale Housing Lawndale, California Forest Lawn Chapel Cypress, California
Rodney Bay and Gros Islet Villages St. Lucia
Panasonic Avionics Lake Forest, California
Capitol Records Hollywood, California
Art of Living Foundation Los Angeles, California
Conexant Corporation Newport Beach, California
University of California, Santa Barbara
Faculty Center Santa Barbara, California
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Seattle, Washington
J Restaurant and Lounge Los Angeles, California
Newcom Santa Monica, California
Neil A. Shaw - Resume
©2012 Neil A. Shaw 13
American School in Vietnam Hanoi, Vietnam
Apple Yellowstone Anechoic Chamber Facility Cupertino, California Barnum Hall Continuing Renovation Santa Monica, California Malibu High School Auditorium Renovation Malibu, California John Adams Middle School Auditorium Renovation Santa Monica, California Westminster Presbyterian Church Newbury Park, California American School in Bombay Mumbai, India
Temple Judea Tarzana, California
Holy Angel Church San Marino, California
Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice
University of San Diego San Diego, California
7 June 2012
7554-010acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444 - 6201
FAX: (916) 444 - 6209
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589 - 1660
FAX: (650) 589 - 5062
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper
January 27, 2025
VIA E-Mail and U.S. Mail
City Council
c/o Adrian Garcia
City Clerk
City of South El Monte
1415 Santa Anita Avenue
South El Monte, California 91733
[email protected]
[email protected]
Via E-Mail Only
Guillermo Arreola, Director
[email protected]
Gerardo Marquez, Planning Manager
[email protected]
Re: Agenda Item No. 8.a: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 2222 Rosemead Boulevard
Dear Mayor Olmos, Mayor Pro Tem Delgado, Mr. Acosta, Mr. Bojorquez, Mr. Rodriguez, and Mr. Garcia:
We write on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development Los Angeles (“CREED LA”) regarding Agenda Item No. 8.a., which concerns CREED LA’s appeal of the City of South El Monte (“City”) Planning Commission’s November 19, 2024 land use and environmental approvals for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2024100046; Conditional Use Permit No. 21-13) (“Project”) proposed by Tait & Associates, Inc. (“Applicant”) as set forth in Resolution No. 24-09.
According to the Staff Report, the appeal hearing will be continued to February 18, 2025, pursuant to Government Code Section 54955.1.1 The Staff 1 Memorandum to Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council, South El Monte from Guillermo Arreola, Director of Community Development, South El Monte re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-09, Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 21-13 to Allow for the Development of a New 156,877 Square Foot Warehouse Building to be Located at 2222 Rosemead Boulevard (Jan. 28, 2025) (hereinafter “City Council
ATTACHMENT E
January 27, 2025
7554-010acp
printed on recycled paper
Report does not contain any substantive responses or new analysis in response to CREED LA’s appeal, and the City still has not prepared an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project. CREED LA supports a continuance but asks that the City Council further extend the date for the continued hearing to allow sufficient time for the City to prepare and circulate an EIR for the Project and bring its actions into compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and land use laws before any further hearings are conducted.2 In the alternative, if the City Council chooses to act on the appeal at this time, CREED LA respectfully requests that the City Council uphold the appeal and vacate all Planning Commission approvals. This includes vacating Resolution 24- 09, adoption of the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration3 (“IS/MND”) and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (“MMRP”), the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 21-13, and all other related approvals and findings. In upholding the appeal, the City Council should also remand the Project to City staff to prepare and circulate a legally adequate EIR.
As detailed in CREED LA’s appeal, the IS/MND is fundamentally flawed and fails to meet the requirements of CEQA.4 Specifically, the IS/MND fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, public health, energy, noise, transportation, and public utilities. There is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that these impacts are significant and unmitigated. These unresolved issues demonstrate that an EIR is required for the Project and that the City’s environmental review failed to comply with CEQA.
In addition to the deficiencies outlined in CREED LA’s appeal, the IS/MND’s deficient disclosure and mitigation of impacts associated with remediation of the Project’s site-specific soil contamination impacts require the preparation of an EIR.
Specifically, the IS/MND fails to adequately disclose and mitigate potentially Agenda Report”), available at
https://southelmonteca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/372/files/report/1709. 2 Letter to City Council, City of South El Monte from Andrew J. Graf, Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-09, Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program, and Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 21-13 for the 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Project (Nov. 27, 2024) (hereinafter “CREED LA Appeal”). 3 City of South El Monte, 2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Oct. 2024) (hereinafter “IS/MND”), available at https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/306909-1/attachment/NNeca6u-dkBdc7O_85UzriOH1- jlPl91DSP4H9aBaRjycZ4HV9N7ItQHuOv4VAi_XOKsW6nMv_V3J16H0. 4 See generally CREED LA Appeal.
