South El Monte City Council
April 15, 2025

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 3.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Initial Study Checklist 22 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?

6. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 3.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Initial Study Checklist 23 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 3.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Initial Study Checklist 24 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
§65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 3.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Initial Study Checklist 25 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 3.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Initial Study Checklist 26 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code §5020.1(k)?
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code §5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code §5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 3.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Initial Study Checklist 27 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project:
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 3.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Initial Study Checklist 28 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 29 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

4.1 Aesthetics
Threshold (a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The area surrounding the project site is urbanized and includes one-story commercial and industrial buildings to the east, north, and west that somewhat obscure distant views of the mountains north of the City. The General Plan does not identify any specific scenic vistas in the City. However, the San Gabriel Mountain Range is a prominent vista in the San Gabriel Valley. Existing urban development in the surrounding area limits views across and beyond the project site. Further, Rosemead Boulevard does not provide long-range scenic views. The proposed warehouse building would not exceed 48 feet 10 inches and would not obstruct any scenic vistas. Therefore, the Project would not obstruct, interrupt, or dimmish a scenic vista. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No Impact. According to the General Plan Resources Element, there are no officially designated State scenic highways in or proximate to the City. The nearest officially designated State scenic highway is SR-2, which is located approximately 14 miles north of the project site. The project site is not visible from SR-2. Therefore, since the project site is not within the vicinity of any designated or eligible State scenic highways, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources including trees, scenic rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a State scenic highway. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c) If in a non-urbanized area, would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is in an urbanized area. As noted in Table 2.2-1: Surrounding Land Uses, the project site is bordered by commercial and industrial buildings to the east, north, and west and an industrial building and mobile home park to the south, the latter of which is also zoned Commercial Manufacturing (C-M). Although the Project would change the character of the site with the construction of the 48-foot-10-inch-tall warehouse building, the Project would be compatible with the existing development pattern and the character of the existing developed area surrounding the site.

The Project would be subject to the requirements of Municipal Code Section 17.09, which addresses permitted and prohibited development intended to provide for areas within the City in which general commercial and limited manufacturing uses can be collocated. Municipal Code Section 17.09.040 and Section 17.09.050 discuss property development standards that apply to all uses within the C-M zone. The development standards are imposed to control the type and intensity of uses and to ensure the quality of design that will enhance the area in which the use is located and which will protect adjacent and neighboring properties. Compliance with the C-M zoning district development standards would be ensured through the City’s review during the application process and future review of building permits.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 30 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
There are no height requirements for development in the C-M zone, except that any building constructed adjacent to a residentially zoned lot can have a maximum allowable height of 28 feet.3 Note, the mobile home park to the south is not zoned for residential use. Therefore, the proposed warehouse would not exceed any maximum building height for a building in the C-M zone. The proposed architecture and massing are intended to complement the existing development and would comply with the General Plan objectives and policies to provide compatibility of the Project’s design with the surrounding land uses.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. Glare is created by the reflection of sunlight and electric lights from windows and building surfaces. Daytime glare is generally caused by the reflection of sunlight from highly reflective surfaces at or above eye level. Reflective surfaces are typically associated with buildings constructed with broad expanses of highly polished surfaces or broad, light-colored areas of paving. Daytime glare is usually present during early morning and late afternoon hours when the sun is at a low angle and the potential exists for intense reflected light to interfere with vision and driving conditions. Daytime glare may also hinder outdoor activities performed within surrounding land uses. Nighttime glare includes direct, intense, focused light, along with reflected light. Glare generated by direct light typically comes from mobile sources (e.g., automobiles). Glare is also less frequently caused by intense stationary sources, such as floodlights or cargo crane lights. As with daytime sun glare, intense nighttime light may cause undesirable interferences with driving or other activities. The project site is in an urbanized area with existing light sources, including automobile headlights associated with traffic on Rosemead Boulevard adjacent to and west of the site, parking lot lights of surrounding commercial and industrial land uses, exterior advertising, and building lights from surrounding commercial and industrial buildings, and street lights.

Construction. Project construction has the potential to generate light spillover to off-site land uses, including the mobile home park south of the projectsite. While the majority of Project construction would occur during daylight hours, construction could occur up until 10:00 PM in accordance with Municipal Code Section 8.20.030 which would require the use of artificial lighting, particularly during the winter season when daylight is no longer sufficient earlier in the day. Outdoor lighting sources, such as floodlights, spotlights, and/or headlights associated with construction equipment and hauling trucks, typically accompany nighttime construction activities. To the extent that evening construction includes artificial light sources, such use would be temporary and would cease upon Project completion.

The Project would generate lighting from two primary sources: lighting from building interiors that would pass through windows and lighting from exterior sources (e.g., signage, parking area lighting, building illumination, security lighting, wayfinding, and landscape lighting). Although the proposed Project would introduce new sources of light, the surrounding urban area contains multiple sources of illumination. The proposed lighting would be subject to compliance with Municipal Code Section 17.09.100 – Exterior Lighting Facilities, which requires exterior lighting facilities to be located in a manner that will not provide a direct glare or create hazardous interference with highways and neighboring properties. The City would also review new lighting for conformance with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the 3 South El Monte Municipal Code Section 17.16.120 - Maximum building height.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 31 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
time of building permit application to ensure the minimum amount of lighting is being used, and no light spillage would occur.

As shown in Figure 7, the Project proposes blue-glazed windows on all sides of the buildings with the greatest amount of windows on the west side of the building adjacent to Rosemead Boulevard. The Project would be required to comply with CCR Title 24 standards, which require all glass used in the building design to have minimal reflectivity to reduce glare on surrounding neighbors. Therefore, compliance with the City’s existing regulatory framework (i.e., CCR Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and Municipal Code), which would be verified through the City’s plan review process would ensure the Project does not create a substantial new source of light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 32 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Threshold (a) Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? No Impact. The State of California, Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program has designated the project site as Urban and Built-Up Land. There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance on or proximate to the project site.4 The surrounding area includes various commercial and industrial uses and a mobile home park. No farmland would be converted. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The project site is zoned C-M. Since there is no agricultural use on the site and the C-M zone does not allow agricultural use, the Project would not conflict with any zoning that allows agricultural use on the site. A Williamson Act contract between local governments and private landowners restricts specified parcels of land to agricultural or related open-space use in return for a lower property tax assessment. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. Further, the project site’s existing C-M zoning does not allow for agricultural uses. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with agricultural zoning designation or a Williamson contract. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
Threshold (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. There are no forest or timberland resources on the project site or in the surrounding area. The project site’s existing C-M zoning district does not permit forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (e) Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. The project site and surrounding area do not include nor are proximate to agricultural uses or forest land. Therefore, the Project would not directly or indirectly result in the conversion of property from agricultural or timberland uses. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. 4 State of California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed July 22, 2024.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 33 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 34 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.3 Air Quality
The air quality analysis in this section is based on information included in the following reports:
 Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project, Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis, Ganddini Group Inc., February 16, 2024; see Appendix A. 5  Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project Memorandum – Updated Plan Set and Transportation, Noise, and Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Impact Studies, Ganddini Group Inc., August 15, 2024; see Appendix A.
6 Threshold (a) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) jurisdiction. The SCAQMD is required, under the Federal Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2016 and 2022 AQMPs, which establish programs of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) and National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The AQMPs are a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The AQMPs’ pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 (2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [RTP/SCS]). SCAG’s latest growth forecasts at the time of AQMP preparation were defined in consultation with local governments and based on local general plans.

Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMPs are listed below:
 Consistency Criterion No. 1: The project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMPs.  Consistency Criterion No. 2: The project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMPs or increments based on the years of the project build-out phase.

According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the AQMP’s assumptions and objectives, and thus if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with CAAQS and NAAQS.

The violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to are exceeding the CAAQS and NAAQS. Based on the air quality modeling analysis conducted for the Project (Appendix A), the Project would not exceed 5 The technical reports supporting this Initial Study assumed a construction schedule for the project from November 2023 to November 2024.

Due to different intervals for the processing and anticipated approval timeframe for the Project, the Project is now assumed to commence construction in Fall/Winter 2024, with expected construction timeframe of 12 months. This change in construction schedule does not impact the conclusions of the technical reports and evaluations supporting this Initial Study, as the change in construction schedule is not expected to result in any new or worse environmental impacts for purposes of CEQA. The overall scope, equipment use and duration of Project construction would remain the same, and the delayed construction date could reasonably result in fewer air quality emissions as State and AQMD regulations become more stringent. Therefore, the technical reports supporting this Initial Study remain valid. 6 After preparation of the technical study, minor modifications to the plan set dated August 8, 2024 has resulted in a net reduction of square feet compared to the assumptions for the February 2024 study. These changes do not change the findings of the study as summarized in this Initial Study.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 35 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
the SCAQMD’s construction or operational thresholds as shown in Table 4.3-2: Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions and Table 4.3-3: Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions. Therefore, the Project would not exceed the CAAQS or NAAQS, would not contribute to an existing air quality violation, and is consistent with Consistency Criterion No. 1.

With respect to Consistency Criterion No. 2, consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of a project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted on a project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The AQMPs contain air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The project site has an existing land use designation of Commercial-Manufacturing and is zoned C-M. The proposed Project would construct an approximately 156,877 sf concrete tilt-up warehouse with 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 proposed Project is consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations that were assumed in the AQMP. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with Consistency Criterion No. 2.

Because the Project is consistent with the SCAQMD consistency findings criteria, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the AQMP. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact. Since the timing or sequencing of the cumulative projects is unknown, any quantitative analysis to ascertain daily construction emissions that assumes multiple, concurrent construction projects would be speculative at this time. Further, cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth in the project area. However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which travel well out of the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered would cover an even larger area. The SCAQMD recommends using two different methodologies: (1) that project-specific air quality impacts be used to determine the potential cumulative impacts to regional air quality; and (2) that a project’s consistency with the current AQMP be used to determine its potential cumulative impacts. The Project’s potential regional construction and operational air quality impacts are discussed below. The Project’s consistency with the AQMP is discussed under Response 4.3(a) above.

Regional Air Quality
Air quality impacts that derive from dispersed mobile sources, which are the dominant pollution generators in the SCAB, often occur hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure.

Therefore, the SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the South Coast Air Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the purposes of

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 36 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
this air quality impact analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table 4.3-1: SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.

Table 4.3-1: SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Mass Daily Thresholds1
Pollutant Construction (lbs/day) Operation (lbs/day)
NOx 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead 3 3
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), Odor and GHG Thresholds
TACs (including carcinogens and
non-carcinogens)
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)
Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to South Coast AQMD Rule 402 GHG 10,000 MT/yr CO2e for industrial facilities
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants2
NO2
1-hour average
annual arithmetic mean
SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:

0.18 ppm (State)

0.03 ppm (State) & 0.0534 ppm (federal)
PM10
24-hour average
annual average

10.4 µg/m^3 (construction)3 & 2.5 ug/m^3 (operation)

1.0 ug/m^3
PM2.5
24-hour average 10.4 µg/m^3 (construction)3 & 2.5 µg/m^3 (operation) SO2
1-hour average
24-hour average

0.25 ppm (State) & 0.075 ppm (federal – 99th percentile)

0.04 ppm (State)
Sulfate
24-hour average 25 µg/m^3 (State)
CO
1-hour average 8-hour average
SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:
20 ppm (State) & 35 ppm (federal) 9 ppm (State/federal) Lead
3-day average
Rolling 3-month average

1.5 µg/m^3 (State)

0.15 µg/m^3 (federal)
(1) Source: South Coast AQMD CEQA Handbook (South Coast AQMD, 1993) (2) Ambient air quality thresholds for criteria pollutants based on South Coast AQMD Rule 1303, Table A-2 unless otherwise stated. (3) Ambient air quality threshold based on South Coast AQMD Rule 403.

Source: Ganddini Group Inc. 2024

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 37 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Construction-Related Emissions
Project construction activities would generate short-term criteria air pollutant emissions. The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the project area are O3 precursor pollutants (i.e., reactive organic gases [ROG] and nitrogen oxides [NOX]) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-related emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the criteria pollutant emissions exceeded the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.

Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.

Project construction is anticipated to occur over approximately 12 months. Project construction-related emissions were calculated using the CARB-approved CalEEMod computer program; see Appendix A for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis. The maximum summer or winter criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed Project’s construction-related criteria pollutant emissions are shown in Table 4.3-2. As identified in Table 4.3-2, the Project’s construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, the Project’s constructionrelated emissions would result in a less than significant impact.

Table 4.3-2: Construction-Related Regional Pollutant Emissions Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions1,2 60.60 84.20 100.00 0.17 5.03 3.91 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
(1) Reflects on-site and off-site emissions. On-site demolition and grading PM10 and PM2.5 emissions show compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust.
(2) Construction, painting, and paving phases may overlap.

Source: Ganddini Group Inc. 2024.

Operational-Related Emissions
Project operations would result in long-term increases in air quality emissions compared to the existing emissions from the site; the site is currently vacant. This increase would be due to emissions from projectgenerated vehicle trips and operational emissions from the ongoing use of the Project.

The operations-related criteria air quality impacts of the Project were analyzed with CalEEMod. The operating emissions were based on year 2025, which is the anticipated opening year for the Project (see Appendix A for more information regarding the operational assumptions used in this analysis). CalEEMod analyzes operational emissions from area sources, energy usage, and mobile sources, which are discussed below.

Mobile Sources. Mobile sources include emissions from the vehicle miles generated by the Project. The vehicle trips associated with the Project have been analyzed using CalEEMod. The Project would generate 227 (passenger car equivalent; PCE) truck trips and 422 vehicle trips per day. CalEEMod applies emission factors for each trip using the EMFAC2021 model to determine the Project’s vehicular traffic pollutant

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 38 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
emissions. Due to the location of the project site and proposed warehouse land use, the average customer-based trip length was increased to 40 miles per SCAQMD recommendation, while all other trip lengths were based on the urban default values (see Appendix A).

Area Sources. Area sources include emissions from consumer products, landscape maintenance equipment, and architectural coatings. Landscape maintenance includes fuel combustion emissions from the operation of equipment such as lawnmowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers, as well as air compressors, generators, and pumps. Since information is not available at this time for the landscape maintenance fleet equipment that would be used at the site, CalEEMod defaults were used to estimate the emissions from the operation of landscape maintenance equipment.

Energy Usage. Energy usage includes emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used on the site.

The maximum daily pollutant emissions generated by the Project’s long-term operations are shown in Table 4.3-3. As shown, the Project’s long-term operational emissions would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s operational emissions would result in a less than significant impact.

Table 4.3-3: Regional Operational Pollutant Emissions
Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 6.82 11.60 30.00 0.12 2.80 0.84 SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Note: the higher of either summer or winter emissions.

Source: Ganddini Group Inc. 2024
Cumulative Short-Term Emissions
The project site is located in an area that is not in attainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction and operation of cumulative projects may further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality of the SCAB. The greatest cumulative impact on the quality of regional air would be the incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic volumes from residential, commercial, and industrial development and the use of heavy equipment and trucks associated with the construction of the cumulative projects. Air quality would be temporarily degraded during construction activities that occur separately or simultaneously. However, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed SCAQMD air emission criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would add a cumulatively considerable contribution to a federal or State non-attainment pollutant.

Project operations are calculated to generate emissions of NOx, ROG, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 that would not exceed SCAQMD regional or local thresholds(Table 4.3-3) and would not be expected to result in groundlevel concentrations that exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS. Since the Project would not introduce any substantial stationary sources of emissions, CO is the benchmark pollutant for assessing local area air quality impacts from post-construction motor vehicle operations. As indicated earlier, no violations of the State and federal CO standards are projected to occur for the Project, based on the estimated traffic associated with the proposed Project.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 39 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Because the operation of the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable net increase in regional or local non-attainment criteria pollutants, the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact for operational emissions.

Threshold (c) Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. To identify impacts on sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for construction. LSTs were developed in response to the SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with project-specific emissions.

Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, Table 4.3-4: Maximum Number of Acres Disturbed Per Day is used to determine the Project’s maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs. The appropriate source receptor area (SRA) for the LSTs is the South San Gabriel Valley (SRA 11) because this area includes the project site. LSTs apply to NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD provides look-up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to 5.0 acres. Project construction is anticipated to disturb a minimum of 2.5 acres in a single day during the grading phase.

Table 4.3-4: Maximum Number of Acres Disturbed Per Day
Activity Equipment Number Acres/8 hr-day Total Acres
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 0.5 1
Total for Phase - - 1
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.5 0.5
Graders 1 0.5 0.5
Crawler Tractors1 3 0.5 1.5
Total for Phase - - 2.5
(1) Tractor/loader/backhoe is a suitable surrogate for a crawler tractor per SCAQMD staff.

Source: Ganddini Group Inc. 2024.

The sensitive receptor nearest the project site is the mobile home park located adjacent to the south. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters.

Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at a distance of 25 meters were utilized in this analysis consistent with SCAQMD methodology.

Table 4.3-5: LST Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors presents the results of localized emissions during each construction phase. As shown, none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, Project construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 40 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Table 4.3-5: LST Local Construction Emissions at the Nearest Receptors Activity
On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 27.3 23.5 2.1 1.24
Grading 20.0 19.7 3.7 2.21
Building Construction 82.7 95.4 3.95 3.64
Paving 7.81 10.0 0.39 0.36
Architectural Coating 0.91 1.15 0.03 0.03
SCAQMD LST Thresholds1 121 1,031 7 5
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
(1) The nearest sensitive receptors are the existing residential/trailer park use located adjacent to the south, the multi-family residential land uses located approximately 547 feet (~166 meters) to the southwest, and the single-family residential land uses located approximately 297 feet (~91 meters) to the west, 372 feet (~114 meters) to the northwest and 743 feet (~226 meters) to the southwest of the project site; therefore, the 25-meter threshold was used.

Notes: The Project will disturb up to a maximum of 2.5 acres a day during grading (see Table 4.3-4).

Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 2 acres, to be conservative, at a distance of 25 m in SRA 11 South San Gabriel Valley.

Source: Ganddini Group Inc. 2024.

Construction-Related Health Impacts
Public health significance thresholds related to criteria pollutant emissions are established for regional compliance in accordance with State and federal ambient air quality standards to protect the public from both acute and long-term health impacts, depending on the potential effects of the pollutant. Because both regional and local emissions of criteria pollutants during construction are calculated to be below the applicable thresholds, the Project would not contribute to long-term health impacts related to nonattainment of the ambient air quality standards. The significant adverse acute health impacts due to Project construction emissions would have a less than significant impact.

Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts
The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions associated with the construction of the Project would be with diesel particulate emissions during the operation of heavy construction equipment.

According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the SCAQMD Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis (August 2003), health effects from TACs are described in terms of individual cancer risk based on a lifetime (i.e., 30-year) resident exposure duration. Given the temporary and short-term construction schedule of approximately 12 months to construct the Project, the Project would not result in long-term (i.e., lifetime or 30-year) exposure. Additionally, construction-based particulate matter (PM) emissions, which include diesel exhaust emissions, do not exceed local or regional thresholds.

The Project would comply with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Toxics Control Measure which limits the operation of diesel-powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than five minutes and the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. Project compliance with these measures and regulations would minimize Project TACs during construction. TAC impacts during Project construction would be less than significant.

Operations-Related Human Impacts
The ongoing operation of the Project would generate toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions from the operation of on-site diesel trucks. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 41 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
air toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 30-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of the revised OEHHA risk-assessment methodology. The 2015 OEHHA guidance states that "Districts are to determine which facilities will prepare an HRA based on a prioritization process outlined in the law. 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".

The Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis prepared by SCAQMD (August 2003) defers to CARB (State) for "technical guidance for diesel toxic impact analyses for various source categories". The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has developed TAC health risk assessment guidelines to provide consistent, statewide procedures for preparing the health risk assessments required under the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Act. The District recommends that lead agencies conduct TAC risk assessments in accordance with the CAPCOA Risk Assessment Guidelines, as supplemented by the District’s supplemental guidelines. According to SCAQMD and CAPCOA guidelines, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 30-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the existing mobile home park use located adjacent to the south, the multi-family residential land uses located approximately 547 feet to the southwest, the single-family residential land uses located approximately 297 feet to the west, 372 feet to the northwest, and 743 feet to the southwest of the project site.

The 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). A summary of the basis for the distance recommendations can be found in the CARB Handbook Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.

The Project is calculated to generate approximately 89 truck trips per day (non-PCE). Therefore, a quantitative health risk assessment for the Project is not warranted or required because the Project would generate less than 100 truck trips per day. Due to the low number of Project-related trucks (less than 100 per day), significant TAC impacts from the project-related operational diesel particulate matter (DPM) sources are not anticipated, and no significant long-term operations-related TAC impacts by the Project.

The applicable significance thresholds for health effects related to criteria pollutant emissions are established for regional compliance with the State and federal ambient air quality standards, which are intended to protect public health from both acute and long-term health impacts, depending on the potential effects of the pollutant. Because regional and local emissions of criteria pollutants during Project operations are below the applicable thresholds, the Project would not contribute to long-term health impacts related to nonattainment of the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, the Project would have less than significant operational human health impacts. Based on the analysis above, the Project would not have any significant operational air quality impacts.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 42 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots. CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with Project CO levels to the State and federal CO standards. To determine if the proposed Project could cause emission levels in excess of the CO standards discussed above, a sensitivity analysis is typically conducted to determine the potential for CO “hot spots” at intersections in the general project vicinity. Because of reduced speeds and vehicle queuing, “hot spots” potentially occur at high-traffic volume intersections with a Level of Service E or worse.

The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the SCAB can be used to assist in evaluating the potential for CO exceedances in the SCAB. CO attainment was thoroughly analyzed as part of the SCAQMD's 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (2003 AQMP) and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan). As discussed in the 1992 CO Plan, peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the South Coast Air Basin are due to unusual meteorological and topographical conditions, and not due to the impact of particular intersections. Considering the region’s unique meteorological conditions and the increasingly stringent CO emissions standards, CO modeling was performed as part of the 1992 CO Plan and subsequent plan updates and air quality management plans. In the 1992 CO Plan, a CO hot spot analysis was conducted for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods.

The intersections evaluated included: South Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway (Lynwood); Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue (Westwood); Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue (Hollywood); and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard (Inglewood). These analyses did not predict a violation of CO standards. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority evaluated the Level of Service in the vicinity of the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection and found it to be Level of Service E during the morning peak hour and Level of Service F during the afternoon peak hour.

The Traffic Impact Analysis (see Appendix F) indicates that the proposed Project would generate approximately 523 daily vehicle trips (non-passenger car equivalent [PCE]) with an Opening Year + Project PM peak hour volume of 1,928 vehicles at the project driveways. The 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan) shows that an intersection that has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day would not violate the CO standard. Therefore, as the PM peak hour volume falls far short of 100,000 vehicles per day, no CO “hot spot” modeling is needed. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that an odor impact would occur if a project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 43 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Construction
During construction, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, are not expected to affect a substantial number of people, and would disperse rapidly. Therefore, odor impacts associated with the Project’s construction-related activities would be less than significant.

Operations
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. The type of facilities that are typically considered to have objectionable odors associated with their operations include wastewater treatment plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The Project proposes a warehouse that is not included in the list of typical objectionable odor-causing land uses. Any odors that are generated during the operations of the Project would be low in concentration, temporary, and are not anticipated to have a significant odor impact on any odor-sensitive receptors adjacent to the site. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 44 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.4 Biological Resources
Threshold (a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project site is located in an urban built-up area with commercial and industrial development bordering the site on the east, north, and west, and an industrial building and a mobile home park are adjacent to and south of the site. The project site currently consists of a paved surface parking lot and a building foundation from the former buildings. The only vegetation on the project site is nonnative trees as well as shrubs and weeds. The project site does not support any suitable habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special-status species due to the previously developed nature and existing conditions. Further, the General Plan Resources Element states that there are no rare or endangered species of plants, fish, or wildlife because the City is built out. Therefore, the Project would not have an adverse impact on any candidate, sensitive, or special-status plant or wildlife species. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Threshold (c) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory, there are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities on or near the project site. The project site does not contain any water resources (e.g., streams, creeks, channels, vernal pools) nor would the proposed Project potentially affect wetlands. Therefore, no impact concerning riparian habitat or wetlands would result from the Project and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact. Wildlife movement corridors are physical connections that allow wildlife to move between areas of suitable habitat in both undisturbed and fragmented landscapes. The project site is located in an urbanized and built-up environment. The project site is not a recognized wildlife corridor nor is it proximate to a nursery site for native and migratory wildlife.

The proposed Project would remove several trees that have the potential to support nesting migratory birds that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (US Code Title 16, §§703 to 712) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) (§§3503 et seq.). Standard Condition (SC) BIO-1 requires compliance with the MBTA. The MBTA governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. Under MBTA provisions, it is unlawful “by any means or manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture (or) kill” any migratory birds except as permitted by regulations issued by the USFWS. The term “take” is defined by USFWS regulation to mean to “pursue,

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 45 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect” any migratory bird or any part, nest, or egg of any migratory bird covered by the conventions, or to attempt those activities. In addition, the California Fish and Game Code extends protection to non-migratory birds identified as resident game birds (CFGC §3500) and any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds‐of‐prey) (CFGC §3503). The on-site trees and vegetation could provide a suitable nesting habitat for birds. Compliance with SC BIO-1 would ensure that a less than significant impact would occur.

Threshold (e) Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The City does not have an ordinance protecting biological resources on private property.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any located City policies or ordinances that protect biological resources, including trees. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (f) Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s California Regional Conservation Plans map, the project site is not located within a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) or Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).7 The project site does not contain any sensitive biological resources, and no local policies protecting biological resources apply to the site. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
SC BIO-1 Nesting Migratory Birds. During construction, grubbing, brushing, or tree removal shall be conducted outside of the state identified nesting season for migratory birds (i.e., typically March 15 through September 1), if possible. If construction activities cannot be conducted outside of nesting season, a Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey within and adjacent to the project site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within three days prior to initiating construction activities. If active nests are found during the Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey, a Nesting Bird Plan (NBP) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented during construction. At a minimum, the NBP shall include guidelines for addressing active nests, establishing buffers, monitoring, and reporting. The size and location of all buffer zones, if required, shall be based on the nesting species, nesting sage, nest location, its sensitivity to disturbance, and intensity and duration of the disturbance activity.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
7 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Regional Conservation Plans, August 2024, Available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline, accessed July 29, 2024.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 46 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.5 Cultural Resources
Threshold (a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
No Impact. Section 15064.5 defines historic resources as resources listed or determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources, or the lead agency. Generally, a resource is considered “historically significant” if it meets one of the following criteria:
1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. 4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The project site was developed in the past with industrial buildings. The industrial buildings and other site improvements were demolished in late 2021 and early 2022. The only improvements remaining on the site are the concrete building pads of the previous buildings, the asphalt drive aisles, the parking lot, and limited landscaping. Because there are not any buildings on the site, the Project would have no impact on historic resources and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The geotechnical investigation8 notes the project site is underlain by 5 to 13 feet of undocumented fill. Project grading and construction are proposed to a maximum depth of approximately 10 feet below the existing ground surface. Subsurface excavation to this depth could unearth archaeological resources. Should archaeological deposits be encountered during ground disturbance, a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource could occur. Therefore, MM CUL-1 would be required, which outlines steps to be taken if an archaeological resource is exposed during construction. Implementation of MM CUL-1 would reduce potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources to a less than significant level.

Threshold (c) Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. Past development has previously disturbed the project site. No known human remains occur on the site, and no dedicated cemeteries are on or near the project site. It is not anticipated that human remains are present. In the event human remains are encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities, compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5-7055 and PRC Section 5097.98 and Section 5097.99), identified in SC CUL-1, would preclude significant impacts associated with human remains. 8 Geotechnical Investigation, TGR, December 11, 2020, page 7.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 47 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
SC CUL-1 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 through 7055, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event that human remains are discovered within the project site, disturbance of the site shall be halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit or permit for ground disturbance activities, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of South El Monte that a qualified archaeologist has been retained. The selection of the qualified archaeologist shall be subject to approval by the City. The archaeologist shall train project construction workers on the types of archaeological resources that could be found in site soils.

The archaeologist shall periodically monitor ground-disturbing activities. If cultural resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities of any future development project, the contractor shall immediately cease all earth-disturbing activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery (the distance shall be determined by the archaeologist) and the archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the significance of the find. Work can continue beyond the find. For finds that are not significant, work may resume immediately after the find is documented and removed at the direction of the archaeologist. If a find is significant, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the City of South El Monte Planning Manager and all required mitigation completed prior to ground disturbance activity continuing within the established buffer radius.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 48 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.6 Energy
The energy analysis in this section is based on information included in the following report:
 Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project, Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis, Ganddini Group Inc., February 16, 2024; see Appendix A.  Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project Memorandum– Updated Plan Set and Transportation, Noise, and Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Impact Studies, Ganddini Group Inc., August 15, 2024; see Appendix A.
9 Threshold (a) Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Fuel. During construction, transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, vehicle miles traveled, the fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy use during construction would be associated with the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel/gasoline. The use of energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate according to the construction phase and would be temporary.

Construction worker trips are estimated to be from light-duty autos and light-duty trucks. 10 Construction
worker trips are estimated to generate an estimated 244,263 VMT based on data from CalEEMod 2022.1.1.8 model defaults. Construction worker vehicle fuel efficiencies were estimated at an aggregate fuel efficiency of 25.44 miles per gallon (mpg) using information from CARB’s 2021 EMFAC model. Project construction workers are estimated to consume approximately 9,602 gallons of fuel during construction.

Most construction equipment during demolition and grading would be gas-powered or diesel-powered, and the later construction phases would require electricity-powered equipment. Construction equipment would consume an estimated 31,101 gallons of diesel fuel. Project construction represents a “single‐ event” diesel fuel demand and would not require ongoing or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources for this purpose. The estimated fuel consumption for vendor and hauling during building construction and architectural coating application would be 1,657 gallons. Idling of in-use off-road heavyduty diesel vehicles in California is limited to five minutes per Title 13, CCR Section 2449(d)(3). Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and CARB engine emissions standards. These engines use highly efficient combustion engines to minimize unnecessary fuel use. Impacts related to transportation energy use during construction would be temporary and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure; impacts would be less than significant.

During operations, energy consumption would be associated with visitor and employee vehicle trips; delivery and supply trucks; and trips by maintenance and repair crews. Using the CalEEMod output from 9 After preparation of the technical study, minor modifications to the plan set dated August 8, 2024 has resulted in a net reduction of square feet compared to the assumptions for the February 2024 study. These changes do not change the findings of the study as summarized in this Initial Study. 10 CalEEMod User's Guide Appendix C (April 2022) states that construction work trips are made by a fleet consisting of 25 percent light-duty auto (or passenger car), 50 percent light-duty truck type 1 (LDT1), and 25 percent light duty truck type 2 (LDT2).

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 49 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses, it is assumed that an average trip for autos would be 15.92 miles, light trucks, and 3-axle trucks would be 7.28 miles, and 4-axle trucks would be 40 miles.11 As the Project includes the development of the site with warehouse and retail uses, to present a worst-case scenario, it was assumed that vehicle use associated with the Project would be 365 days per year. The Project is calculated to generate 523 trips per day. The vehicle fleet mix was used from the CalEEMod output. The Project is estimated to consume approximately 211,268 gallons of fuel per year. California consumed approximately 3.1 billion gallons of diesel and 13.6 billion gallons of gasoline in 2022.

The trip generation and VMT generated by the Project are consistent with other similar industrial uses of similar scale and configuration as reflected respectively in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). The project site is near public transportation, further reducing the need to drive. The City and surrounding areas are highly urbanized with numerous gasoline fuel facilities and infrastructure. Consequently, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial energy demand that would require expanded supplies, the construction of other infrastructure, or the expansion of existing facilities. Existing rules and regulations concerning vehicle fuel consumption efficiencies would ensure that vehicle trips generated by the Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary.

Electricity. Energy capacity, or electrical power, is generally measured in watts (W) while energy use is measured in watt-hours (Wh). On a utility-scale, a generator’s capacity is typically rated in megawatts (MW), which is one million watts, while energy use is measured in megawatt-hours (MWh) or gigawatthours (GWh), which is one billion watt-hours. SCE would provide electrical service to the project site.

Electrical service is provided to the project site and surrounding area by SCE, which obtains electricity from conventional and renewable sources. In 2022, 33.2 percent of SCE’s electricity was generated from eligible renewables; 8.3 percent from nuclear power; 3.4 percent from large hydroelectric generators;

24.7 percent from natural gas; 8.3 percent from nuclear; and 30.4 percent from other and unspecified sources.12 SCE has reached California's 2020 renewable energy as mandated.

The annual total electricity demand of the Project is expected to be 843,163 kilowatt-hours (kWh). In 2021, the non-residential sector of the County of Los Angeles consumed approximately 44,438 million kWh of electricity.13 The Project’s electricity consumption would represent an insignificant increase compared to the overall demand in SCE’s service area. Therefore, projected electrical demand would not significantly impact SCE’s level of service.

The Project’s design and materials would be required to comply with the latest Building Energy Efficiency Standards adopted at the time of construction. The Project would also adhere to the actions listed in CALGreen, which establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.

Project development would not interfere with the achievement of the 60 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard set forth in SB 100 for 2030 or the 100 percent standard for 2045. These goals apply to SCE and other electricity retailers. As electricity retailers reach these goals, emissions from end-user electricity use 11 CalEEMod default distance for W-O (work-other) is 7.97 miles (with trips changed to 40 miles per SCAQMD recommendations), for O-O (otherother) is 7.28 miles, and 15.92 miles for H-W (home-work). 12 Southern California Edison. 2022 Power Content Label. https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/customfiles/PDF_Files/SCE_2022_Power_Content_Label_B%26W.pdf. Accessed June 4, 2024. 13 California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 50 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
would decrease from current emission estimates. Impacts to electrical service would be less than significant.

Natural Gas. Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas service to the area. The Project is expected to use approximately 2,916,899 kilo-British thermal units per year (KBTU/year) of natural gas. 14 In 2021, the non-residential sector of the County of Los Angeles consumed approximately 1,743 million therms of gas.15 The demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing SoCalGas facilities. Core demand is expected to decline by 1.1 percent per year through 2035 (bcfd). 16 17 Therefore,
the natural gas demand from the proposed Project would represent a nominal percentage of overall demand in SoCalGas’ service area. The Project would not result in a significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation.

Threshold (b) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. All of the Project’s electricity demands would be served by SCE.

Additionally, the Project would comply with the CCR Title 24 energy standards, the 2022 CALGreen Code, and Connect SoCal 2024, which contain conservation policies that are mandatory under the City‘s Building Code; as such, the Project would not conflict with applicable plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Such requirements of CCR Title 24 and CALGreen include specific lighting requirements to conserve energy, window glazing to reflect heat, enhanced insulation to reduce heating and ventilation energy usage, and enhanced air filtration. The Project would incorporate these measures as required by the code. The most recent Title 24 Standards ensure that builders use the most energy-efficient and energy-conserving technologies and construction practices.

CCR Title 24 contains energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings based on a State mandate to reduce California’s energy demand. Specifically, CCR Title 24 addresses several energy efficiency measures that impact energy used for lighting, water heating, heating, and air conditioning, including the energy impact of the building envelope such as windows, doors, skylights, wall/floor/ceiling assemblies, attics, and roofs. Part 6 of Title 24 specifically establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings constructed in the State of California to reduce energy demand and consumption. The Project would not conflict with any of the federal, State, or local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Because the Project would comply with Parts 6 and 11 of Title 24, no conflict with existing energy standards and regulations would occur.

SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 was adopted in April 2024 by SCAG and was approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The Plan integrates transportation, land use, and housing to meet GHG reduction targets set by CARB. The document establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks (per capita passenger vehicle GHG emission reduction target of 19 percent below 2005 levels by 2035), as well as an overall GHG target for the region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of SB 375. SCAG’s 14 California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. 15 1 therm = ~100,043.06 BTU and 1 kBTU = 1,000 BTU. Therefore, the County of Los Angeles’ consumption of approximately 1,743 million therms of gasis equal to approximately 174,375,053 kBTU per year. 16 1 bcfd is equivalent to about 1.03 billion kBTU. 17 California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2022 California Gas Report, Available at:
https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_California_Gas_Report_2022.pdf.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 51 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2020), adopted in September 2020, also established GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks, as well as an overall GHG target for the region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post2020 GHG reduction goals of SB 375. The Project would not conflict with the stated goals of Connect SoCal 2024 or Connect SoCal 2020.

Further, the City participates in the San Gabriel Valley Energy Wise Partnership (SGVEWP) which helps the City and its residents and business owners to reduce their energy usage and costs. The SGVEWP includes an Energy Action Plan that identifies the City’s long-term vision and commitment to achieve energy efficiency in the community and government operations. In addition, all contractors and waste haulers are required to comply with the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan to divert a minimum of 50 percent of waste project materials from landfill disposal.

Overall, the Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable State and local green building standards that would serve to reduce the energy demand of the Project. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are required.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 52 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.7 Geology and Soils
The geology and soils analysis in this section is based in part on information included in the following report:
 Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Industrial Building, 2200 Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, California, TGR Geotechnical, Inc., December 2020; see Appendix B.