January 27, 2025
7554-010acp
printed on recycled paper
significant hazard risks to construction workers, fails to analyze construction impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable soil remediation activities that are required for the Project to proceed, and fails to analyze compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) Indirect Source Rule. These omissions represent critical gaps in the environmental review process.
We urge the City Council to take meaningful action to ensure compliance with CEQA by vacating the Project’s approvals and requiring the preparation of a comprehensive EIR that addresses these deficiencies.
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CREED LA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations formed to ensure that the construction of major urban projects in the Los Angeles region proceeds in a manner that minimizes public and worker health and safety risks, avoids or mitigates environmental and public service impacts, and fosters long-term sustainable construction and development opportunities. The association includes South El Monte residents Alejando Ayala and Jose Francis, the Sheet Metal Workers Local 105, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11, Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16, and District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of South El Monte and Los Angeles County.
Individual members of CREED LA live in the City of South El Monte, and work, recreate, and raise their families in the City and surrounding communities.
Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health, and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist on site.
CREED LA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members.
Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.
CREED LA supports the development of commercial, mixed use, and medical office projects where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts
January 27, 2025
7554-010acp
printed on recycled paper
on public health, climate change, and the environment. These projects should avoid adverse impacts to air quality, public health, climate change, noise, and traffic, and must incorporate all feasible mitigation to ensure that any remaining adverse impacts are reduced to the maximum extent feasible. Only by maintaining the highest standards can commercial development truly be sustainable.
II. THE CITY’S HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION IMPACT ANALYSES
FAIL TO COMPLY WITH CEQA
The IS/MND acknowledges that the Project site has a decades-long history of significant soil and groundwater contamination, which has prompted cleanup orders from both the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Los Angeles RWQCB”) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental investigations at the Project site have identified concentrations of hazardous compounds in soil, soil vapor, and groundwater samples that exceed current regulatory thresholds, including high levels of polychlorinated biphenyl (“PCB”), lead, arsenic and hexavalent chromium.5 These contaminants are the result of prior on-site operations, including a steel drum reconditioning facility and various autobody shops, as well as off-site sources of contamination migrating onto the site.6 While the IS/MND notes that some contamination has been remediated, substantial contamination remains. The residual contamination exceeds commercial environmental screening levels and poses significant risks to public health, particularly to on-site workers and surrounding communities. The IS/MND states that site contamination must be addressed before the grading phase of Project construction commences and requires preparation and implementation of a Soil Remediation Work Plan (“SRWP”) and Soil Management Plan (“SMP”) as mitigation measures. Therefore, remediation activities are an integral component of the Project.
However, the IS/MND fails to analyze the direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the site cleanup, including but not limited to constructionrelated air quality impacts from dust and emissions, noise from remediation equipment, and transportation impacts from hauling contaminated soil off-site.
CEQA requires that all phases of a project, including activities necessary for site preparation and remediation or those required by mitigation, be analyzed for potential significant impacts.7 CEQA also requires an analysis of impacts that are 5 See generally IS/MND at pp. 64-70, appen. C.
6 Ibid. 7 CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064(d), 15126.4(a)(1)(D).
January 27, 2025
7554-010acp
printed on recycled paper
exacerbated by the project, even if the contamination is not directly caused by the project.8
The City’s own record provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that contamination impacts and associated cleanup efforts are potentially significant. Despite this evidence, the IS/MND fails to adequately disclose the extent of these impacts or provide sufficient mitigation measures to address them.
An EIR is required to fully evaluate and mitigate the potential impacts of contamination and the proposed cleanup efforts.
A. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate Potential Public Health Impacts to On-Site Construction Workers from Exposure to Hazardous Materials
The IS/MND acknowledges the presence of significant soil and groundwater contamination at the Project site but concludes that construction impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.9 However, the IS/MND fails to adequately disclose the severity of potential health risks to on-site construction workers or provide effective mitigation measures to address these risks.
The human health risk assessment (“HHRA”) prepared by the City’s consultant reveals that the cumulative incremental lifetime excess cancer risk (“ILECR”) is 4x10-5, four times OEHHA’s benchmark cancer risk level of 1x10-5.10 This elevated risk is predominantly attributable to inhalation of hexavalent chromium (83%),which can cause cancer and damage the respiratory system, liver, skin, and eyes.11 Additionally, the non-cancer hazard index (“HI”) is 17, far exceeding the acceptable threshold of 1, primarily due to arsenic (41%) and Aroclor1242 (31%).12 These findings indicate that construction workers face significant health risks during Project implementation, which the IS/MND fails to disclose or mitigate effectively.