Threshold (a) Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

No Impact. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as “Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones,” around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault (typically 50 feet). As concluded in the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and thus, the possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered very low since active faults are not known to cross the site. Therefore, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risks of loss, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (a) Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the:
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Similar to other areas located in the seismically active Southern California region, the City is susceptible to strong ground shaking during an earthquake. However, as previously addressed under Response 4.7ai, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The proposed Project construction would be required to conform to the seismic design parameters of the current California Building Code as adopted by the City. MM-GEO 1 requires the City to review all project plans for grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure, and all other relevant construction permits relative to the Geotechnical Investigation recommendations.

Compliance with MM-GEO 1 and applicable regulations would reduce potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 53 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Threshold (a) Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the:
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine-grained granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subjected to highintensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when these ground conditions exist: 1) Shallow groundwater; 2) Low density, fine, clean sandy soils; and 3) High-intensity ground motion. The effects of liquefaction can include sand boils, settlement, and bearing capacity failures below foundations. As concluded in the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site is located within an area having a potential for liquefaction. The on-site soils were explored to a depth of approximately 51.5 feet below the existing ground surface and groundwater was encountered at a depth of 48 feet. However, the historic depth to groundwater of 5 feet below the existing grade was used in the liquefaction calculations for the Project.

The Geotechnical Investigation provides recommendations concerning seismic design parameters, foundations, slabs, and general earthwork and grading, among other factors. The Geotechnical Investigation concludes Project construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the Investigation’s recommendations are followed and implemented during construction. MM-GEO 1 requires the City to review all project plans for grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure, and all other relevant construction permits relative to the Geotechnical Investigation recommendations. Following compliance with standard engineering practices, the established regulatory framework, and MM GEO-1, the Project’s potential impacts concerning the exposure of people or structures to potential adverse effects involving liquefaction would be less than significant.

Threshold (a) Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the:
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. The project site is relatively flat. Due to the flat topography of the site and the area surrounding the site, landslides are not anticipated. According to the Seismic Hazard Zones Map from the California Geological Survey,
18 the site is not located within a Zone of Required Investigation for earthquake-induced landslides. Additionally, no historic landslides have been recorded on or near the site, nor were there any indications of landslides due to the developed nature of the area. The proposed Project would be required to adhere to standards set forth by the CBC and any other applicable building code and engineering standards related to shaking hazards and geologic stabilization. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Grading and earthwork activities during construction would expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. A significant impact may occur if a project exposes large areas to the erosional effects of wind or water for a protracted period. Construction projects that involve the disturbance of one or more acres of soil, including clearing, grading, and ground disturbances such as stockpiling or excavation, are required to obtain coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit). The Construction General Permit requires developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution 18 https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed May 31, 2024.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 54 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and installing erosion-control and sediment-control best management practices (BMPs) to control potential construction-related erosion. Therefore, short-term construction impacts associated with soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Following project construction, ground surfaces would be covered by the proposed building or otherwise stabilized with landscaping and paving. Stormwater generated on the site, along with any sediments contained within the storm water, would be directed into an on-site Modular Wetland System, which would be treated on site. Therefore, the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil as a result of Project operations is considered less than significant.

Threshold (c) Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Responses 4.7aiii and 4.7aiv regarding the potential for liquefaction and landslides, respectively. Seismically induced lateral spreading involves primarily the movement of earth materials due to earth shaking. Lateral spreading is demonstrated by near-vertical cracks with predominantly horizontal movement of the soil mass involved.

Therefore, as concluded in the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix B), due to the relatively flat topography in the vicinity of the project site, the potential for lateral spreading at the project site is considered very low. Subsidence occurs when the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas vertically displaces a large portion of land. Soils that are particularly subject to subsidence include those with high silt or clay content. No large-scale extraction of groundwater, gas, oil, or geothermal energy is occurring or is planned, at the project site or in the general vicinity. Further, the Geotechnical Investigation concluded that subsidence between one- and two-tenths of a foot could occur. The Geotechnical Investigation includes recommendations concerning seismic design parameters, foundations, slabs, and general earthwork and grading, among other factors. It concludes that Project construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the Investigation’s recommendations are followed and implemented during construction. MM-GEO 1 requires the City to review all Project plans for grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure, and all other relevant construction permits relative to the Geotechnical Investigation recommendations. Following compliance with standard engineering practices, the established regulatory framework, and MM GEO-1, the Project’s potential impacts concerning the exposure of people or structures to potential adverse effects involving liquefaction would be less than significant.

Threshold (d) Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils swell when they become wet and shrink when they dry out, and result in the potential for cracked building foundations. The on-site silty clay soils and sandstone/siltstone bedrock have an expansion index of eight, correlating to a “Very Low” expansion potential. Therefore, the Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, and would therefore not result in substantial risks to life or property associated with expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 55 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Threshold (e) Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. The Project does not propose the construction and use of septic tanks or any other type of alternative wastewater disposal system. The Project would connect to the existing local public wastewater collection system in Rosemead Boulevard adjacent to the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (f) Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site has been graded and disturbed in the past associated with the construction of the industrial buildings that formerly occupied the site and were demolished in late 2021 and January and February of 2022. Any paleontological resources that may have existed on the site were, in all likelihood, removed, disturbed, and/or destroyed during the previous construction. Although not expected, Project grading and excavation activities could affect unidentified paleontological resources. Therefore, MM GEO-2, which addresses actions to be taken should paleontological resources be found, is required to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City of South El Monte Building and Safety Department shall review all Project plans for grading, foundation, structural, infrastructure, and all other relevant construction permits to ensure compliance with the applicable recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation.

MM GEO-2 Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit for ground-disturbing activities, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of South El Monte Building and Safety Department that a qualified paleontologist has been retained. The selection of the qualified paleontologist shall be subject to the acceptance of the City. If paleontological resources are encountered, the contractor shall immediately cease all earth-moving activities within a 100-foot radius of the area of discovery. The qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the significance of the finding and determine an appropriate course of action. If avoidance of the resource(s) is not feasible, salvage operation requirements under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 shall be followed.

After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated, work in the area may resume.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 56 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis in this section is based on information included in the following report:
 Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project, Air Quality, Global Climate Change, HRA, and Energy Impact Analysis, Ganddini, February 16, 2024; see Appendix A.  Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project Memorandum – Updated Plan Set and Transportation, Noise, and Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Impact Studies, Ganddini Group Inc., August 15, 2024; see Appendix A.
19 Threshold (a) Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would generate GHG emissions from area sources, including onsite energy usage, mobile sources, waste, water, and the operation of construction equipment. The GHG emission threshold for the Project is the SCAQMD draft screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e20 per year for all land uses.

Construction GHG Emissions
The proposed Project would generate direct short-term construction emissions of GHGs from construction equipment and the transport of materials and construction workers to and from the project site. The GHG emissions only occur during temporary construction activities and would cease once construction is complete. The Project’s total GHG emissions are shown in Table 4.8-1: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Table 4.8-1: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The SCAQMD recommends that construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year period. Therefore, projected GHGs from construction have been quantified and amortized over 30 years. The project’s 19 After preparation of the technical study, minor modifications to the plan set dated August 8, 2024 has resulted in a net reduction of square feet compared to the assumptions for the February 2024 study. These changes do not change the findings of the study as summarized in this Initial Study. 20 MTCO2e – Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)
Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Maximum Annual
Operations 24.40 2,549.00 2,574.00 2.60 0.20 2,701.00
Construction1 0.00 16.47 16.47 0.00 0.00 16.67
Total Emissions 24.40 2,565.47 2,590.47 2.60 0.20 2,717.67 SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold For All Land Uses 3,000 Exceeds Threshold? No
Note: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.8 for Opening Year 2025. (1) Construction GHG emissions CO2e based on a 30-year amortization rate.

Source: Ganddini Group Inc., 2024.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 57 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
amortized construction emissions would be approximately 17 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.

Operations GHG Emissions
Over its lifetime, the Project would generate long-term operational GHG emissions from direct sources such as project-generated vehicular traffic and the operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the project, the emissions associated with the project’s solid waste, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators.

Table 4.8-1 summarizes the Project’s GHG emissions and indicates the Project’s unmitigated construction and operational emissions would total approximately 2,718 MTCO2e per year and would not exceed the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact concerning GHG emissions.

Threshold (b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact. The City does not have a Climate Action Plan; therefore, the Project has been compared to the goals of the CARB Scoping Plan and Connect SoCal 2024 and Connect SoCal 2020. 2022 CARB Scoping Plan Consistency. The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by Assembly Bill 1279. The transportation, electricity, and industrial sectors are the State’s largest GHG contributors. The 2022 Scoping Plan intends to achieve the AB 1279 targets primarily through zero-emission transportation (e.g., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks). Additional GHG reductions are achieved through decarbonizing the electricity and industrial sectors.

Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the latest 2022 Scoping Plan include implementing SB 100, which would achieve 100 percent clean electricity by 2045; achieving 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales in 2035 through Advanced Clean Cars II; and implementing the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation to deploy zero-emission electric vehicle buses and trucks. Additional transportation policies include the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, and Amendments to the In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation. The 2022 Scoping Plan would continue to implement SB 375. GHGs would be further reduced through the Cap-and-Trade Program carbon pricing and SB 905. SB 905 requires CARB to create the Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program to evaluate, demonstrate, and regulate carbon dioxide removal projects and technology.

As the latest 2022 Scoping Plan builds upon previous versions, Project consistency with applicable strategies of the 2008, 2017, and 2022 Plan are assessed in Table 4.8-2: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures. As shown, the Project would not conflict with the applicable strategies within the Scoping Plans. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any adopted GHG plans, policies, or regulations.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 58 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Table 4.8-2: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures 2008 Scoping Plan Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Project Compliance with Measure
California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards – Implement adopted standards and planned second phase of the program. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs with long-term climate change goals.

No Conflict. These are CARB-enforced
standards; vehicles that access the project site
(that are required to comply with the
standards) will comply with the strategy.

Energy Efficiency – Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards; pursue additional efficiency including new technologies, policy, and implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California.

No Conflict. The Project will comply with the
current Title 24 standards.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard – Develop and adopt the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

No Conflict. These are CARB-enforced
standards; vehicles that access the project site
(that are required to comply with the
standards) will comply with the strategy.

Vehicle Efficiency Measures – Implement light-duty vehicle efficiency measures.

No Conflict. These are CARB-enforced
standards; vehicles that access the project site
(that are required to comply with the
standards) will comply with the strategy.

Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Adopt medium and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency measures.

No Conflict. These are CARB-enforced
standards; vehicles that access the project site
(that are required to comply with the
standards) will comply with the strategy.

Green Building Strategy – Expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings.

No Conflict. The California Green Building
Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24)
was adopted as part of the California Building
Standards Code in the CCR. Part 11 establishes
voluntary standards, which are mandatory in
the 2022 edition of the Code, on planning and
design for sustainable site development,
energy efficiency (in excess of the California
Energy Code requirements), water
conservation, material conservation, and
internal air contaminants.

High Global Warming Potential Gases – Adopt measures to reduce high global warming potential gases.

No Conflict. CARB identified five measures
that reduce HFC emissions from vehicular and
commercial refrigeration systems; vehicles
that access the project site that are required
to comply with the measures will comply with
the strategy.

Recycling and Waste – Reduce methane emissions at landfills.

Increase waste diversion, composting, and commercial
recycling. Move toward zero-waste.

No Conflict. The State is currently developing
a regulation to reduce methane emissions
from municipal solid waste landfills. The
Project will be required to comply with City
programs, such as City’s recycling and waste
reduction program, which comply, with the 75
percent reduction required by 2020 per AB
341.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 59 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Table 4.8-2: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures 2008 Scoping Plan Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Project Compliance with Measure
Water – Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water.

No Conflict. The Project will comply with all
applicable City ordinances and CAL Green
requirements.
2017 Scoping Plan Recommended Actions
to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Compliance with Recommended
Action
Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Further increase GHG
stringency on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean Car regulations.

No Conflict. These are CARB-enforced
standards; vehicles that access the project site
(that are required to comply with the
standards) will comply with the strategy.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy: At least 1.5 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2025 and at least 4.2 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid lightduty electric vehicles by 2030.

No Conflict. These are CARB-enforced
standards; vehicles that access the project site
(that are required to comply with the
standards) will comply with the strategy.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Innovative Clean Transit:

Transition to a suite of to-be-determined innovative clean transit options. Assumed 20 percent of new urban buses
purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero emission buses with the penetration of zero-emission technology ramped up to 100 percent of new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy-duty low-NOX standard.

No Conflict. These are CARB-enforced
standards; vehicles that access the project site
(that are required to comply with the
standards) will comply with the strategy.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner engines and the deployment of increasing numbers of zeroemission trucks primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in California. This measure assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5 percent of new Class 3–7 truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to 10 percent in 2025 and remaining flat through 2030.

No Conflict. These are CARB-enforced
standards; vehicles that access the project site
(that are required to comply with the
standards) will comply with the strategy.

Implement SB 350 by 2030: Establish annual targets for
statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy
efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030.

No Conflict. The Project will be compliant with
the current Title 24 standards.

By 2019, develop regulations and programs to support organic waste landfill reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383.

No Conflict. The Project will be required to
comply with City programs, such as City’s
recycling and waste reduction program, which
comply, with the 75 percent reduction
required by 2020 per AB 341.
2022 Scoping Plan Priority Key Actions and Recommendations Project Compliance with Recommended
Actions
100 percent of light-duty vehicle sales are ZEVs by 2035. No Conflict. This action is in regard to vehicle sales, with an aim to have 100 percent of lightduty vehicle sales be ZEVs by 2035. The proposed project is an industrial use and
would not interfere with such policymaking.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 60 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Table 4.8-2: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures 2008 Scoping Plan Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Project Compliance with Measure
VMT per capita reduced 25 percent below 2019 levels by 2030 and 30 percent below 2019 levels by 2045.

No Conflict. The Project would not result in an
unmitigated impact to VMT. The Project is an
industrial use located near existing public
transit, including LA Metro Route 266 and 287
bus stops along Rosemead Boulevard and
Rush Street, and existing commercial uses.

All electric appliances in new construction beginning 2026 (residential) and 2029 (commercial).

No Conflict. The California Green Building
Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24)
was adopted as part of the California Building
Standards Code in the CCR. Part 11 establishes
voluntary standards, which are mandatory in
the 2022 edition of the Code, on planning and
design for sustainable site development,
energy efficiency (in excess of the California
Energy Code requirements), water
conservation, material conservation, and
internal air contaminants.

For existing residential buildings, 80 percent of appliance sales are electric by 2030 and 100 percent of appliance sales are electric by 2035 (appliances replaced at end of life).

For existing commercial buildings, 80 percent of appliance sales are electric by 2030 and 100 percent of appliance sales are electric by 2045 (appliances replaced at end of life)
Not Applicable. This action is about appliance
sales and the proposed Project is a nonresidential use and would not interfere with such policymaking. Further, although this
action is not necessarily applicable on a
project-specific basis, the proposed Project is
subject to the California Green Building
Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24)
which was adopted as part of the California
Building Standards Code in the CCR. Part 11
establishes voluntary standards, which are
mandatory in the 2022 edition of the Code, on
planning and design for sustainable site
development, energy efficiency (in excess of
the California Energy Code requirements),
water conservation, material conservation,
and internal air contaminants.

Sources CARB Scoping Plan (2008, 2017, and 2022); Ganddini Group Inc., 2024.

Connect SoCal 2024 and Connect SoCal 2020 Consistency. Development-related mobile sources are the most potent source of GHG emissions, and therefore, project comparison to Connect SoCal 2024 and Connect SoCal 2020 is an appropriate indicator of whether the Project would inhibit the State’s post-2020 GHG reduction goals.21
Compliance with applicable State standards would ensure consistency with State and regional GHG reduction planning efforts. The Connect SoCal 2024 and Connect SoCal 2020 goals were used to determine consistency with the previously stated planning efforts. The project’s consistency with Connect SoCal 2024 21 Connect SoCal 2024 was approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on May 10, 2024; however, it is still pending approval from CARB. Therefore, this analysis evaluates Project consistency with Connect SoCal 2024 and Connect SoCal 2020.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 61 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
and Connect SoCal 2020 goals is analyzed in Table 4.8-3: Connect SoCal 2024 and Connect SoCal 2020 Consistency Analysis. As indicated in Table 4.8-3, the Project would not conflict with the Connect SoCal 2024 and 2020 goals adopted to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the Project would not result in any significant impacts or interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s GHG emissions reduction target of 19 percent by 2035.

Table 4.8-3: Connect SoCal 2024 and Connect SoCal 2020 Consistency Analysis SCAG Goals Compliance
Connect SoCal 20241
Mobility: Build and maintain an integrated multimodal transportation network.

Support investments that are well-maintained and
operated, coordinated, resilient and result in improved safety, improved air quality and minimized greenhouse
gas emissions
Not Applicable. This policy is not project-specific;
therefore, is not applicable.

Ensure that reliable, accessible, affordable, and
appealing travel options are readily available while
striving to enhance equity in the offerings in high-need communities
Not Applicable. This policy is not project-specific;
therefore, is not applicable.

Support planning for people of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds
Not Applicable. This policy is not project-specific;
therefore, is not applicable.

Communities: Develop, connect, and sustain communities that are livable and thriving Create human-centered communities in urban,
suburban, and rural settings to increase mobility
options and reduce travel distances
Consistent. The Project is in an urban area near existing employment centers and community services. Locating
the Project in this area would reduce trip lengths,
which would reduce air pollutants and GHG emissions.

The Project is also within a short walking distance (400 feet) to local bus routes and is surrounded by
connected sidewalks to allow for multimodal
transportation.

Produce and preserve diverse housing types in an
effort to improve affordability, accessibility, and
opportunities for all households
Not Applicable. The Project does not propose any
housing uses.

Environment: Create a healthy region for the people of today and tomorrow Develop communities that are resilient and can
mitigate, adapt to, and respond to chronic and acute
stresses and disruptions, such as climate change
Consistent. The Project’s estimated GHG emissions do
not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional or localized
thresholds. Projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s
LSTs would not violate any air quality standards or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and result in no criteria pollutant
health impacts. Further, the project’s emissions are
below the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e screening
threshold and would not contribute to a GHG/climate
change impact.

Integrate the region’s development pattern and
transportation network to improve air quality, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and enable more sustainable
use of energy and water
Consistent. While the Project is not a transportation
improvement project, the Project’s location within a
developed area would reduce trip lengths, which would
reduce GHG and air pollutant emissions. Additionally,
the reduction of energy use, improvement of air
quality, and promotion of more environmentally

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 62 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Table 4.8-3: Connect SoCal 2024 and Connect SoCal 2020 Consistency Analysis SCAG Goals Compliance
sustainable development are encouraged through the
development of alternative transportation methods,
green design techniques for buildings, and other
energy-reducing techniques such as compliance with
the provisions of the California Building Energy
Efficiency Standards and the Green Building Standards
Code (CALGreen).

Conserve the region’s resources Consistent. The Project is an infill development. The Project is not located on land that is designated for
agricultural uses, natural resources, or conservation.