8 See California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369.
9 IS/MND at pp. 64-73; see also id., appen. C.
10 IS/MND, appen C., Haley & Aldrich, Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum (Apr. 2024), appen. F (Haley & Aldrich, Report on Updated Risk Evaluation for South El Monte Site 2200-2226 North Rosemead Boulevard South El Monte, California (Apr. 2024) p. 20. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.
January 27, 2025
7554-010acp
printed on recycled paper
While the IS/MND includes mitigation measures (MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-5) aimed at addressing contamination,13 these measures are insufficient to protect on-site workers during construction activities. MM HAZ-2 and MM HAZ-3 require the implementation of existing remediation work plans and postremediation risk evaluations to confirm whether remedial action goals have been achieved.14 However, the IS/MND does not expressly prohibit non-remediation construction activities until the Los Angeles RWQCB and U.S. EPA confirmed that site is safe for on-site construction workers.
While the mitigation measures require specific cleanup activities to be completed prior to the grading phase, there is no guarantee that post-remediation evaluations will demonstrate that contamination has been sufficiently reduced to safe levels, and the IS/MND’s mitigation measures do not restrict issuance of grading permits on that basis. If residual contamination remains after initial cleanup efforts are completed as required under MM HAZ-2 and MM HAZ-3, construction workers and nearby communities may still be exposed to hazardous conditions. By allowing construction to proceed without certainty that risks have been eliminated, the IS/MND improperly shifts the burden of risk to construction workers and fails to ensure their health and safety are adequately protected.
This lack of disclosure and inadequate mitigation violates CEQA’s informational and procedural requirements, preventing the public and decisionmakers from fully understanding the Project’s health impacts. Therefore, the IS/MND lacks substantial evidence to conclude hazard impacts are less than significant. An EIR must be prepared to comprehensively analyze constructionphase health risks and enforceable mitigation measures to ensure worker safety.
B. The IS/MND Underestimates Air Quality Impacts by Excluding Soil Remediation Activities from Emission Estimates
According to a Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum, approximately 4,999 cubic yards (“cy”) of contaminated soil will be excavated from the eastern portion of the Project site.15 This includes 4,670 cy of soil contaminated with PCB, 164 cy with lead, 122 cy with arsenic, and 7 yards with total petroleum hydrocarbons diesel.16 The soil will then be segregated, stockpiled, sampled, profiled, and transported to an appropriate waste disposal facility.17 These 13 IS/MND at pp. 75-77. 14 Id. at p. 76.
15 LSRWPA, Table 8 (Soil Remedial Excavation Volumes).
16 LSRWPA, Table 9 (Soil Remedial Excavation Volumes by [Contaminant of Concern]). 17 LSRWPA at pp. 17-20.
January 27, 2025
7554-010acp
printed on recycled paper
remediation activities are anticipated to last approximately 45 days.18 Despite acknowledging the need for such extensive remediation, the IS/MND fails to analyze the associated air quality impacts, resulting in an incomplete and inadequate environmental review.
Under CEQA, lead agencies are required to use good faith and best efforts to analyze reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts. This includes evaluating the scope, types, and duration of remediation activities and quantifying the associated emissions. These emissions must then be incorporated into the Project’s construction emissions profile and evaluated against the selected significance thresholds. By omitting an analysis of emissions from soil remediation activities, the IS/MND violates CEQA’s fundamental requirement for a thorough and accurate environmental review.
Soil remediation activities associated with the Project will require the use of heavy-duty, diesel-fueled equipment to excavate and transport contaminated soils, as well as vehicle trips by workers conducting cleanup operations. These activities will generate substantial emissions, including criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, due to truck hauling and excavation-related operations. Despite these foreseeable impacts, the CalEEMod output files provided in the IS/MND fail to account for remediation activities. Specifically, the construction schedule used in the air quality analysis omits a remediation phase, even though such activities are clearly planned (and possibly even underway)19 and would result in significant emissions.
18 LSRWPA at p. 20.
19 See Email to Jennifer Nobui, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board from Chris Tsiatsios, Haley & Aldrich, Inc. re: Rosemead Holding – South El Monte – Pacific Coast Drum – Soil Remediation Completion Report Schedule Extension (Jan. 10, 2025), available at https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/esi/uploads/geo_report/2819116532/SL603798723.P DF; Letter to Wayne Wang, Rosemead Holding L.L.C. from Jennifer Nobui, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board re: Approval of Soil Management Plan (Nov. 5, 2024), available at https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/regulators/deliverable_documents/9613248527/SCP 5_JN_Pacific%20Coast%20Drum_Appr%20Letter%20of%20SMP%2010152024%20(1).pdf; Letter to Wayne Wange, Rosemead Holding L.L.C from Jennfer Nobui, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board re: Approval of Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan, Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum, and Technical Memorandum – Response to Comments on the “Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum” (Oct. 2, 2024), available at https://documents.geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/regulators/deliverable_documents/2461286246/SCP 5_JN_Pacific%20Coast%20Drum_Appr%20of%20Soil%20Rem%20WP%20Addm_10-02- 24%20Final.pdf.