Therefore, the Project would not result in a loss of the region’s resources.

Economy: Support a sustainable, efficient, and productive regional economic environment that provides opportunities for all people in the region
Improve access to jobs and educational resources Consistent. The Project is in an urban area near existing employment centers and community services. Locating
the Project within this area would improve access to
jobs and educational resources.

Advance a resilient and efficient goods movement
system that supports the economic vitality of the
region, attainment of clean air and quality of life for our communities
Not Applicable. This policy is not project-specific;
therefore, is not applicable.

Connect SoCal 20202
Goal 1: Encourage regional economic prosperity
and global competitiveness.

Not Applicable. This policy is not project-specific;
therefore, is not applicable. However, the Project is an urban infill development. Redevelopment of the site
would contribute to regional economic prosperity.

Goal 2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability,
and travel safety for people and goods.

No Conflict. The Project would be located near public
transit, including Foothill Transit Route 269, LA Metro Routes 266 and 287 with bus stops near the
intersections of Rosemead Boulevard and Garvey
Avenue and Rush Street and Santa Anita Avenue.

Therefore, the Project would contribute to mobility and accessibility.

Goal 3: Enhance the preservation, security, and
resilience of the regional transportation
system.

Not Applicable. This is not a project-specific policy;
therefore, is not applicable.

Goal 4: Increase person and goods movement and
travel choices within the transportation
system.

Not Applicable. This is not a project-specific policy;
therefore, is not applicable.

Goal 5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
improve air quality.

Consistent. The Project would locate industrial and
retail uses in a developed area proximate to transit,
which would help to reduce GHGs and air quality.

Goal 6: Support healthy and equitable
communities
Consistent. The Project does not exceed State and
LSTs. Projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs
would not violate any air quality standards or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 63 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Table 4.8-3: Connect SoCal 2024 and Connect SoCal 2020 Consistency Analysis SCAG Goals Compliance
quality violation and result in no criteria pollutant
health impacts. Further, the Project would provide
industrial and retail uses which would contribute to the community’s economy and help create an equitable
community. The Project would not conflict with the
surrounding community’s ability to access healthy food
or parks.

Goal 7: Adapt to a changing climate and support an
integrated regional development pattern
and transportation network.

Not Applicable. This is not a project-specific policy;
therefore, is not applicable.

Goal 8: Leverage new transportation technologies
and data-driven solutions that result in
more efficient travel.

Not Applicable. This is not a project-specific policy;
therefore, is not applicable.

Goal 9: Encourage development of diverse housing
types in areas that are supported by
multiple transportation options.

Consistent. The Project involves the development of
warehouse and retail uses. The project is located within a short walking distance (400 feet) of local bus routes and is surrounded by connected sidewalks to allow for
multimodal transportation.

Goal 10: Promote conservation of natural and
agricultural lands and restoration of
habitats.

Not Applicable. This Project is located within an urban area and is not located on agricultural lands or within natural habitat.

Sources: Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal 2024, 2024; Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal 2020, 2020; Ganddini Group Inc., 2024.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 64 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical studies:
 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, Ramboll US Corporation, Irvine, California, July 21, 2020; see Appendix C.  Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 2212, 2218, and 2226 North Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, Ramboll US Corporation, Irvine, California, July 21, 2020; see Appendix C.  Limited Soil and Soil Vapor Site Investigation Report, Rosemead Holding LLC – Phase 1 Development, 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, California, Leighton Consulting Inc., September 3, 2021 (Phase II Subsurface Investigation); see Appendix C.  Limited Soil Investigation Report, Rosemead Holding LLC, 2200-2226 North Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, California, Leighton Consulting, Inc., April 25, 2023; see Appendix C.  Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan for the Eastern Portion of 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, California, Leighton Consulting, Inc., April 25, 2023; see Appendix C.  Soil Vapor Assessment Report, Former Pacific Drum Company (Rosemead Holding, LLC) 2200, 2212, 2218, and 2226 North Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, California 91733, EEC Environmental, April 26, 2023; see Appendix C.
 Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum for 2200-2226 N. Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, California, Haley & Aldrich, Inc., April 2024; see Appendix C.

Background: Existing Conditions
The project site was used for agricultural purposes from about 1928 through 1948. The project site was then used for construction equipment storage until 1959 when Pacific Coast Drum Company (PCD) redeveloped a portion of the site as a steel drum reconditioning facility. PCD stopped operations in 1996 and leased that portion of the project site to Ditty Container, Inc. From 1996 to 2020, the western portion of the site was occupied by various auto body and repair shops, and the eastern portion of the site was used for metal drum and plastic tote cleaning and recondition operations that included underground storage tanks (USTs), aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), and sumps. Historical operations and recognized environmental conditions are summarized in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessments for 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard and 2212, 2218, and 2226 North Rosemead Boulevard, which are provided in Appendix C. The former buildings were demolished in February 2022 and the project site currently contains the former building concrete slabs and pavement with limited areas of exposed soil in the southern portion of the site.

The project site is located in an area of contaminated groundwater underlying the San Gabriel Valley that is designated by the U.S. EPA as the San Gabriel Valley Superfund site. The site is located in an area known as “Area 1”, which includes the South El Monte Operable Unit. Groundwater in the area is generally contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), in particular, Trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), and carbon tetrachloride; perchlorate; 1,4-dioxane; and N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). According to the Environmental Database Report (EDR), the site of the former occupant (PCD) and numerous surrounding properties and other properties in the vicinity listed on the CPS-SLIC and Well Investigation Program (WIP) databases are located in San Gabriel Valley Area 1

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 65 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
and listed as Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) for contributing to the groundwater contaminant plume that comprises an area of approximately 11 square miles.22 Historically, numerous subsurface investigations consisting of soil, soil vapor, and groundwater sampling were conducted in connection with the WIP at the site and adjoining properties historically occupied by PCD. In 1998 the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Los Angeles RWQCB) determined that releases of liquid wastes at the site impacted the soil and groundwater beneath the site. However, further remediation or site-specific cleanup actions were not required by the Los Angeles RWQCB (the administrator of the WIP). As a result of PCD demonstrating stable or declining concentrations of VOCs in soil vapor, the Los Angeles RWQCB did not require additional investigation or remediation work at the site. The case was closed with a No Further Action (NFA) designation on March 17, 1998, and is listed as “case closed” in the Geotracker database as of November 17, 2014. However, the closure letter made clear that PCD was considered a PRP with regard to the South El Monte Operable Unit and urged PCD to continue to cooperate with U.S. EPA.

In 2012, a consent agreement between U.S. EPA/DTSC and numerous parties was signed pertaining to the South El Monte Operable Unit of the San Gabriel Valley Area 1 Superfund site. PCD was one of the parties that signed onto the consent agreement. The consent agreement, which was approved by the United State District Court for the Central District of California, resolves the complaint filed by U.S. EPA and DTSC for reimbursement of response costs incurred for response action taken in connection with releases of hazardous substances in the South El Monte Operable Unit. The consent agreement stated that contaminant concentrations exceed Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) throughout a large portion of the South El Monte Operable Unit, including areas used for sources of drinking water. The defendants (including PCD) entered into the consent agreement to protect public health but did not admit liability arising out of any previous or current releases. Cleanup actions performed in relation to the San Gabriel Valley Area 1 Superfund site, including the South El Monte Operable Unit, are ongoing. Remediation of impacted groundwater within the areawide plume commenced in 2008 with the installation and operation of four separate groundwater pump and treat systems.

Past investigations conducted on the site from the 1980s through the early 2000s have revealed the presence of soil, soil vapor, and groundwater contamination, which was found to consist of generally low to moderate concentrations of VOCs (specifically, chlorinated solvents) and other compounds. The concentrations of various compounds that were detected in soil, soil vapor, and groundwater samples exceed current regulatory thresholds, likely resulting from prior on-site operations and off-site migrating sources. The project site and adjoining property to the north (2226 North Rosemead Boulevard) have a long history of use as a steel drum and tote reconditioning business, which operated since 1959 until the buildings on the site were demolished in late 2021 and early 2022. The western portion of the site was used by auto body shops that occupied the site since 1996. Both operations used and stored a variety of chemicals (e.g., paints, resins, varnishes, cleaners, degreasers, etc.) and generated a variety of hazardous wastes (solvents, oils). Based on prior activities, several areas of environmental concern have been identified, including the following: the wastewater treatment system (including three sumps/USTs and 22 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, Ramboll US Corporation, Irvine, California, July 21, 2020, page 38.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 66 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
several ASTs, a 3-stage clarifier, paint storage areas, drum and plastic tote storage areas, a waste oil storage area, areas of surficial staining, and a former hazardous waste storage area.23 The following additional findings related to potential contamination concerns on the site were identified in the 2020 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment:
 Sump/Underground Storage Tank (UST) Closed-in-Place. One 3,300-gallon sump/UST located in the southcentral portion of the site was closed in place in 2004. The sump/UST (Tank No. 3), which formerly was used to contain cooling water for the wastewater treatment system, was cleaned out in 1993 and covered with a metal plate [the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (DPW) treated the sump as a UST for closure purposes]. In order to assess any potential subsurface impacts, soil samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX), and total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH). Because the historical use of the sump/UST was for a cooling water sump and results indicated only minor impacts to soil, no additional sampling was recommended by the consultant and closure was requested.

Decommissioning the sump/UST was completed on September 4, 2004 when the tank was filled with slurry and new concrete was poured over the concrete sump. Closure was granted by the Los Angeles DPW on September 8, 2004.24
 Wastewater Treatment System and Clarifier. Wastewater generated from the cleaning of drums was treated in the on-site wastewater treatment system and clarifier and subsequently discharged to the municipal sanitary sewer system. The wastewater treatment system comprised a 400-gallon wastewater sump/UST (Tank No. 2), a 1,500-gallon wastewater above ground storage tank (AST) (Tank No. 1), three empty ASTs, an 1,800-gallon hydrochloric acid AST, and a clarifier. Based on a visual inspection conducted during a 2020 site visit, no specific environmental concerns were noted apart from noting that the facility was old and that surface coverings were in poor to fair condition. However, during a soil gas survey conducted in the vicinity in 1991, a “hot spot” of elevated concentrations of vinyl chloride was identified just south of the wastewater treatment system. At the time of the 2020 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, no sampling activities were known to have been conducted at the site for approximately 15-20 years (see below for recent sampling information). Further, compliance audits reviewed under operation by the former operator Ditty revealed the potential for spillage and infiltration in the areas of surface drainage and beneath the processing areas of the facility.25  Groundwater Monitoring Wells. At the time of the 2020 site visit, Ramboll observed two monitoring wells on the southern portion of the site, MW-1 inside the waste oil storage area and MW-2 located to the south of the wastewater treatment system. The on-site wells reportedly were installed in 1988 pursuant to requirements from the Los Angeles DPW and subsequently were sampled several times between 1988 and 2002. The 1998 closure letter issued for the site by the Los Angeles RWQCB stated that the property owner was required to maintain the wells in good condition in anticipation of possible future sampling requirements from the U.S. EPA. The current status of groundwater monitoring wells is discussed below. 23 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, Ramboll US Corporation, Irvine, California, July 21, 2020, page 39. 24 Ibid, page 40. 25 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, Ramboll US Corporation, Irvine, California, July 21, 2020, page 40.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 67 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Based on the information in the Phase I ESA,26 a Phase II Subsurface Investigation27 was completed in August and September 2020. Extensive investigations were undertaken on the project site in August and September 2020, including 37 borings that included soil and soil gas samples and 4 groundwater Hydropunch samples.

Based on the results of the Phase II Subsurface Investigation the following actions were recommended:
 Prepare a Soil Management and Contingency Plan (SMCP) to detail the handling, stockpiling, sampling, and reuse or disposal of soil with concentrations of chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) in excess of their respective San Francisco Bay RWQCB ESLs or site-specific soil cleanup levels that may be established as part of a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and integrated into the SMCP with Los Angeles RWQCB concurrence.
 Design and install a sub-slab vapor barrier to protect future workers from potential vapor intrusion by VOCs in the soil vapor which are likely to exist post demolition, and after site grading for the new construction.
 Prepare a Remedial Action Closure Report detailing the removal actions, sampling and disposal actions conducted during site redevelopment (construction), as well as details of the design of the sub-slab vapor mitigation system, and details on any unknown environmental liabilities detected and remediated.
 Request from the Los Angeles RWQCB the issuance of a ‘No Further Action” letter once the remedial activities have been completed in concurrence with the approved SMCP.28 Following the Phase II Subsurface Investigation, additional assessment, evaluation, monitoring, and limited remediation activities have occurred at the project site as follows:
 To further delineate subsurface impacts at the project site, and to help prepare a limited soil remediation workplan, a limited soil investigation was conducted for the properties on the site located at 2200-2226 North Rosemead Boulevard in 2023. The limited soils investigation focused on the eastern portion of the site where elevated concentrations of metals, Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCBs), VOCs, and TPH were identified by previous on-site investigations. The investigation confirmed that soil affected by COCs at concentrations above commercial environmental screening levels (i.e., lead, PCBs, ethylbenzene, and 1,4- dichlorobenzene) is primarily distributed at depths ranging from just below pavement to no deeper than 5 feet below ground surface (bgs). The investigation also confirmed that the lateral extent of soil affected by COCs does not extend beyond the eastern boundary of the project site and that further off-site investigation is not justified. Soil samples from the southernmost boring indicated they were not affected by COCs. As a result, further delineation to the south was not necessary or justified.  Three new groundwater monitoring wells were installed in January 2023, based on the fact that the existing groundwater monitoring wells were dry. Based on the results of sampling, PCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride were detected below MCLs and significantly below concentrations in 1990. 26 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, Ramboll US Corporation, Irvine, California, July 21, 2020. 27 Phase II Subsurface Investigation, Technical Memorandum, EEC Environmental, October 19, 2020. 28 Limited Soil and Soil Vapor Site Investigation, Rosemead Holding LLC, Phase I Development, 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, California, Leighton Consulting, Inc., September 3, 2021, pages 31-32.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 68 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Cis-1,2-DCE was measures slightly above its MCL but at concentrations over 95 percent lower than in 1990.
 A soil vapor extraction system (SVE) was installed in April 2022 to remediate VOCs in the subsurface associated with historical operations at the project site. SVE system operation began in July 2022 and was shut down in December 2022. A soil vapor assessment was conducted for the project site in 2023 to evaluate the effectiveness of the Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system in reducing concentrations of VOCs in soil vapor throughout the project site. The assessment also evaluated whether releases at the Chemrite property located adjacent to and south of the project site are the predominant source of VOC impacts to soil vapor and soil at the project site. Based on the results of the investigation, the VOCs in the soil vapor at the project site are sourced from the former Chemrite property adjacent to and south of the project site.

Based on the results of the 2023 Limited Soil Investigation Report, a Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan (LSRWP) for the eastern portion of the project site was prepared.29 The work plan facilitates the proper characterization and handling of chemicals of concern (COC) affected soil that workers are likely to encounter during site remediation on the eastern portion of the site. Additionally, the work plan details procedures if previously unknown historical improvements such as USTs, clarifiers, sumps, interceptors, vaults, buried containers (e.g., 55-gallon drums), and/or piping are encountered during soil remediation.

Consistent with applicable law, the consent decree the Applicant shall implement the LSRWP, as approved by the Los Angeles RWQCB.

Additional concerns to understand the soil vapor pathway for future construction and end users of the warehouse development were analyzed within the Summary of the Soil Vapor Assessment Report completed by EEC Environmental in April 2023. EEC Environmental’s evaluation included identifying the effectiveness of the SVE system in reducing concentrations of VOCs in soil vapor throughout the project site and to understand if off-site sources, inclusive of the uses at the south adjacent Chemrite property, which continue to the source of VOC impacts to soil vapor and soil at the project site.

Based on the results of the 2023 Soil Vapor Assessment, soil vapor at the project site remains impacted by VOCs at concentrations above regulatory screening levels established for a commercial setting. EEC Environmental identified this due to migrating constituents from the adjacent Chemrite property. VOC concentrations of these constituents are generally one to two orders of magnitude higher near the former Chemrite site than at other portions of the project site. Recommendation within the report included removal of the SVE system and proper abandonment of the associated extraction wells. Additionally, where the highest concentration levels were identified within the project site, complete limited shallow soil excavation in the vicinity as part of the activities proposed under the Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan for the Eastern Portion of 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard (Leighton, 2023).

The above summaries of site assessments were conducted at the project site in support of an anticipated redevelopment of the property including review by the Los Angeles RWQCB and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) for assessing risk for future users. Due to the known exceedances of contamination an additional Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum (LSRWP Addendum) was completed by Haley & Aldrich in June 2024. The LSRWP Addendum included summarizing the above reports, completing additional soil sampling to aid in creating an excavation implementation plan, and 29 Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan for the Eastern Portion of 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, California, Leighton Consulting, Inc., April 25, 2023.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 69 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
developing site-specific remedial action goals(RAGs) along with vapor intrusion mitigation pathway plans, which are summarized below.
 Excavation implementation plan:
o Based on the historical soil sampling and sampling conducted as part of the LSRWP Addendum, approximately 4,999 cubic yards of impacted soil will be excavated at varying depths to a maximum of 8.5 feet within the eastern portion of the project site, which is deeper than identified within previous reports. Of this soil impacted with lead, arsenic, hexavalent chromium, and TPH, 4,670 cubic yards will be managed with the oversight of the Los Angeles RWQCB and 329 cubic yards will be managed through TSCA Clean-up from the U.S. EPA due to the impacts of PCBs.
o All excavated soil will be sampled again from the segregated stockpiles for waste classification. Additionally, backfill for the excavation will include clean on-site overburden soil or stockpiled soil that meets remedial action goals (RAGs), which are defined below. If excavation volumes increase based on confirmation sample results and import soil is required, it will need to be sampled prior to on-site use.
 Site-specific remedial action goals:
o The goal of this supplemental soil sampling program was to further delineate the lateral and vertical extent of soil impacts to support remediation planning and project site redevelopment. The characterization program included the collection and laboratory analysis of 82 soil samples from 23 soil boring locations, some of which included locations that were previously sampled. Each COC within the project site has specific RAGs, which will be implemented through risk management, confirmation sampling, and remedial excavation.  Vapor intrusion mitigation pathway plans
o Human Health Risk Evaluation Summary includes potential subsurface excavation scenarios and reasonably anticipated future land use scenarios. The results of the risk evaluation will be used to assist in identifying areas of the Site where remediation, or other forms of risk management, may be appropriate, with the overall goal of long-term protection of human health and the environment.
− VOCs detected in soil vapor may require remediation, mitigation, or other form of risk management (e.g., institutional or engineering controls) prior to the redevelopment of the project site for future commercial/industrial land use purposes. − Levels of PCBs, lead, arsenic, and hexavalent chromium in soil at the project site may require some remediation, mitigation, or other form of risk management (e.g., institutional controls) prior to the redevelopment of the Site for future commercial/industrial land use purposes.
− Levels of PCBs, lead, arsenic, and hexavalent chromium in soil at the project site may require some remediation, mitigation, or other form of risk management to protect the health of hypothetical future on-Site construction workers involved in the redevelopment of the Site for commercial/industrial land use purposes.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 70 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
o Implementation of a Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System (VIMS) will be included in project site design to account for the abovementioned soil vapor as an engineering control. After the construction of the vapor barrier as a VIMS ongoing Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring (OMM) plan.

As discussed above, multiple reports and investigations were conducted for the project site, including a Phase I, Phase II, and soil and soil vapor investigations. Based upon those reports, including refinements and clarifications based on later, more-detailed investigations, the following environmental impact analysis includes various mitigation measures to reduce potential hazardous material impacts to less than significant.

Threshold (a) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction would require the normal and routine use of small amounts of hazardous materials, including fuels, greases, and other lubricants to maintain construction equipment and coatings such as paint. Such materials would be handled and used in accordance with applicable regulations for such materials.

The handling, use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during Project construction would be required to comply with existing regulations of several agencies including the U.S. EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA), and the U.S. Department of Transportation. All work would be subject to SCAQMD Regulations including Rule 403, Rule 1166, and Rule 1466. The work would also be performed in accordance with and by contractors trained according to Cal-OSHA regulations, including 8 CCR 5192. Soil work would be performed under the oversight of regulatory agencies, including the U.S. EPA and the Los Angeles RWQCB.

All handling, transportation, and disposal of regulated wastes, including any PCB remediation waste, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste, and non-RCRA hazardous waste, would be performed in accordance with applicable regulations, including the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) (implementing regulations are located at 40 CFR, Part 761), RCRA (implementing regulations are located at 40 CFR, Part 262 and Part 263) and the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) (implementing regulations located at Title 22 CCR, Division 4.5).

All on-site hazardous material excavation and handling activities would be conducted in accordance with SCAQMD Rules 403, 1166, and 1466. Hazardous soils would be stockpiled, profiled, treated and if required, transported and disposed of off the site in accordance with federal regulations under TSCA, RCRA, and HWCL regulations.

In addition to compliance with federal and State regulations, the licensed hazardous waste contractor would be required by law to maintain a contractor’s license with the appropriate endorsements to handle and manage hazardous waste. Waste haulers must obtain and maintain appropriate licenses such as a commercial driver’s license and take Department of Transportation training related to hauling hazardous waste. Because all work would be performed in accordance with applicable environmental, health, and safety regulations, the impact would be less than significant.

Once constructed and operational, the proposed warehouse would require routine maintenance and the use of janitorial cleaning materials such as cleaners, solvents, paints, and other custodial products that are potentially hazardous. These materials would be used in relatively small quantities, clearly labeled,

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 71 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
and stored in compliance with State and federal requirements. The Project does not propose and an enduser would not involve the storage, handling, or transport of hazardous materials as part of their daily operations. With the exercise of normal safety practices, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment with the normal use of maintenance and janitorial products. The Project does not propose to manufacture or transport hazardous materials. Therefore, the Project would not have any significant routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and the impact would be less than significant.

Threshold (b) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

Construction
Project construction activities would include the removal of existing building foundations, pavement, grading, site preparation, and landscaping. The Project’s Phase I ESA concluded that the project site contained recognized environmental conditions (RECs) related to the San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site, prior industrial uses, and documented releases of hazardous substances at adjoining properties.

Therefore, Project demolition and construction activities could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the potential release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Based on the information in the Phase I ESA,30 a Phase II Subsurface Investigation31 was completed in August and September 2020. Extensive investigations were undertaken on the project site in August and September 2020, including 37 borings that included soil and soil gas samples and 4 groundwater samples.

The Phase II Subsurface Investigation concluded the contamination encountered at the project site can be remediated and would not prevent development. Based on the results of the Phase II Subsurface Investigation, a Limited Soil and Soil Vapor Site Investigation Report was prepared to address known and potential environmental impacts associated with redevelopment of the project site. The Limited Soil and Soil Vapor Investigation Report dated September 3, 2021 included the following recommendations:
 Prepare a Soil Management and Contingency Plan (SMCP) to detail the handling, stockpiling, sampling, and reuse or disposal of soil with concentrations of chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) in excess of their respective San Francisco Bay RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) or site-specific soil cleanup levels that may be established as part of a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and integrated into the SMCP with Los Angeles RWQCB concurrence.  Design and install a sub-slab vapor barrier to protect future workers from potential vapor intrusion by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the soil vapor which are likely to exist post demolition, and after site grading for the new construction.  Prepare a Remedial Action Closure Report detailing the removal actions, sampling, and disposal actions conducted during site redevelopment (construction), as well as details of the design of the sub-slab vapor mitigation system, and details on any unknown environmental liabilities detected and remediated.
30 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard, South El Monte, Ramboll US Corporation, Irvine, California, July 21, 2020. 31 Phase II Subsurface Investigation, Technical Memorandum, EEC Environmental, October 19, 2020.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 72 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
 Request from the Los Angeles RWQCB the issuance of a ‘No Further Action” letter once the remedial activities have been completed in concurrence with the approved SMCP.

In accordance with the Phase II Subsurface Investigation’s recommendations, in April 2022, a soil vapor extraction system (SVE) was installed to remediate VOCs in the subsurface associated with prior operations at the project site. SVE system operation began in July 2022 and ended in December 2022. A Soil Vapor Assessment was conducted for the project site in 2023 to evaluate the effectiveness of the SVE system in reducing concentrations of VOCs in soil vapor throughout the project site. The Soil Vapor Assessment also evaluated whether releases at the Chemrite property, which is located adjacent to and south of the site, are the predominant source of VOC impacts to soil vapor and soil at the project site.

Based on the results of the investigation, the source of VOCs in the soil vapor found the project site originate from the former Chemrite property. The SVE was determined to not be effective. Therefore, the Soil Vapor Assessment recommended the removal of the SVE system and proper abandonment of the associated extraction wells, and limited shallow soil excavation as outlined in MM HAZ-2.

In August 2022, the Los Angeles RWQCB provided comments on the September 2021 Limited Soil and Soil Vapor Site Investigation Report. To address those comments, a Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan for the Eastern Portion of 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard and a Limited Soil Investigation Report were prepared in April 2023. The work plan outlines the proper procedures for the characterization and handling of chemicals of concern affected soil that workers are likely to encounter during site remediation on the eastern portion of the site. Additionally, the work plan details procedures should previously unknown historical improvements such as (USTs), clarifiers, sumps, interceptors, vaults, buried containers (e.g., 55-gallon drums), and/or piping be encountered during soil remediation. An environmental consultant would conduct field screening, soil sampling, characterizing/profiling, dust monitoring (i.e., in compliance with SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, and 1466), VOC monitoring (in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1166), and coordinating the handling and/or removal of materials affected by hazardous substances and/or petroleum products. Contractors for the Project would be provided with a copy of the Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan and required to monitor for potential unidentified environmental concerns in soil during the work. In addition, the contractors would be required to attend a “kick-off meeting” prior to initiation of on-site activities. MM HAZ-3 requires the Applicant to implement the Limited Soil Investigation Report as approved by the Los Angeles RWQCB.

In January 2024, additional soil samples were collected from the eastern portion of the project site to supplement the existing data and further characterize chemicals of potential concern in shallow soil. A Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum was prepared to supplement the Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan for the Eastern Portion of 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard by providing newly collected data and addressing Los Angeles RWQCB and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment comments.

The Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum’s recommended vapor intrusion pathway mitigation plan is outlined in MM HAZ-4. Compliance with these requirements would reduce soil vapor impacts to a less than significant level.

The recommendations in the above-mentioned reports are provided as MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-4.

These provisions would minimize the potential for hazardous materials to be released into the environment during Project construction. With the implementation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-4, impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 73 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Operations
Project operations would involve the use of typical hazardous materials/chemicals associated with commercial and industrial uses such as cleaners, paints, solvents, fertilizers, and pesticides for site landscaping. Any routine transport, use, and disposal of these materials during Project operations must adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Further, hazardous materials/chemicals such as household cleaners, paints, solvents, and fertilizers in low quantities do not pose a significant threat related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, Project operations would not create a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold (c) Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no schools within 0.25-mile of the project site. The closest school, Potrero Middle School, is located at 2611 Potrero Avenue, approximately 0.40-mile northeast of the project site. Notwithstanding, the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during Project construction would be subject to federal, State, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Compliance with the regulatory framework would ensure Project construction activities would not create a significant hazard to nearby schools.

Additionally, the Project does not propose any uses that could generate hazardous emissions or involve the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste in significant quantities that could impact schools. The types of hazardous materials that would be routinely handled at the project site would be restricted to small quantities of cleaning solvents and paints used by facilities maintenance staff in accordance with normal operations. The materials used by facilities maintenance staff would be used in small quantities and stored in compliance with State and federal requirements. Therefore, compliance with the regulatory framework would ensure Project operations would not create a significant hazard to nearby schools. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. Government Code Section 65962.5 refers to the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, commonly known as the Cortese List, maintained by the DTSC and RWQCB. The Cortese List contains hazardous waste and substance sites including public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, sites with known underground storage tanks (USTs) having a reportable release, solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, historic Cortese sites, and sites with known toxic material identified through the abandoned site assessment program. A regulatory database record search was conducted as part of the Phase I ESA prepared for the Project (see Appendix C) in accordance with Government Code Section 65962.5. The project site is not identified on the active Cortese List, which is the list of hazardous materials sites that is compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5. Based on this threshold, no impact would occur.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 74 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Threshold (e) Would the Project be located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact. The San Gabriel Valley Airport is located at 4233 Santa Anita Avenue in the City of El Monte and approximately two miles northeast of the project site. The El Monte Airport Master Plan Report (Master Plan) reviews the Airport development’s current status, anticipated future use, and proposed future flight path. The Master Plan must be consistent with the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCP) cover aviation activities of 15 Los Angeles County public-use airports, including the San Gabriel Valley Airport. The ALUCP depicts the Airport’s boundaries and development restrictions. According to Master Plan Figure 7A, Noise Contours Year 1993, which is the latest noise contour map, the airport’s 65 CNEL noise contour extends approximately 0.06-mile south of I-10 and approximately 0.80-mile south of the San Gabriel Valley Airport’s southern boundary. This 65 CNEL boundary is approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the project site and noise levels at this distance would not extend to and impact operations at the project site.

FAA design standards for ARC B-I/Small facilities, such as EI Monte Airport’s Runway 1-19, specify that the Runway Safety Areas (RSA) be 120 feet wide the full length of the runway, and extend a minimum of 240 feet beyond the ends of the runway pavement. The RSA at the approach end of Runway 1 meets or exceeds this minimum standard. The RSA at the approach end of Runway 19 is truncated on its northwest corner by the Airport’s chain link perimeter security fence, a public jogging path, and the Rio Hondo Flood Control Channel. Since removal of these obstacles is not feasible and relocation of the runway pavement end is not desirable, Declared Distances must be utilized to account for this nonstandard RSA configuration. The Declared Distances calculations for EI Monte Airport’s Runway 1-19 are depicted in Figure 5B and that distance is 200 feet. Therefore, the RSAs do not extend off the boundary of the San Gabriel Valley Airport and would not impact the project site. According to the Master Plan, the two compatibility concerns that apply to the proposed Project are noise impacts and safety issues. As discussed above, the project site is approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the 1993 65 CNEL noise contour of the airport and would not be impacted by noise associated with current and future airport operations.

As also discussed above, the Project would not be impacted by the RSAs of both runways 1 and 19, and the FAA required RSA distances to remain within the boundary of the airport and would not extend to or impact the project site. Therefore, Project employees and customers would not be exposed to excessive noise or safety impacts associated with current and future operations at the San Gabriel Valley Airport.

Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (f) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area where adequate circulation and access are provided to facilitate emergency response. According to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Rosemead Boulevard is designated as an evacuation route. 32 Rosemead
Boulevard borders the project site’s western boundary. Construction activities are expected to be primarily contained within the project site boundaries and would not require the complete closure of any 32 Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. (2024). Disaster Route Maps (By City) -South El Monte. Retrieved from https://pw.lacounty.gov/dsg/disasterroutes/city.cfm_

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 75 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
public or private streets or roadways during construction. The Project proposes warehouse and retail uses and would not include activities that would interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans.

The proposed building configuration would be subject to compliance with applicable fire codes, including proper emergency exists for residents and patrons; see Response 4.16a. As such, Project implementation would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (g) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas?
No Impact. The project site is in an urban environment and is not contiguous or proximate to open space.

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program,33 the City of South El Monte is not in a Local or State Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). Therefore, the Project would not expose and have no impact concerning employees or the warehouse building to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death due to a wildland fire.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall implement a Soil Management and Contingency Plan (or equivalent document) as approved by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (Los Angeles RWQCB). The Soil Management and Contingency Plan (SMCP) (or equivalent document) shall specify the details regarding the handling, stockpiling, sampling, and reuse or disposal of soil with concentrations of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC) in excess of their respective San Francisco Bay RWQCB ESLs or site-specific remedial action goals (RAGs) levels that may be established as part of a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and integrated into the SMCP with Los Angeles RWQCB concurrence. Once approved, the SMCP (or equivalent document) shall be kept on site by the general contractor throughout construction and distributed to the grading contractor and other contractors that may be trenching or boring on the site.
 The SMCP shall Identify and implement accident prevention and control measures for demolition and remediation activities, and for ongoing operations that are protective of the health and safety of the public, and construction workers including a routine inspection program to ensure that such measures are being implemented during demolition and construction. At a minimum, such measures shall include compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations. 33 CALFire. (2024). Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. Retrieved from https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/communitywildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones, Accessed July 30, 2024.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 76 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
 The SMCP shall include the vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) outlined in MM HAZ-4.

MM HAZ-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of South El Monte , the Applicant shall in accordance with the Soil Vapor Assessment Report for Former Pacific Drum Company (Rosemead Holdings, LLC) 2200, 2212, 2218, and 2226 North Rosemead Boulevard South El Monte, California 91733 (EEC Environmental, 2023) (included as Appendix C to this Initial Study):
 Remove the existing soil vapor extraction system (SVE) system and properly abandon the associated extraction wells in accordance with Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board; and
 Perform limited shallow soil excavation in the vicinity of HP‐4 as part of the activities proposed under the Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan for the Eastern Portion of 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard (Leighton, 2023).

MM HAZ-3 Prior to grading permit issuance, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the City of South El Monte Building and Safety Division implementation of the Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan for the Eastern Portion of 2200 North Rosemead Boulevard and Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum for 2200-2226 N. Rosemead Boulevard as approved by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board shall provide oversight for implementation.

MM HAZ-4 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City of South El Monte Building and Safety Department shall review the building plans to verify that a vapor intrusion mitigation system (VIMS) is included in the Project design in accordance with the Limited Soil Remediation Work Plan Addendum for 2200-2226 N. Rosemead Boulevard to minimize VOCs on the project site. A construction quality assurance program shall be developed and implemented during VIMS construction that includes a pre-construction meeting and routine meetings during construction of the system, observations of construction and testing activities, and pre-occupancy (post-construction) system inspection and performance monitoring. The construction quality assurance program shall be summarized on the final VIMS design drawings and detailed in a construction quality assurance plan. A VIMS Construction Completion Summary Report shall also be prepared and submitted to the Los Angeles RWQCB within 60 days of VIMS construction completion. The VIMS Construction Completion Summary Report shall include a summary of the construction quality assurance program and VIMS installation activities, as-built drawings, and VIMS Engineer certification that the VIMS was installed in general accordance with the design. The City of South El Monte Building and Safety Division shall have oversight/sign-off responsibility for the vapor barrier.

MM HAZ-5 In accordance with Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Comment No. 6 and requirements dated August 17, 2022, prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, baseline indoor air sampling involving at least two rounds of sampling shall be performed to account for seasonal fluctuation of contaminants in the indoor air. Air sampling results shall be submitted to and approved by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 77 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
The analysis in this section is based on the following technical study and letter from the civil engineer:
 Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics and LID Report; see Appendix D.  Tait & Associates, letter dated February 16, 2024; see Appendix D .

Threshold (a) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts to water quality of receiving waters generally range over three different phases of a project:
 During the earthwork and construction phase, when the potential for erosion, siltation, and sedimentation would be the greatest.
 Following construction and before the establishment of ground cover, when the erosion potential may remain relatively high.
 Following Project completion, when impacts related to sedimentation would decrease markedly, but those associated with urban runoff would increase.

Following is a discussion of the potential water quality impacts resulting from urban runoff that would be generated during Project construction and operations.

Construction. Construction-related activities that are primarily responsible for sediment releases are related to exposing previously stabilized soils to potential mobilization by rainfall/runoff and wind. Such activities include removing vegetation and impermeable surfaces from the site, project grading, and trenching for infrastructure improvements. Environmental factors that affect soil erosion include topography, type of soil, and rainfall characteristics. Non-sediment-related pollutants that are also of concern during construction relate to non-storm water flows and generally include construction materials (e.g., paint and stucco); chemicals, liquid products, and petroleum products used to maintain construction equipment during construction and/or the maintenance of heavy equipment; and concrete and related cutting or curing residues. Project construction-related activities would generate pollutants that could adversely affect the water quality of downstream receiving waters if appropriate and effective storm water and non-storm water management measures are not installed and maintained during construction to remove and minimize on-site pollutants from urban runoff from the site.

Construction activity subject to the Construction General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit) includes any construction or demolition activity, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, grubbing, or excavation, or any other activity that results in a land disturbance of equal to or greater than one acre. The proposed Project would disturb more than one acre of land surface and would therefore be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES storm water program. Construction activities would be required to comply with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) consistent with California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Order No. 99-08-DWQ, Los Angeles County MS4 Permit Order No. R4-2021-0105 and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS004004 (Permit) to minimize pollution of downstream storm water. To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, the Applicant is required to file with the State Water Board, Permit Registration Documents that include a Notice of Intent (NOI) and other compliance-related documents. The Construction General Permit

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 78 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control best management practices (BMPs) that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants. Erosion-control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment BMPs are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized.

Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with Municipal Code Chapter 8.44, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, which sets forth requirements for the construction and operation of developments within the City to ensure compliance with the City’s current NPDES permit and to reduce pollutant loading in storm water discharges by the maximum extent practicable. Compliance with any conditions and requirements established by the City to meet federal and State water quality requirements related to storm water runoff would be verified during the plan check process. Municipal Code Chapter

8.44 contains guidelines on structural and non-structural BMPs for meeting the NPDES goals. These requirements would ensure that potential project impacts related to soil erosion, siltation, and sedimentation remain less than significant and avoid violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Operations. The proposed drainage pattern would be similar to the existing condition, except the site would drain to two Modular Wetland Systems before discharging to two existing catch basins in Rosemead Boulevard. Implementation of BMPs would manage and capture storm water runoff to reduce potential impacts on the County Flood Control District’s storm water drainage system. To comply with the new development and redevelopment standards of the Los Angeles County Municipal NPDES Permit (MS4 Permit), a Low Impact Development Plan (LID) has been prepared to identify BMPs to manage and capture storm water runoff. The LID Plan assumes the project site would include an on-site retention (infiltration) basin in each of the two driveways, runoff harvest and use, and on-site biofiltration. The final BMPs to be implemented for the Project would be determined by the City through their review of the Final Hydrology and Hydraulics Report and the LID Plan.