January 27, 2025
7554-010acp
printed on recycled paper
For example, the IS/MND assumes that demolition and grading activities for the entire Project site will require only 40 days,20 yet the 45-day estimate for remediation activities for only a portion of the site exceeds this timeframe.21 This inconsistency demonstrates that the IS/MND underestimates both the duration and intensity of construction-related emissions. By failing to include a remediation phase, the IS/MND overlooks a significant source of construction-related air quality impacts in violation of CEQA.
Additionally, the IS/MND underestimates emissions associated with haul truck trips. The CalEEMod output files indicate that the City used a default oneway trip length of 20 miles to quantify emissions for hauling construction materials and importing or exporting soil.22 However, no soil export is included in the analysis despite the clear need to remove and dispose of contaminated soil as part of the remediation process.
This omission is particularly problematic given the longer trip lengths required to transport soil to appropriate disposal facilities. For example, the nearest landfill accepting non-hazardous soil is the Bradley Municipal Landfill, located approximately 27 miles from the Project site.23 For RCRA and non-RCRA hazardous soil, the nearest permitted hazardous waste facility is the Clean Harbors Buttonwillow facility, located approximately 146 miles away from the Project site.24 Additionally, the Waste Management Kettleman Hills facility, approximately 188 miles away from the Project site, is the only facility in California that accepts Toxic Substances Control Act-regulated PCB waste for disposal.25 Given that most of the contaminated soil (~4,670 cy) contains PCB,26 the need to transport this material to Kettleman Hills significantly increases haul truck trip lengths and associated emissions. These significantly longer one-way trip 20 IS/MND, appen. A, Memorandum to City of South El Monte from Giancarlo Ganddini, Ganddini Group re: Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project – Updated Plan Set and Transportation, Noise, and Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/ Energy Impact Studies (Aug. 15, 2024), appen. B (CalEEMod Model Detailed Report & EMFAC Data) p. 36. 21 LSRWPA at p. 20. 22 CalEEMod Model Detailed Report & EMFAC Data at pp. 37-38. 23 IS/MND, appen. C (Leighton Consulting Inc., Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan for the Eastern Portion of 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard South El Monte, California 91733 (Apr. 25, 2023) (hereinafter “LSRWP”) p. 25. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid.; see also Department of Toxic Substances Control, Kettleman Hills Facility, https://dtsc.ca.gov/kettleman-hills-facility/ (last visited Jan. 27, 2025). 26 LSRWPA, Table 9 (Soil Remedial Excavation Volumes by [Contaminant of Concern]).
January 27, 2025
7554-010acp
printed on recycled paper
distances must be accurately reflected in the emissions analysis to ensure a complete and accurate evaluation of air quality impacts.
The failure to analyze emissions from soil remediation activities and associated haul truck trips undermines the IS/MND’s conclusions regarding the Project’s air quality impacts. These emissions are likely significant, particularly given the volume of soil to be excavated and the potential trip distances to appropriate disposal facilities.
To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR which includes a detailed and accurate analysis of air quality impacts from soil remediation activities. This analysis must quantify emissions from heavy-duty equipment, worker trips, and haul truck trips using appropriate one-way trip lengths to disposal facilities. The emissions from remediation activities must also be integrated into the Project’s overall construction emissions profile. Without this revised analysis, the IS/MND fails to meet CEQA’s good faith disclosure requirements.
C. The IS/MND Fails to Evaluate Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 2305 On May 7, 2021, SCAQMD adopted Rule 2305, also known as the Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (“WAIRE”) Program, along with Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305.27 Rule 2305 is designed to reduce regional and local emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM), including diesel PM, which are associated with warehouse operations and mobile sources such as trucks that service these facilities. These reductions are essential for helping the region attain federal and state ambient air quality standards. Rule 316 establishes a fee schedule to allow SCAQMD to recover costs associated with compliance activities under Rule 2305.28 Rule 2305 applies to owners and operators of warehouses that exceed 100,000 square feet.29 Operators are subject to an annual WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation, calculated based on the number of truck trips to the warehouse each 27 See South Coast Air Quality Management District, WAIRE Program, https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/compliance/waire-program (last visited Jan. 27, 2025). 28 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 316. Fees for Rule 2305 (May 3, 2024), available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-iii/r316.pdf?sfvrsn=15. 29 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 2305. Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program (May 7, 2021), available at https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xxiii/r2305.pdf?sfvrsn=15.