Compliance with NPDES and Municipal Code requirements, which include implementation of LID BMPs, would ensure that Project operations would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant Impact. The SGVWC has a service area of approximately 45 square miles and currently derives its groundwater supplies from two groundwater basins, the Main San Gabriel Basin (Main Basin) and the Central Basin, with the Main Basin as San Gabriel’s primary groundwater source. San Gabriel’s water supply sources also include recycled water and a connection with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) for delivery of treated imported water.34 The SGVWC Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency states that water demands (potable and non-potable) in its service area for normal years would increase from 33,632 acre34 San Gabriel Valley Water Company, June 2021 Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 79 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
feet per year (afy) in 2020 to approximately 38,700 afy in 2045.35 The water company forecasts that it would have sufficient water supplies to meet water demands in its service area for normal, single-dry, and during a five consecutive year drought period.36 The Project’s water demand would be minimal and would not decrease groundwater supplies or significantly impact SGVWC’s ability to provide water service to its service area through 2045. As stated in Response 4.7aiii, groundwater was encountered to depths of 48 feet. Project grading and construction are proposed to a maximum depth of approximately 10 feet below the existing ground surface on the eastern third of the site where undocumented fill exists and 5 feet below the existing ground surface on the rest of the site. As a result, Project grading would not encounter groundwater at a maximum depth of 10 feet below the surface. Therefore, dewatering that could lower the existing groundwater level would not be required. The Project would not impact the level of the local groundwater.

With the exception of very limited areas of remanent landscape vegetation, the site is impervious with pavement and concrete building pads. Upon implementation of the Project, the site would be approximately 96 percent impervious. Approximately four percent of the project site would be pervious associated with the proposed on-site landscaping. This change is considered negligible compared to existing site conditions. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed Project would substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, such that erosion or siltation would result. The proposed Project does not contain nor is adjacent to a stream or river. Further, the proposed Project would not result in a significant change to the site’s drainage pattern. Project construction would temporarily expose on-site soils to surface water runoff.

However, as discussed in Response 4.10a, the Project would be subject to compliance with NPDES and Municipal Code requirements, which include the implementation of erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs. Therefore, the Project would not cause substantial erosion or siltation on or off the site. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site.

No Impact. As demonstrated in Appendix D, the Project would reduce flows under 50-year storm events when compared to existing conditions. Because the Project would decrease surface runoff, it would not result in flooding on or off the site. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. (iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. 35 Ibid, Table 4-3, page 4-6. 36 Ibid, page 4-2.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 80 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
No Impact. The Project would reduce impervious surfaces, thereby reducing flows under 50-year storm events, as compared to the existing condition. Because the Project would decrease surface water runoff, it would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. (iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The project site is not located within the 100-year hazard flood zone area. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 06037C1665F indicates the project site is within Zone X, 0.2 percent chance of flood; areas with a one percent annual chance of flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile; or areas protected by levees from the one percent annual chance of flood.37 Further, the Project would use a biofiltration device (i.e., Modular Wetland System) to treat runoff and minimize impacts to existing storm water drainage facilities. The project site is not subject to flooding and would not impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact. Tsunamis are sea waves that are generated in response to large-magnitude earthquakes.

When these waves reach shorelines, they sometimes produce coastal flooding. Seiches are the oscillation of large bodies of standing water, such as lakes, which can occur in response to ground shaking. The project site is approximately 25 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and there are no nearby bodies of standing water. Therefore, the project site is not within a tsunami or seiche zone.

The Project proposes a warehouse and retail development that would involve the use of materials associated with routine maintenance of the property, such as janitorial supplies for cleaning purposes and/or herbicides and pesticides for landscaping. The Project is not within a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone and would not risk the release of pollutants. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (e) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. Water quality in the City is regulated by the Los Angeles RWQCB and its Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Refer to Responses 4.10a and

4.10b. The Project would comply with regional and local regulations requiring the preparation of a SWPPP and would not obstruct existing water quality control plans or groundwater sustainable management plans. In addition, the Applicant would be required to comply with a project-specific water quality management plan during operation activities. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable. 37 United States, Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2024) Flood Insurance Rate Map 06037C1665F. Available at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home, Accessed July 26, 2024.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 81 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.11 Land Use and Planning
Threshold (a) Would the Project physically divide an established community? No Impact. Examples of projects that could physically divide an established community include a new freeway or highway that traverses an established neighborhood. The Project proposes industrial and commercial infill development in an urbanized area. The proposed Project would not include any roadway extensions or other development features through currently developed areas. No off-site improvements such as new roadways or infrastructure are proposed that could physically divide an established community. The Project would be developed within the existing boundary of the site. The Project would be compatible with the existing commercial and industrial uses adjacent to the site and would not disrupt or divide these established commercial and industrial communities surrounding the site. Therefore, given its nature and scope, the Project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan land use map depicts the City’s land use designations and indicates the project site is designated Commercial Manufacturing. The Commercial Manufacturing land use designation provides areas where general commercial and limited industrial manufacturing uses can co-locate. The City of South El Monte Zoning Map depicts the City’s zones and indicates the project site is zoned Commercial Manufacturing (C-M) Zone, which similarly provides areas within the City in which general commercial and limited manufacturing uses can be collocated. The Project proposes an approximately 156,877 sf concrete tilt-up warehouse with 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. As such, the Project would be consistent with the project site’s land use designation and zoning.

The General Plan addresses conflicts between residential and industrial land uses. Before 1997, zoning regulations identified residential uses in industrial zones as nonconforming uses subject to amortization and eventual removal. However, in response to community opposition to more aggressive City efforts to remove the nonconforming residential uses, in 1997 the City Council adopted regulationsto permit legally established residential uses in industrial zones to continue and not be subject to removal.38 While this regulation preserves needed housing units in the City, it does not address the potential conflicts between residential and industrial uses. Issues of concern include truck traffic and associated safety concerns, hours of operation of industrial businesses, the potential for release of hazardous materials, and noise from manufacturing operations, among others. In attempts to strike a balance between land use compatibility and preservation of existing housing, the City’s policy is to facilitate the removal of residential uses in industrial zones by providing housing opportunities in other City locations more suitable for residential use.39
As a result, the General Plan Land Use Element includes the following goals and associated policies to reduce potential land use conflicts between industrial and residential land uses within the industrial zone. 38 City of South El Monte General Plan, Land Use Element, page 9. 39 Ibid.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 82 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Table 4.11-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis evaluates the Project concerning the relevant General Plan goals and policies and concludes the Project would not conflict with the relevant General Plan goals and policies. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant environmental impact concerning a conflict with the General Plan.

Table 4.11-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
Land Use Element
Goal 1: Maintain a balanced mix and distribution of land uses throughout South El Monte Policy 1.4: Create opportunities for two types of
commercial development: (1) commercial uses that meet
the retail and service needs of the local resident and
employee populations, and (2) regional-serving retail
commercial businesses that capture revenues from a
broader population base.

Consistent. The Project proposes 7,879 sf of
commercial retail on the ground level of the building
fronting Rosemead Boulevard. Commercial retail
space would be available for lease for offices and
retail/services. The mix of proposed uses would serve
local retail and service needs and would be
consistent with the implementation of Policy 1.4.

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 use.

Consistent. The Project proposes industrial and
commercial uses on a site that has a General Plan
land use designation of Commercial-Manufacturing
use. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the
implementation of Policy 1.5.

Goal 2: Focus new revenue-generating development in those areas of the City with high visibility.

Policy 2.2 Expand development opportunities along
Rosemead Boulevard by allowing for a broader range of
commercial, as well as office uses. Rezone the east side of Rosemead Boulevard Commercial-Manufacturing.

Consistent. The proposed Project is located on the
east side of Rosemead Boulevard in the C-M zone
and would introduce a mix of commercial retail,
warehouse, and office uses to the project site. The
mix of uses would introduce additional development
to the area and would be consistent with the
implementation of Policy 2.2.

Goal 3.0: Accommodate new development that is compatible with and complements existing land uses.

Policy 3.3: Require that industrial development provide adequate buffers (such as decorative walls and
landscaped setbacks) at the designated boundaries with
adjacent residential and commercial uses to prevent
impacts on residences and commercial businesses due to
noise, traffic, parking, light and glare, and differences in scale; to ensure privacy; and to provide visual
compatibility.

Consistent. The Project would include fencing around
the northern, southern, and eastern property
boundaries. The proposed fencing would separate
the development from existing off-site residential
uses (i.e., mobile home park) and prevent impacts
due to noise, traffic, parking, light, glare, and
differences in scale. Further, the Project would
prohibit all truck movement through the site and at
the loading docks between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM to
minimize truck traffic noise to the residents south of
the site. All lighting would be directed onto the site
and oriented away from the mobile home park to the
south to reduce the potential impacts from light and
glare. Accordingly, the Project would be consistent
with the implementation of Policy 3.3 and Policy 3.4.

Policy 3.4: Require that the external lighting of
commercial and industrial properties be confined to the site to avoid adverse impacts on adjacent land uses due to light spillover or glare.

Goal 4.0: Work toward the gradual elimination of residential land uses within areas designated and zoned for industrial use and development.

Policy 4.3: Require that industrial development provide adequate buffers (such as decorative walls and
landscaped setbacks) at the designated boundaries with
adjacent existing residential uses so as to prevent impacts Consistent. The Project proposes fencing around the
northern, southern, and eastern property
boundaries. The proposed fencing would separate
the development from existing off-site residential

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 83 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Table 4.11-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis
on residences due to noise, traffic, parking, light and glare, and differences in scale.
uses (i.e., mobile home park) and prevent impacts
due to noise, traffic, parking, light, glare, and
differences in scale. Further, the Project would
prohibit all truck movement through the site and at
the loading docks between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM to
minimize truck traffic noise to the residents south of
the site. All lighting would be directed onto the site
and oriented away from the mobile home park to the
south to reduce the potential impacts from light and
glare. Accordingly, the Project would be consistent
with the implementation of Policy 4.3.

Circulation Element
Goal 5.0: Provide adequate parking for existing and future vehicle demand.

Policy 5.1: Ensure that parking regulations for industrial businesses are adequate to meet parking demands.

Consistent. Under Municipal Code Chapter 17.16,
Off-Street Parking and Loading, the Project is
required to provide 176 parking spaces. The Project
proposes 176 parking spaces, including 167 standard
stalls and nine parallel stalls, and meets the City’s
parking requirement. Accordingly, the Project would
be consistent with the implementation of Policy 5.1.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No conditions of approval or mitigation measures are required.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 84 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.12 Mineral Resources
Threshold (a) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? No Impact. The State of California State Geologist has identified four Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) categories that reflect varying degrees of mineral resource potential. The four categories are MRZ-1, MRZ2, MRZ-3, and MRZ-4. The four categories are described below:
 MRZ-1. Adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or likely to be present.
 MRZ-2. Adequate information indicates that significant deposits are present or there is a high likelihood for their presence, and development should be controlled.  MRZ-3. The significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data.  MRZ-4. There is insufficient data to assign any other MRZ designation.

The project site is located in MRZ-3 and does not contain mineral resources of significant value. The project site and the surrounding areas are not developed with mineral resource recovery activities, and the City’s General Plan Resources Element does not identify any mineral resources in the City. The Project would not eliminate or impact any mineral resource either on the site or on any of the adjacent surrounding land use. The Project would not have any mineral resource impacts.

Threshold (b) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. As discussed in Section “3.12 a” of this Initial Study, there are no mining sites identified in the City of South El Monte General Plan. The Project would not result in the loss of availability of any delineated locally important mineral resource mining site. The Project would not have any mineral resource recovery impacts.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 85 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.13 Noise
The analysis in this section is based in part on the following noise report and peer review letter and included in Appendix E:
 Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project, Noise Impact Analysis, Ganddini, June 15, 2023 (Rev. 1); see Appendix E.
 Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project Memorandum – Updated Plan Set and Transportation, Noise, and Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Impact Studies, Ganddini Group Inc., August 15, 2024; see Appendix A.40
Background
The analysis describes sound in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is in relation to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) relates noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.

Noise, on the other hand, is unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady ambient noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from traffic on a major highway.

Several rating scales analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people is largely dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. For example, the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period; therefore, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. The Day-Night Sound level (Ldn) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM to account for noise sensitivity in the nighttime. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM and an additional 5 dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime.

Existing Setting
The project site noise environment is primarily characterized by roadway noise. The primary traffic noise source is from traffic on Rosemead Boulevard, which is west and adjacent to the project site. Secondary noise sources include parking lot noise, air handling equipment such as HVAC mechanical noise, and operational noise from surrounding commercial and industrial uses to the east, north, and west, and industrial use and a mobile home park to the south.
40 After preparation of the technical study, minor modifications to the plan set dated August 8, 2024 has resulted in a net reduction of square feet compared to the assumptions for the June 2023 study. These changes do not change the findings of the study as summarized in this Initial Study.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 86 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Noise-Sensitive Receptors. Noise-sensitive receptors are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. These uses include residences, schools, hospital facilities, houses of worship, and open space/recreation areas where quiet environments are necessary for the enjoyment, public health, and safety of the community. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residents of the mobile home park adjacent to and south of the site.

Ambient Noise Measurements. As shown in Figure 10: Noise Measurement Locations, six, 15-minute daytime noise measurements were taken between 11:13 AM and 2:14 PM on April 18, 2023, both on and proximate to the project site to determine the existing noise environment. In addition, one (1) long-term 24-hour noise measurement was taken from April 18-April 19, 2023.

Table 4.13-1: Short-Term Noise Measurement Summary (dBA) provides a summary of the short-term ambient noise data. Table 4.13-2: Exterior Noise Limits provides hourly interval ambient noise data from the long-term noise measurements. As shown, measured short-term ambient noise levels ranged between 54.1 and 72.3 dBA Leq. Long-term hourly noise measurement ambient noise levels ranged from

44.4 to 57 dBA Leq. The dominant noise source in the vicinity of the project site is vehicle traffic associated with Rosemead Boulevard, Rush Street, and other surrounding roadways.

Table 4.13-1: Short-Term Noise Measurement Summary (dBA) Daytime Measurements1
Site Location Time Started Leq Lmax Lmin L(2) L(8) L(25) L(50) STNM1 11:13 AM 72.3 80.7 53.1 78.3 76.2 73.9 70.5
STNM2 11:54 AM 60.2 69.7 50.8 65.5 63.4 61.4 58.8
STNM3 12:20 PM 57.7 63.1 54.2 60.9 59.8 58.2 57.0
STNM4 12:46 PM 54.1 64.4 48.6 59.4 57.1 54.3 53.0
STNM5 1:24 PM 66.2 79.2 55.1 73.3 69.5 66.6 64.1
STNM6 1:59 PM 67.0 79.7 51.6 75.5 72.1 67.0 60.7
Leq: equivalent noise level; Lmin: minimum noise level; Lmax: maximum noise level Source: Ganddini Group Inc., 2024.

2222 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD

WAREHOUSE PROJECT
FIGURE 10
Noise Measurement Location Map
Source: Ganddini Group Inc.

Figure 5
Noise Measurement Location Map
Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project
Noise Impact Analysis
19618
N
Site

KLINGERMAN ST

RUSH ST

ROSEMEAD BLVD
Noise Measurement Location
Legend
NM 1
ST NM Short-Term Noise Measurement
LT NM Long-Term Noise Measurement
ST NM 1
ST NM 4 & LT NM 1
ST NM 3
ST NM 2
ST NM 5
ST NM 6
13 N

KLINGERMAN ST

RUSH ST

ROSEMEAD BLVD
Noise Measurement Location
Legend
NM 1
ST NM Short-Term Noise Measurement
LT NM Long-Term Noise Measurement
ST NM 1
ST NM 5
ST NM 6

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 88 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Regulatory Setting
City of South El Monte Municipal Code. Municipal Code Chapter 8.20, Noise Regulations, contains noise standards that are correlated with land use zoning classifications, meant to maintain identified ambient noise levels and to limit, mitigate, or eliminate intrusive noise that exceeds the ambient noise levels within a specific zone.

The City has also set restrictions to control noise impacts from construction activities. Municipal Code Section 8.20.030 (D) states, “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 PM and seven 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.”
Although the Municipal Code limits the hours of construction, it does not provide specific noise level performance standards for construction. Municipal Code Section 8.20.020 identifies the maximum permissible sound levels for different land uses. The noise/land use compatibility guidelines for land uses in the City are presented in Table 4.13-2.

Table 4.13-2: Exterior Noise Limits
Receiving Land Zoning Category Time Period Noise Level Standard (dBA) One- or two-family residential zone
10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 45
7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 55
Multiple dwelling residential zone, public
zone
10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 50
7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 60
Commercial zone or commercialmanufacturing zone
10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 55
7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 60
Manufacturing zone Anytime 70
Receiving Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level Standard (dBA) Property partially or entirely developed for
one- or two-family residential uses 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 45 Property partially or entirely developed for
multi-family residential uses 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 50
City of South El Monte Municipal Code Section 8.20.020 - Table 2 Exterior Noise Limits by Use.

Source: Ganddini Group Inc., 2024.

Threshold (a) Would the Project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

Construction
Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by equipment for demolition and construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, and portable generators can reach high levels. Construction activities on the project site would expose existing noise-sensitive uses would be exposed to increased noise levels. In typical construction projects, such as the proposed Project, the loudest noise generally occurs during grading activity because

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 89 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
it involves the largest equipment. Noise-sensitive receptors may be exposed to elevated noise levels during Project construction. However, construction noise would be acoustically dispersed throughout the project site and not concentrated in one area near surrounding sensitive uses. The City’s Noise Ordinance does not establish quantitative construction noise standards. Instead, the Noise Ordinance has established allowable hours of construction. Construction activities cannot occur between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, 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. The Project would be required to comply with SC N-1, which requires the construction contractor to comply with noise regulations prescribing the hours allowed for construction activity identified in Municipal Code Chapter 8.20. 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. Implementation of SC N-1 and SC N-2 would preclude significant construction-related impacts.

The Project would also generate noise at off-site locations from haul trucks moving debris and soil from the project site during demolition and grading activities; vendor trips; and worker commute trips. Given the project site’s proximity to SR-164 (Rosemead Boulevard), SR-60, and I-10, it is anticipated that vendor and/or haul truck traffic would take the most direct route to the freeway ramps. Rosemead Boulevard currently handles approximately 31,650 to 33,400 average daily vehicle trips in the vicinity of the project site.41 As noted in Appendix F, the greatest number of construction-related vehicle trips per day would be during building construction at up to 91 vehicle trips per day (i.e., 65 worker trips and 26 vendor trips).

Therefore, vehicle traffic generated during Project construction is considered nominal relative to existing roadway volumes and would not result in the doubling of traffic volume necessary to increase noise levels by 3 dBA. Therefore, the Project’s noise impacts concerning construction-related traffic would be less than significant.

Operation
Stationary Source Noise. The proposed Project consists of an approximately 156,877 sf concrete tilt-up warehouse with 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.). Project operations would generate noise from mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC, etc.), activities associated with loading/unloading trucks, parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car pass-by); and off-site traffic noise. These noise sources would be consistent with the existing noise sources in the project site vicinity.

Due to the relatively noisy urban environment, operational noise levels were modeled along the project site boundaries at adjacent land uses. Land uses not adjacent to the project site would not be affected by on-site project-generated operational noise, including the multi-family residential uses located approximately 547 feet to the southwest and single-family residential uses located approximately 297 feet to the west, 372 feet northwest, and 743 feet to the southwest of the project site. Land uses that may be affected by project operational noise are those that are adjacent to the project site, including the mobile home park to the south, and commercial/industrial land uses to the north, east, and west.

Based on the operational noise modeling, Project operation is expected to range between 47 and 54 dBA Leq at the project site boundaries. As shown in Table 4.13-3: Project Compliance with Stationary Noise 41 Existing average daily traffic volumes were calculated from the PM peak hour intersection traffic counts provided in the Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project Transportation Impact Analysis, Ganddini Group Inc. (April 28, 2023)

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 90 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Standards - Daytime and Table 4.13-4: Project Compliance with Stationary Noise Standards - Nighttime, the Project’s operational noise would not exceed any of the City’s adjusted daytime exterior noise source standards but would exceed the adjusted nighttime noise standards for single-family residential land uses (i.e., the mobile home park) located just south of the project site. To reduce the Project’s operationrelated noise levels, implementation of MM NOI-1 would be required, which requires either the construction of a 10-foot-tall concrete barrier along the southern property line or restricts the movement of trucks on-site between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM to meet nighttime noise standards.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 91 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Table 4.13-3: Project Compliance with Stationary Noise Standards - Daytime Project
Site
Property
Line
Receptor
# 1
Receptor
Land Use
Existing
Daytime
Measured
Noise
Levels
(dBA Leq)2
Daytime Noise
Standard
(7:00 AM10:00 PM)
(dBA, Leq)
Adjusted
Noise
Standard,
Daytime3
(dBA, Leq)
Operational
Noise
Levels1
Exceeds
Adjusted
Daytime Noise
Standards
(Yes/No)
West 1 Commercial 72 70 75 31 No
North 2 Commercial 60 70 70 47 No
East 3 Industrial 58 n/a n/a 46 No
South 4
Singlefamily
residential
54 55 55 54 No
South 5 Commercial 54 70 55 49 No
(1) See Appendix D, Figure 6.
(2) See Appendix D, Table 1.
(3) Adjusted per City of South El Monte Municipal Code Section 8.20.020 Table 1 Exterior Noise Limits by Zone, note 2.

Source: Ganddini Group Inc., 2024.

Table 4.13-4: Project Compliance with Stationary Noise Standards - Nighttime Receptor1 Measurement Period
Existing
Nighttime
Noise
Levels2
Nighttime
Noise
Standard
(7:00 AM –
10:00 PM
dBA, Leq)
Adjusted
Noise
Standard,
Nighttime3
(dBA, Leq)
Operational
Noise
Levels1
Exceeds
Adjusted
Nighttime
Noise
Standards
(Yes/No)
R-4 Single
Family
Residential
South of
Project Site
10:00 PM – 11:00 PM 48 50 50 54 Yes
11:00 PM – 12:00 AM 49 50 50 54 Yes
12:00 AM – 1:00 AM 47 50 50 54 Yes
1:00 AM – 2:00 AM 47 50 50 54 Yes
2:00 AM – 3:00 AM 44 45 45 54 Yes
3:00 AM – 4:00 AM 46 50 50 54 Yes
4:00 AM – 5:00 AM 48 50 50 54 Yes
5:00 AM – 6:00 AM 51 50 55 54 No
6:00 AM – 7:00 AM 53 50 55 54 No
(1) See Appendix D, Figure 6.
(2) See Appendix D, Table 2.
(3) Adjusted per Municipal Code Section 8.20.020, Table 1, Exterior Noise Limits by Zone, note 2.

Source: Ganddini Group Inc., 2024.

Mobile Source Noise. It is widely accepted that the average healthy human ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA in an outdoor environment and that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible. Therefore, the Project would have a significant impact if the addition of Project trips on surrounding roadways causes noise levels to increase by:

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 92 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
 5 dBA in residential areas where the existing ambient noise level is less than or equal to a CNEL of 65 dBA; or,
 3 dBA in residential areas where the existing ambient noise level exceeds a CNEL of 65 dBA.

Roadway noise levels were calculated at roadways based on the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model methodology. During operation, the proposed Project is expected to generate approximately 523 average daily trips with 44 trips during the AM peak hour and 56 trips during the PM peak hour. 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.

Table 4.13-5: Increase in Existing Noise Levels Due to Project Generated Vehicle Traffic (dBA CNEL) shows the change in existing roadway noise levels with the addition of Project operational trips. As shown in Table 4.13-5, the modeled existing traffic noise levels range between 58-78 dBA CNEL and the modeled Existing Plus Project traffic noise levels range between 59-78 dBA CNEL at the right-of-way of each study roadway segment. The Project is anticipated to increase noise levels between 0.01 to 1.46 dB along the modeled roadway segments. Therefore, the addition of Project trips is not expected to change noise levels in excess of the applicable threshold at any of the study roadway segments. Impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4.13-5: Increase in Existing Noise Levels Due to Project Generated Vehicle Traffic (dBA CNEL) Roadway Segment
Distance
from
roadway
centerline
to rightof-way
(feet)2
Modeled Noise Levels (dBA CNEL)1
Existing
Without
Project
at rightof-way
Existing
Plus
Project
at rightof-way
Change
in Noise
Level
Exceeds
Standards3
Increase
of 3 dB
or More?
Klingerman
Street
West of Rosemead Blvd 30 58.00 59.46 1.46 Yes No
Rush Street West of Rosemead Blvd 40 67.82 67.94 0.12 Yes No East of Rosemead Blvd 40 72.88 72.92 0.04 Yes No
Rosemead
Boulevard
North of Klingerman St 50 77.93 77.96 0.03 Yes No
South of Klingerman St 50 77.93 77.98 0.05 Yes No
North of Project North Dwy 50 77.96 78.02 0.06 Yes No
Project North Dwy to Project
South Dwy 50 77.96 78.01 0.05 Yes No
South of Project South Dwy 50 77.96 78.00 0.04 Yes No
North of Rush St 50 77.91 77.95 0.04 Yes No
South of Rush St 50 78.15 78.16 0.01 Yes No
(1) Exterior noise levels calculated 5 feet above pad elevation, perpendicular to the subject roadway. (2) Roadway right-of-way (ROW) from the City of South El Monte General Plan Circulation Element, Figure C-1 Roadway Classifications (October 2000).
(3) Per the City of South El Monte exterior daytime noise level limits for one- or two-family residential zones of 55 dBA CNEL (see Table 4.13-2) Source: Ganddini Group Inc., 2024.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 93 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Threshold (b) Would the Project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

On-Site Construction Vibration. Construction equipment can produce groundborne vibration depending on the equipment and construction methods employed. While vibration spreads through the ground and diminishes in strength with distance, buildings on nearby soil can be affected. This ranges from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds, perceptible vibration at moderate levels, and slight damage at the highest levels. Table 4.13-6: Construction Equipment Vibration Source Levels summarizes vibratory levels for common construction equipment.

Table 4.13-6: Construction Equipment Vibration Source Levels Equipment Approximate PPV at 25 feet (in/sec)
Pile Driver (impact) 0.644
Pile Drive (sonic) 0.170
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202
Hydromill (slurry wall) 0.008
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Hoe Ram 0.089
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Truck 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Source: Ganddini Group Inc., 2024.

Groundborne vibration would be generated by a number of construction activities at the project site.

Groundborne vibration levels associated with Project construction are provided in Table 4.13-7:

Construction Vibration Levels at the Nearest Receptors. As shown in Table 4.13-7, the residential threshold of 0.3 PPV in/sec would not be exceeded at the residential uses to the south of the project site.

However, the commercial/industrial threshold of 0.5 PPV in/sec has the potential to be exceeded at the commercial/industrial land uses to the east, north, and south of the project site.

Therefore, implementation of MM NOI-2 is required, which prohibits the use of vibratory rollers, or other similar vibratory equipment, within 15 feet and large bulldozers within eight feet of the adjacent commercial/industrial structures. With MM NOI-2 incorporated, the Project’s construction-related vibration impacts would be less than significant.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 94 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Table 4.13-7: Construction Vibration Levels at the Nearest Receptors Receptor Location
Distance from
Property Line
to Nearest
Structure
(feet)1 Equipment
Vibration
Level2
Threshold
Exceeded?3
Vibration
Level
with
BMPs2,4
Threshold
Exceeded
with
BMPs?3
Industrial to the east (2315
Chico Ave)
1 Vibratory Roller 26.250 Yes 0.452 No
1 Large Bulldozer 11.125 Yes 0.492 No
Commercial to the north
(2310 Rosemead Blvd)
1 Vibratory Roller 26.250 Yes 0.452 No
1 Large Bulldozer 11.125 Yes 0.492 No
Commercial to the west
(2207 Rosemead Blvd)
132 Vibratory Roller 0.017 No - -
132 Large Bulldozer 0.007 No - -
Commercial to the south
(2128 Rosemead Blvd)
1 Vibratory Roller 26.250 Yes 0.452 No
1 Large Bulldozer 11.125 Yes 0.492 No
Residential to the south
(residential/trailer park
use adjacent to south of
project site)
46 Vibratory Roller 0.084 No - -
46 Large Bulldozer 0.036 No - -
(1) The industrial uses located to the east, north, and south of the project site have existing buildings located adjacent to the property lines of the proposed project site. For modeling purposes, a distance of one foot was utilized. (2) Vibration levels are provided in PPV in/sec.
(3) Caltrans identifies the threshold at which there is a risk to “architectural” damage older residential structures as 0.3 in/sec PPV and 0.5 in/sec PPV at modern industrial/commercial buildings.
(4) Best Management Practices (BMPs) for architectural damage include prohibiting the use of vibratory rollers, or other similar vibratory equipment, within 15 feet and large bulldozers within 8 feet of commercial/industrial structures surrounding the project site. This BMP is listed as Mitigation Measure NOI-2 of this Initial Study.

Source: Ganddini Group Inc., 2024.

Operations
Once operational, the Project would not be a significant source of groundborne vibration. Groundborne vibration surrounding the site currently results from heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks, heavy-duty trucks, delivery trucks, and transit buses) on the nearby local roadways. Project operations would include periodic truck deliveries. Due to the rapid drop-off rate of groundborne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic-induced groundborne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and rarely results in vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity. According to the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, trucks rarely create vibration levels that exceed 70 VdB (equivalent to 0.012 inches per second PPV) when they are on roadways. Therefore, trucks operating at the project site or along surrounding roadways would not exceed FTA thresholds for building damage or annoyance. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 95 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Less Than Significant Impact. The San Gabriel Valley Airport is located at 4233 Santa Anita Avenue in the City of El Monte and approximately two miles northeast of the project site. The El Monte Airport Master Plan Report (Master Plan) reviews the Airport development’s current status, anticipated future use, and proposed future flight path. The Master Plan must be consistent with the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCP) cover aviation activities of 15 Los Angeles County public-use airports, including the San Gabriel Valley Airport. The ALUCP depicts the Airport’s boundaries and development restrictions. According to Master Plan Figure 7A, Noise Contours Year 1993, which is the latest noise contour map, the airport’s 65 CNEL noise contour extends approximately 0.06-mile south of I-10 and approximately 0.80-mile south of the San Gabriel Valley Airport’s southern boundary. This 65 CNEL boundary is approximately 1.45 miles northeast of the project site and noise levels at this distance would not extend to and impact operations at the project site. Therefore, although the Project is within two miles of a public airport, it would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
SC N-1 All construction activities should be limited to the hours between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM on weekdays, or any time on weekends or holidays per City of South El Monte Municipal Code Chapter 8.20.

SC N-2 The Applicant shall ensure through contract specifications that construction best management practices (BMPs) be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels. Contract specifications shall be included in construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading or building permit (whichever is issued first). The construction BMPs shall include the following:
 All equipment, whether fixed or mobile, will be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturer standards.  All stationary construction equipment will be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site.  As applicable, all equipment shall be shut off and not left idle when not in use.  To the degree possible, equipment staging will be located in areas that create the greatest distance between construction-related noise and vibration sources and existing sensitive receptors.
 Jackhammers, pneumatic equipment, and all other portable stationary noise sources will be directed away and shielded from existing residences in the vicinity of the project site. Either one-inch plywood or sound blankets can be utilized for this purpose. They should reach up from the ground and block the line of sight between equipment and existing residences. The shielding should be without holes and cracks.  No amplified music and/or voice will be allowed on the project site.  Haul truck deliveries will not occur outside the hours presented as exempt for construction per City of South El Monte Municipal Code Section 8.20.030(D).

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 96 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Mitigation Measures
MM NOI-1 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.

MM NOI-2 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 prohibiting the use of vibratory rollers, or other similar vibratory equipment, within 15 feet – or large bulldozers within 8 feet - of the project site’s north, south, and east boundary.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 97 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.14 Population and Housing
Threshold (a) Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction would temporarily increase construction employment in the near-term and during future construction periods. While the size of the construction force would vary during the different phases of construction, workforce demand likely would be met with the existing and anticipated labor market in the City and surrounding region. As such, Project construction would not require a substantial number of workers to relocate from outside the region, and the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in connection with construction activities. As proposed, the Project would construct an approximately 156,877-sf concrete tilt-up warehouse with 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. No residential uses would be proposed as part of the Project’s development. Further, given the Project’s scale and nature, it is assumed that employment associated with the proposed uses would not induce substantial direct population growth. It is assumed the new jobs could be filled by local residents who already reside in the City. Additionally, the Project does not include the extension of roads or other infrastructure to unserved areas, which could induce indirect growth. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project site is currently vacant. There are no habitable structures on the site and there are currently no plans for future residential development. As a result, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 98 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.15 Public Services
Threshold (a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection for the project site is provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). The closest fire station to the site is Station 90, located at 10115 East Rush Street, approximately one mile southeast of the project site with a response time of approximately 3 minutes, which meets the response time goals of the Department. 42 Construction and operation of the
proposed Project would increase the number of structures and employees in the Project area; however, as previously addressed in Response 4.14a, the Project would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth in the City. Further, because the project site is currently served by fire protection services and is located in an urban setting where fire protection services and equipment/infrastructure are already in place, the Project does not propose and would not require new or physically altered fire protection facilities to maintain service objectives. Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the construction of fire protection facilities.

As part of the development review process, the LACFD Fire Prevention Division would review the proposed project site plan and determine if access and water system requirements, which would enhance the proposed development’s fire protection, are adequate. Further, the Project would be required to comply with standard LACFD conditions of approval. Specifically, the LACFD review addresses fire and life safety requirements for project construction at the fire plan check stage. This includes a review of the design details of the architectural, structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems. The Project would be required to comply with applicable City, County, and State code requirements for fire protection and be subject to pay any applicable fees. Municipal Code Chapter 15.14 adopts the Los Angeles County Fire Code by reference. Implementation of all Fire Code requirements would further reduce potential impacts concerning fire protection services. Therefore, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within the service area of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department’s (LASD) Temple Station, located at 8838 Las Tunas Drive in Temple City, approximately 3.6 miles north of the project site. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would increase the number of structures and employees in the area; however, as previously addressed in Response 4.14a, the Project would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth in the City. Further, because the project site is currently served by police protection services and is located in an urban setting where police protection services and equipment/infrastructure are already in place, the Project does not propose and would not require new or physically altered police protection facilities to maintain service 42 County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Ronald Durbin, Forestry Division, letter dated May 25, 2023.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 99 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
objectives. Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the construction of police protection facilities.

The proposed Project would adhere to all California Building Code regulations. The City has incorporated the Los Angeles County Building Code standards under Municipal Code Section 15.02.010. Emergency access requirements would minimize site safety hazards and potential construction-related impacts to police services. Compliance with California Building Code requirements related to site security and building, and site safety design recommendations would ensure adequate police protection services can be provided to the project site. As a result, the proposed Project would not adversely impact service ratios or response times or require new or altered facilities. Additionally, as part of the development review process, the LASD would review the Project concerning emergency access and site/facility security requirements and recommendations. LASD would review Project plans to ensure compliance with applicable City regulations to ensure adequate site signage, lighting, and other crime safety preventative measures are implemented. The LASD review would ensure the development would conform to LASD emergency access requirements thereby reducing demands on law enforcement services. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with applicable City, County, and State code requirements for police protection and be subject to pay any applicable fees. Therefore, the Project’s impact on police protection services would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within the service area of the El Monte City School District (K-8) and the El Monte Union High School District (9-12). The Project proposes the construction of a warehouse with commercial uses and does not include any residential development. The proposed Project’s employees would predominately come from the existing workforce in the City and would therefore not contribute to a significant population increase and associated student population influx to any specific school in the El Monte City School District or El Monte Union High School District service area.

School funding comes predominantly from federal, State, and local contributions, including business and personal income taxes, sales tax, and property tax. However, the Project would be required to comply with SB 50 requirements, which allow school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new residential and nonresidential projects.

As stated in Government Code Section 65995(h), “The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement levied or imposed …are hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization …on the provision of adequate school facilities.” Payment of these fees would offset impacts from increased demand for school services associated with development of the proposed Project by providing an adequate financial base to construct and equip new and existing schools. Overall, the Project would not contribute to a significant student population increase and payment of impact fees would ensure that impacts are offset and remain less than significant.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 100 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Threshold (d) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Section 4.16: Recreation.

Threshold (e) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities: libraries? Less Than Significant Impact. The Los Angeles County Library system provides library services to over 3.4 million residents living in unincorporated areas and to residents of 49 of the 88 incorporated cities of Los Angeles County, inclusive of the City of South El Monte. The nearest library to the project site is the South El Monte Library, located at 1430 North Central Avenue, approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the project site. The proposed Project would not result in substantial permanent population growth and would not incrementally increase the demand for library services in the area. The threshold for determining impacts pursuant to CEQA is based upon whether a project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. The impacts to the overall per capita availability of books, media, computers, and library public service space would not create significant physical or environmental impacts. Therefore, project-related impacts to library facilities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 101 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.16 Recreation
Threshold (a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Threshold (b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The City operates three parks, three community centers, and an aquatic center. The nearest City park facility is Mary Van Dyke Park located at 1819 Central Avenue, approximately

1.7 miles southeast of the project site. The Project proposes a warehouse building with commercial retail uses. The Project is not a residential development that would generate a permanent increase of residents in the area leading to a demand for park services. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities and no new recreational facilities would be required. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 102 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.17 Transportation
The transportation analysis in this section is based on information included in the following reports:
 Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project Transportation Impact Analysis, Ganddini Group Inc., April 28, 2023; see Appendix F.
 Rosemead and Rush Industrial Project Memorandum – Updated Plan Set and Transportation, Noise, and Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Impact Studies, Ganddini Group Inc., August 15, 2024; see Appendix A.43
Threshold (a) Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to Table 4.11-1, which evaluates the Project’s consistency with the General Plan and concludes that the Project would not conflict with applicable Land Use Element and Circulation Element policies. Transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities are discussed further below.

Transit. As discussed in Section 2.0: Project Description, public transit service in the area is provided by LA Metro’s network of regional and local bus transit options. Specifically, LA Metro Routes 266 and 287 serve the project site via two bus stops on both the east and west sides of Rosemead Boulevard approximately 400 feet north of the project site. The El Monte Station/San Bernardino Freeway Busway is located at 3501 Santa Anita Avenue to the north of the City, which provides a variety of public transit options and connections to most major destinations in the Los Angeles area. From the busway, riders can board Metrolink trains, other local transit lines, carpools, and vanpools. Proximity to transit opportunities would allow convenient access to future customers and employees of the proposed Project. Project construction and operation would not impact transit facilities. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy concerning transit facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Roadways. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via two driveways on Rosemead Boulevard. All roadway and driveway improvements would be constructed pursuant to LACFD requirements. There are no proposed off-site roadway improvements. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy concerning roadway facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Bicycle Facilities. There are no bicycle facilities adjacent to the project site. The General Plan Circulation Element Bikeway Master Plan (Figure C-4) identifies existing and proposed bicycle facilities within the City.

According to the General Plan Circulation Element, no bicycle facilities are proposed adjacent to the project site. Bike racks would be provided on the site. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy concerning bicycle facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Pedestrian Facilities. A sidewalk is located adjacent to the project site along Rosemead Boulevard. The Project would not remove existing sidewalks or significantly impact pedestrian access or facilities. 43 After preparation of the technical study, minor modifications to the plan set dated August 8, 2024 has resulted in a net reduction of square feet compared to the assumptions for the February 2024 study. These changes do not change the findings of the study as summarized in this Initial Study.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 103 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy concerning pedestrian facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur.

The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Project would result in a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (b) Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. SB 743, approved in 2013, required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to establish recommendations for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within the CEQA framework. Generally, SB 743 moves away from using delay-based level of service (LOS) as the primary metric for identifying a project’s significant impact to instead using vehicle miles traveled (VMT). On January 20, 2016, OPR released revisions to its proposed CEQA Guidelines for the implementation of SB 743, and the final review and rulemaking for the new guidelines were completed in December 2018. OPR allowed lead agencies an opt-in period to adopt VMT guidelines before the mandatory adoption date of July 1, 2020. These revisions to the CEQA Guidelines criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts are primarily focused on projects within transit priority areas and shifts the focus from driver delay to reduction of GHG emissions, creation of multimodal networks, and promotion of a mix of land uses. VMT is a measure of the total number of miles driven to or from a development and is sometimes expressed as an average per trip or per person.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) provides that “VMT traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within 0.5 mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.”
The Project’s VMT assessment was prepared using the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) VMT Evaluation Tool based on screening criteria and thresholds adopted by the City. Because the proposed land use is predominantly industrial, VMT was calculated for home-based work VMT per employee. As established in the City’s Transportation Study Guidelines, a project would result in a significant impact if the project’s VMT exceeds 15 percent below the baseline SGVCOG average value of

18.62 VMT per worker, resulting in a threshold of 15.83 VMT per worker. The Project is anticipated to generate 16.4 VMT per worker, which exceeds the City-established threshold of 15.83 VMT per worker.

Therefore, MM TRANS-1, which requires the implementation of a Commute Trip Reduction Marketing/Education Program, is required to reduce the Project’s VMT impact to a less than significant level (i.e., 15.80 VMT per worker).

Threshold (c) Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction may require temporary lane closures for utility hookups and loading of large equipment. However, no full lane closures are anticipated, and any closures would

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 104 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
be temporary and done in coordination with the City. Project construction activities would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use.

Access to the project site would be provided from two 28-foot driveways along Rosemead Boulevard (see Figure 6: Site Plan). Driveway engineering would comply with the City’s engineering standards to maintain an adequate line of sight, thereby reducing vehicle and pedestrian conflicts and hazards. Additionally, internal drive aisles would accommodate standard fire lane turning radiuses and hammerhead turnaround maneuvers would be designed for emergency vehicles and fire services. Project driveway and internal circulation improvements would be constructed according to City and LACFD standards. The Project proposes an industrial and commercial development within a portion of the City that is predominately urban development. The Project does not include the use of any incompatible vehicles or equipment on the site, such as farm equipment. Project operations would not include sharp curves or dangerous intersections, or introduce incompatible uses. Therefore, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. Rosemead Boulevard provides direct access to the project site and would serve as a primary evacuation and emergency access route within the area. No changes to the existing roadway network would occur. The Project would not require the complete closure of any public or private streets or roadways during construction. Temporary construction activities would not impede use of the road for emergencies or access for emergency response vehicles. Additionally, all construction staging would occur within the project site’s boundaries and would not interfere with circulation along Rosemead Boulevard. Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
MM TRANS-1 Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the Applicant shall submit to the City of South El Monte Public Works Department a transportation demand management (TDM) program the purpose of which is to reduce VMT and vehicular trips to the project site and project area. The TDM program shall be implemented with the occupancy of the Project. The TDM program shall include the following strategy:
 [T-5] Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program: Implement a voluntary commute trip reduction (CTR) program to discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT and GHG emissions. The voluntary CTR program must include the following elements:
o Employer-provided services, infrastructure, and incentives for alternative modes such as ridesharing, discounted transit, bicycling, vanpool, and guaranteed ride homes.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 105 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
o Information, coordination, and marketing for said services, infrastructure, and incentives.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 106 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
No Impact. As discussed in Response 4.5a, the project site does not contain any features meeting the historic resources criteria and does not meet the definition of a historic resource pursuant to CEQA.

Therefore, Project implementation would not result in any substantial adverse change in a tribal cultural resource defined pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1(k). No impact would occur. ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Chapter 532 Statutes of 2014 (i.e., AB 52) requires that lead agencies evaluate a project’s potential impact on “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources.” AB 52 also gives lead agencies the discretion to determine, based on substantial evidence, whether a resource qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.”
In compliance with PRC Section 21080.3.1(b), the City has provided formal notification to California Native American tribal representatives identified by the California Native American Heritage Commission. Native American groups may have knowledge about cultural resources in the area and may have concerns about the adverse effects of development on tribal cultural resources as defined in PRC Section 21074. On May 2, 2023, the City contacted the tribal representatives noted below.  Anthony Morales, Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians  Sandonne Goad, Gabrieleño/Tongva
 Charles Alvarez, Gabrieleño -Tongva Tribe
 Robert Dorame, Gabrieleño Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council  Andrew Salas, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation  Lovina Redner, Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
 Scott Cozart, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
As of the release date of the Initial Study, the City received one request for consultation from Chairman Andrew Salas of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation; consultation occurred on June 2,

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 107 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
2023. MM TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3 have been identified to mitigate potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Following compliance with MM TCR-1, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
MM TCR-1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities.

A. The Applicant shall retain a Native American monitor from (or approved by) the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (the “Kizh” or the “Tribe”) - the direct lineal descendants of the project location. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project, at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” includes, but is not limited to, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be provided to the City of South El Monte prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity for the project, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a grounddisturbing activity.

C. The Applicant shall provide the Tribe with a minimum of 30 days advance written notice of the commencement of any project ground-disturbing activity so that the Tribe has sufficient time to secure and schedule a monitor for the project.

D. The Applicant shall hold at least one pre-construction sensitivity/educational meeting prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities, where at a senior member of the Tribe will inform and educate the project’s construction and managerial crew and staff members (including any project subcontractors and consultants) about the tribal cultural resources (“TCR”) mitigation measures and compliance obligations, as well as places of significance located on the project site (if any), the appearance of potential TCRs, and other informational and operational guidance to aid in the project’s compliance with the TCR mitigation measures.

E. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe.

Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc. (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the City upon written request.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 108 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
F. Native American monitoring for the project shall conclude upon the latter of the following: (1) written confirmation from a designated project point of contact to the Tribe that all ground-disturbing activities and all phases that may involve grounddisturbing activities on the project site and at any off-site project location are complete; or (2) written notice by the Tribe to the Applicant and City that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase (known by the Tribe at that time) at the project site and at any off-site project location possesses the potential to impact TCRs.

MM TCR-2 Discovery of TCRs, Human Remains, and/or Grave Goods A. Upon the discovery of a TCR, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) shall cease. The Tribe shall be immediately informed of the discovery, and a Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist will promptly report to the location of the discovery to evaluate the TCR and advise the project manager regarding the matter, protocol, and any mitigating requirements. No project construction activities shall resume in the surrounding 50 feet of the discovered TCR unless and until the Tribe has completed its assessment/evaluation/recovery of the discovered TCR and surveyed the surrounding area.

B. The Tribe will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate in its sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including but not limited to, educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

C. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site or at any off-site project location, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Native American “human remains” are defined to include “an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness.” (Public Resources Code [PRC] §5097.98 (d)(1).) Funerary objects, referred to as “associated grave goods,” shall be treated in the same manner and with the same dignity and respect as human remains. (PRC §5097.98 (a), d)(1) and (2)).

D. Any discoveries of human skeletal material or human remains shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner (Health & Safety Code §7050.5(c); 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15064.5(e)(1)(B)), and all ground-disturbing project ground-disturbing activities on site and in any other area where the presence of human remains and/or grave goods are suspected to be present, shall immediately halt and remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15064.5(e).) If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.

E. Thereafter, construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or grave goods, if the Tribe determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 109 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the Tribal monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15064.5(f).) F. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or grave goods.

G. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCRs) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

H. Any discovery of human remains and/or grave goods discovered and/or recovered shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

MM TCR-3 Procedures for Burials, Funerary Remains, and Grave Goods A. As the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented for all discovered Native American human remains and/or grave goods.

Tribal Traditions include, but are not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects and/or the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.

B. If the discovery of human remains includes four (4) or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.

C. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated “grave goods” (aka, burial goods or funerary objects) are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later, as well as other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.

D. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully recovered (and documented) on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to divert the project while keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.

E. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the Applicant and/or landowner, before ground-disturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 110 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
ceremonial objects. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be agreed upon by the Tribe and the landowner, and shall be protected in perpetuity.

F. Each occurrence of human remains and associated grave goods will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, grave goods, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items will be retained and shall be reburied within six months of recovery.

G. The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recoveryrelated forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 111 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Threshold (a) Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electrical power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated.

Water Facilities
Water demand for construction of the Project would be required for dust control, cleaning of equipment, excavation/export, removal and re-compaction, etc. During construction, the contractor would bring their own portable bathroom and wash stations which would have their own self-contained water source and wastewater storage. These facilities would not connect to the adjacent sewer or water infrastructure for those uses. The temporary water usage is far less than the proposed water demand and therefore poses no significant impact.

The Project would require the construction of new on-site water facilities, as well as limited connections to existing off-site/adjacent infrastructure. Although the Project would require relocation or construction of new on-site water facilities, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing facilities near the project site, the construction of which would not cause significant environmental effects.

SGVWC would supply water to the project site via the existing public six-inch water main in Rosemead Boulevard. The Project would connect to the existing six-inch water line in Rosemead Boulevard for potable water service for the Project and the existing 10-inch water line in Rush Street for fire protection.

The existing water main in Rosemead Boulevard and Rush Street would not need to be upsized to accommodate the Project. The Project would be subject to all pertinent local, regional, and State-level regulations concerning any new connections, laterals, or trenching.

The Project would require the construction of new on-site water facilities, as well as limited connections to existing off-site/adjacent infrastructure. As such, the Project would result in the construction of water facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects. Although the Project would require relocation or construction of new on-site water facilities, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing facilities near the project site; their construction would not cause significant environmental effects. Further, the environmental effects associated with the construction of the proposed water facility improvements are discussed as part of the overall environmental analyses in Sections 4.1 through 4.21. As concluded in these sections, the Project’s environmental effects would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with the established regulatory framework and mitigation. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, the Project would result in less than significant environmental effects associated with the construction of the proposed water facilities.

Wastewater Conveyance Facilities
Wastewater generated in the City is collected by the City’s local sewer collection system that connects with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) regional trunk sewers and is treated at the Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) at 301 N. Rosemead Boulevard in the City of El Monte or the Los Coyotes WRP located in the City of Cerritos. The Whittier Narrows WRP has a design capacity of 15 million gallons per day (mgd) and an average recycled flow of 8.3 mgd. The Los Coyotes WRP has a

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 112 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
capacity of 37.5 mgd and currently processes an average recycled flow of 17.5 mgd.44 The Project is estimated to generate approximately 10,095 gpd of wastewater, including warehouse, retail, and office space.45 As such, sufficient capacity exists at the existing WRPs to serve the Project’s wastewater treatment demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Sewer lines would not need to be upsized to accommodate the Project. The Project would be subject to compliance with all pertinent local, regional, and State-level regulations concerning new connections, laterals, or trenching, and the payment of fees to the LACSD.

The Project would require the construction of new on-site wastewater conveyance facilities (i.e., pipes), as well as limited connections to existing off-site/adjacent infrastructure. Although the Project would require relocation or construction of new on-site wastewater conveyance facilities, these improvements would be limited to connections to existing LACSD facilities near the project site; their construction or relocation would not cause significant environmental effects. Further, the environmental effects associated with the construction of the proposed wastewater improvements are discussed as part of the overall environmental analyses in Sections 4.1 through 4.21. As concluded in these sections, the Project’s environmental effects would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with the established regulatory framework and mitigation. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, the Project would result in less than significant environmental effects associated with the construction of the proposed wastewater facilities.

Wastewater Treatment Facilities
As concluded above, adequate capacity exists to serve the Project’s wastewater treatment demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Therefore, the Project would not result in the construction of wastewater treatment facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Storm Water Drainage Facilities
The proposed drainage pattern is similar to the existing condition, except the proposed site would incorporate source control measures to reduce potential off-site impacts. Site runoff would be directed to an on-site infiltration system before entering existing storm drains in Rosemead Boulevard.

Additionally, the Project would implement source control measures including storm drain messaging and signage, outdoor trash storage/waste handling areas, outdoor loading/unloading dock areas, and efficient landscape irrigation to reduce pollutant sources in storm water runoff. Under the post-development condition, through the addition of permeable landscape areas, the site would be 96 percent impervious and 4 percent pervious. The proposed drainage system would connect to existing storm drainage facilities and Project implementation would not require the construction of new storm drainage facilities. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Electric/Natural Gas/Telecommunication Facilities
There are existing electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities in surrounding roadways.

Project implementation would connect to existing infrastructure and would not require the construction of new facilities beyond point of connections. No new facilities or relocation of existing utility infrastructure would be required; therefore, no impact would occur. 44 Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, Donna Curry, letter dated April 4, 2023. 45 Ibid.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 113 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Threshold (b) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. SGVWC’s Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) water demand forecasts are based on adopted general plans. Therefore, because the Project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation, its estimated water usage was accounted for in the UWMP.

Therefore, because SGVWC’s Final 2020 UWMP states it would have sufficient water supplies to meet proposed growth for normal, single-dry, and during a five consecutive year drought period, SGVWC would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (c) Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s Projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. As discuss above under Response 4.19a, the WRP has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s estimated wastewater treatment demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Threshold (d) Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Threshold (e) Would the Project comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s Environmental Services Division addresses all matters related to solid waste collection, hazardous waste, and recycling programs provided to the residents and businesses of the City. The City contracts with Athens Services for residential trash collection. Athens Services is responsible for collection, materials recovery facility (MRF) processing, recycling, and disposal of non‐ recyclable solid waste. The Athens MRF is in the City of Industry. Solid waste not diverted for recycling at the MRF are disposed of at landfills within the greater Southern California region, specifically in San Bernardino County.46
The Project proposes to remove the existing concrete building pads and construct/operate a 156,877 SF warehouse and retail development. State law requires a 65 percent diversion rate for Construction and Demolition (C&D) projects. Municipal Code Chapter 3.12, Solid Waste Handling and Recycling Services, addresses solid waste disposal, including requirements for C&D projects. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 13.12.730, Recycling Plan, prior to receiving a permit from the City for construction or demolition, the contractor shall develop and submit a plan to recycle and salvage the projected C&D debris to the greatest extent feasible. Table 4.19-1: Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation shows the proposed Project’s approximate solid waste generation using CalRecycle’s estimated solid waste by land 46 City of South El Monte, Proposed Third Amendment to Solid Waste Collection Agreement with Athens Waste, Available at:
https://www.cityofsouthelmonte.org/DocumentCenter/View/2470/Staff-Report-sept-142021-PDF, Accessed March 23, 2021.

2222 Rosemead Boulevard Warehouse Development Section 4.0 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Analysis 114 WORKING DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
use.47 As shown in Table 4.19-1, the proposed Project would generate 789 pounds of solid waste per year or 0.39 tons per year.

Table 4.19-1: Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation
Project implementation would increase solid waste disposal demands over existing conditions. Solid waste within the City is primarily disposed of at the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill located at 2390 Alder Avenue in the City of Rialto. In 2019, approximately 90 percent of solid waste from South El Monte was disposed of at the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill and 20 percent was disposed of at the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill. Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 7,500 tons per day. The facility’s maximum capacity is 101,300,000 cubic yards and has a remaining capacity of 54,219,377 cubic yards.48 Therefore, the 0.001 tons per day of solid waste generated from the Project could be accommodated at the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill or a combination of the disposal facilities currently receiving solid waste from the City. Therefore, the Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
No standard conditions or mitigation measures are applicable. 47 CalRecycle, Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates, Accessed July 30, 2024. 48 CalRecycle, SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055), https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662, Accessed July 30, 2024.

Land Use Generation Rate Project Square Feet (sf)
Solid Waste Generation
(lbs/yr)
Warehouse/Warehouse
Storage 5 lbs/ksf/day 128,515 sf 643
Retail 2.5 lbs/ksf/day 7,879 sf 20
Warehouse Office 6 lbs/ksf/day 20,305 sf 122
Total 785
ksf = 1,000 square feet; lbs = pounds; sf = square feet Source: CalRecycle. (2019). Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates.